1853 Quarter Sessions and Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Lent Assizes ...... 21 3. Easter Sessions ...... 59 4. Midsummer Sessions ...... 83 5. Summer Assizes ...... 96 6. Michaelmas Sessions ...... 114

Royal Cornwall Gazette 7 January 1853

1. Epiphany Sessions

These sessions were opened at , on Tuesday the 4th instant, before the following magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman; Sir W.L.S. Trelawny, Bart. W. Morshead, Esq. Lord Vivian. B. Coode, jun., Esq. Hon. G. M. Fortescue. F.J. Hext, Esq. Sir C. Lemon, Bart., M.P. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Sir J.S. Graves Sawle, Bart. T.G. Graham, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. W. Carpenter Rowe, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. H. Thompson, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P. E. Stephens, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. W.P. Kempe, Esq. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. T.R. Avery, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. Prebendary Lyne. Humphry Willyams, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. C.G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. N. Kendall, jun., Esq. Rev. S. Symonds. W. Braddon, Esq. The Rev. R. Byrne Kinsman, of , qualified as a magistrate. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. George Tallack, St. Austell, foreman; Messrs. H. Andrews, St. Mary; Edward Arthur, Lanteglos; Richard Barrett, St. Mary; J. Pascoe Bennett, St. Mary; William Clyma, St. Mary; Matthew Courtenay, St. Mary; Henry Cossentine, Lanteglos; Peter Clymo, ; Francis Croker, Liskeard; William Cossentine, St. Veep; John Davis, St. Mary; James Davies, St. Ewe; John Furniss, St. Mary; Thomas Firks, Liskeard; Peter Gerry, St. Neot; J. Mac Farlane Heard, St. Mary; John Thomas Hawkey, St. Neot; James Bennett Job, St. Mary; John Lambe, St. Veep; Robert Parnell, St. Ewe; William Richards, East ; William Rundell, St. Veep. After the Queen’s Proclamation had been read, the CHAIRMAN delivered his CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY:—[not transcribed] The Grand Jury then retired to their room. [VISITING JUSTICES REPORT.–not transcribed] CORONERS’ BILLS.—The following bills for the last quarter were allowed:— Mr. Hamley, for 37 inquests £152 2 4 Mr. , for 28 " £ 99 16 9 Mr. Hichens, for 25 " £ 71 18 5 £328 17 6 In answer to questions from the Chairman, it appeared that Mr. Hamley had held 10 inquests in cases of wreck; Mr. Carlyon, 3; and Mr. Hichens, 2. For the corresponding quarter last year the bills were:— Mr. Hamley’s £35 13 1 Mr. Carlyon’s £73 3 3 Mr. Hichens’s £86 10 9 £295 7 1 [GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—not transcribed] COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF PRISONERS.—The CHAIRMAN, previous to reading the comparative statement of prisoners at the Epiphany Sessions of 1852 and 1853, regretted that the return for the present sessions was not perfect, inasmuch as no information had been given to the Governor of several prisoners held to bail. He hoped that gentlemen who, in future, might hold prisoners to bail would be kind enough to write to Mr. Everest giving the names of the prisoners and the nature of their offences, so that they may be included in the Governors comparative Statement. The Chairman acknowledged that at these Sessions he had no reason to complain, as he had on some previous occasions, of depositions not having been sent to him. He then read the Comparative Statement. EPIPHANY SESSIONS 1852. Felons in Custody 33 do on Bail 6 Misdemeanants in Custody 4 do on Bail 2 For Assaults, in Custody 1 do on Bail 1 47 EPIPHANY SESSIONS 1853. Felons in Custody 27 do on Bail 9 Misdemeanants in Custody 4 For Assaults, in Custody 1 41 From the circumstance he had mentioned, the statement for the present session was incomplete. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Moorman, Surveyor of Bridges in the Western District, reported that on the 21st November last, in consequence of the quantity of rain which had fallen, the river at Saint Blazey Bridge was so much swollen that the embankment about 100 yards above the bridge gave way, by which means very considerable damage was done to the road at the western end of the same; also to the property of individuals to a great extent below the bridge, depriving the public of the use of the road for several days, and endangering the lives of the people of the village.—The Surveyor reported further that these consequences arose from the very great quantity of gravel and sand thrown into the river by steamers and others, whereby the bed of the river has been raised so high (at least four feet), that the water had forced down the embankment in violation of the Act of Parliament of 33rd Henry the 8th, cap. 8.—The Surveyor also reported that the choking of the river at Cornelly Bridge was attributable to a similar cause. After the reading by the CHAIRMAN, of some notices relative to the question of liability to repair the embankments of St. Blazey river; Mr. KENDALL, drew the attention of the magistrates to the subject as one of great importance. It was not merely the leat that was in question; but there was a serious consideration affecting the County Bridge at St. Blazey. He held in his hand a memorial from the people of St. Blazey, entering into details; but he would simply state that for several years St. Blazey Bridge had been gradually filling up, and at the recent flood the water way was so very small that the banks were burst, and the water running first into Mr. Treffry’s reservoir, and then bursting into the reservoir, did very great damage. Then came the question, what the County was to do with the Bridge. It was a very serious matter, and he would ask the County to appoint a Committee to inquire into it. He found that in olden time, a person was employed annually, and received £20, to clear the water—way below the Bridge. That expense was defrayed in proportions, by the parish of St. Blazey, by Lord De Dunstanville on account of his lands in , and by the miners; and, in addition to that, the tin streamers, who did all the damage, used to come down once or twice a year when floods were expected, and clear the leat. But since the land had been enclosed there, the river had been never cleared by any person, because nobody thought it was his duty to do so. What then was to be done? The river was filling up. At the late flood there was a narrow escape for 150 persons, who were boated out of their houses; and 8 or 10 were carried by the clergyman of the parish,—the strongest and boldest man among them. There was no reason why similar accidents might not be expected every two or three years; as the bridge was being filled up. He would therefore beg to move that a committee be appointed to inquire into the source of the mischief—the mode of remedy—and the parties liable for the expense thereof. Mr. SAWLE said there was no doubt that the river was being filled up by the clay works and stream works above. Mr. ROWE said there could be no doubt that the persons who caused the obstruction were legally liable; the only question was as to the mode of proceeding. Lord VIVIAN urged the importance of immediate steps being taken, and suggested that if a Committee were appointed, it might at once make its recommendation to the Bench. Mr. KENDALL suggested that the Committee should be invested with certain powers of immediate expenditure, in order to prevent further damage; but then there was the difficulty that that might be committing the County to a certain extent. Mr. SAWLE would move that the committee should also be empowered to consider the state of the St. Austell Bridges, where the same process was at work that was complained of at St. Blazey. Mr. KENDALL had no objection; but thought they should be taken seriatim. Lord VIVIAN thought the committee should be empowered to do no more than advise the Bench; and that might be done immediately.—Mr. ROWE concurred in this view. Mr. KENDALL observed that there were yet 4 or 5 months before them in which floods might be apprehended; and therefore he thought the committee might have power to expend 20 or 30l. in clearing the river below the bridge, so as to prevent further damage; and then the County could bring its action against the parties whom the Committee might consider liable for re-payment. The CHAIRMAN observed that, although, as had been stated, other persons had taken upon themselves the onus of clearing the river, yet primarily and towards the public at large, the County might be held responsible. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH remarked that for 12 or 14 days that part of the turnpike road which was kept by the county was impeded in consequence of the county bridge not carrying off the water; and in that way the county was liable. Finally, it was resolved to appoint a committee to enquire into the cause of the damage—the mode of prevention, and who is liable for repairs; and also generally to advise the county as to the mode of proceeding. The committee to consist of Lord Vivian, the Hon. G.M. Fortescue, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Sawle, Sir Joseph Sawle, Mr. Rowe, Mr. E. Coode, jun., Mr. Graham, and the Rev. C. Lyne; with power to add to their number. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. PEASE, bridge surveyor for the Eastern division, reported that, notwithstanding the almost unprecedented quantity of rain which has fallen during the last three months, no serious damage has been sustained by either of the bridges in his division.—The plan for Looe bridge which he submitted at the last Sessions, and which was approved of by the Court, was subsequently transmitted to the Admiralty for the approval of the Lords Commissioners. On the 24th ultimo, the plan was returned to Mr. Pease, and at the same time he received a letter from Capt. Vetch requesting him to furnish a plan in duplicate “with a view to the Admiralty’s assent being signified to it in the usual way.”—from which Mr. Pease inferred that the Admiralty are prepared to sanction the plan.—Mr. Pease next reported that a notice had been served on him of an intention on the part of the “Tamar Valley Railway Company,“ to cross the County road at the end of New Bridge, by tunneling under the road at a depth of 27 feet. The Court would be pleased to say what answer, if any, was to be returned to the solicitors of the Company as to the County being assenting, dissenting, or neutral, in regard to the undertaking. At , the operations had been very much retarded by the almost incessant rains since the last session; but the contractors have succeeded in widening nine of the arches on one side.—The new bridge at Seaton had been finished in a satisfactory manner. It was very doubtful if the old bridge, propped as the arch was with wooden posts, could have withstood the unusually large river which has within the last few weeks passed under the new bridge.—At Wentford Bridge, a large quantity of rubbish has been washed by the river against, and nearly closing up, one of the arches; for the removal of which the magistrates of the district have given an order.—Mr. Pease gave notice that he will require two levies at the next Sessions. To the notice from the Tamar Valley Railway Company, it was resolved to return the County “neutral”—the usual course adopted by this county with regard to litigated railway applications. Mr. KENDALL said, with regard to Wadebridge, that, from a communication received from the London agents of Messrs. Symons and Son, solicitors to the Trust, it appeared that the Master in Chancery had allowed their statement of facts, so that without going to Parliament, the Trustees would be able to sell the property; put the bridge in complete repair, and widen it, and still have a small balance left. LOOE BRIDGE.—The Clerk of the Peace reported that tenders for the loan of £2,500, for building a new bridge at Looe had been received. The CHAIRMAN said there were several at 5 per cent.; one or two at 4½; and three at 4 per cent. One of these at 4 per cent. was from Mr. Polkinhorne, who would lend the whole sum required; and the County had before had dealings of a similar kind with that gentleman. In reply to the Chairman, Mr. PEASE said the money would not be required before the next Sessions.— The Clerk of the Peace was then requested by the Court to prepare the securities by that time. PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF THE COUNTY GAOL.—Mr. J. DAVIES GILBERT read the following Report:—The Committee appointed at the last Quarter Sessions to take into consideration the reports of the Chaplain and Governor, met at the Goal on Thursday the 16th of December, present—Captain Hext, J.S. Enys, Esq., and J.D. Gilbert, Esq. The Committee, having read the said Reports, proceeded to inspect the Gaol, and report that the gaol was originally built in the year 1778, and constructed to contain 42 prisoners, whereas at present the average number confined within its walls is 127 and occasionally the number has exceeded 200. The room required for this increased number has been obtained partly by additional buildings occupying portions of the original airing yards, and partly by contracting the space formerly allowed for prisoners, so that each prisoner has now a much smaller amount of accommodation than was formerly deemed necessary. The cells in which prisoners are confined separately during the night, are only divided from each other by wooden partitions through which communication can, and constantly does, take place. During the day the prisoners are congregated in day—rooms, at work and at their meals, thus affording constant opportunitics of intercourse, and, necessarily, of contamination. The evils arising from this state of things are extremely great in that portion of the gaol appropriated to convicted prisoners; but the effects of the system are still more injurious to the unconvicted, many of whom are probably at the time of their committal not hardened in crime; some may be entirely innocent, and all are certain to be more or less injured by the forced contact into which, during a period of comparative idleness, they are brought with others of the same class, among whom will probably be found some of abandoned character. The walls in some portions of the gaol (those between the male and female convicts) are in such a state, and the Committee has reason to believe, were originally built in such a manner, as to allow of communication taking place between the prisoners confined on either side. The Committee are of opinion that the evils complained of by the Chaplain and Governor in their Reports, are by no means exaggerated, but that they exist to such an extent as to render it incumbent on the County to take immediate steps to enable the Governor to enforce the discipline required by the various Acts of Parliament relative to gaols, and the propriety of which is now universally admitted; though they have every reason to believe all has been done by the Governor that the imperfect nature of the building will allow, to carry out those regulations. The only remedy the Committee can suggest is the erection of a new Gaol, either immediately or by degrees, and so arranged as to admit of future additions when required; in confirmation of which opinion the Committee beg to refer to the recommendations of several previous Committees, and to an order of the Quarter Sessions by which the sum of 5000l. was granted for the purpose of erecting a building capable of containing forty prisoners, and so constructed that at a future time it might form portion of an entirely new gaol. It however appears to the Committee that the first step to be taken in any case must be the purchase of a sufficient quantity of land, as, in addition to that belonging to the County, would contain the buildings at present required, and space for future additions, with an area round them for the purpose of preventing communication with persons from without. In case the County should determine to build by degrees, the Committee strongly recommend the erection, in the first place, of suitable accommodation for persons committed for trial; but whether a gaol be built at once or by sections, it is equally necessary that a plan of an entire goal should be obtained at once, and that each section should be a portion of this plan.—Proposed by Capt. Hext, that this Committee, being so small in number, be adjourned to the County Hall on Tuesday the 4th of January, at ten o’clock, and that a copy of the above Report be forwarded to each member of the Committee.—In pursuance of the adjournment, the Committee met at the County Hall on Tuesday the 4th of January, and received an opinion obtained by the Clerk of the Peace from Mr. H. Bacon, by which it appears that a title can be made, under the acts of the 4th and 5th George the 4th, to the land required for the contemplated new building at the gaol. The Committee therefore recommend that immediate steps be taken to purchase the land. Mr. GILBERT then said he would propose that the Report be adopted; and in doing so he would state that at the last Sessions he was requested to endeavour to obtain any information he could from Government authorities connected with the management of gaols. He obtained an interview with Colonel Jebb, Inspector General of Prisons; and from him learned two or three important facts. One was that it was the opinion of himself and of the law officers of the Crown that a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour was not property carried out unless the prisoner was employed in hard work,—that, if prisoners so sentenced were put to learn trades or other occupations in cells, it was not fulfilling the sentence of hard labor. That seemed to be the general opinion; and also that it was necessary there should be sufficiency of cells for unconvicted prisoners of such dimensions as to allow their being kept in those cells from the time they were imprisoned for trial, except at the periods allowed for exercise. They could not be employed at hard labour; but it was essential that they should not be subject to that contamination which unfortunately existed in our gaol to such an extent, and by which their morals could not fall to be deteriorated to a certain extent. It was therefore essential that some accommodation should be provided, so that those prisoners should not receive evil at their (the magistrates) hands. At the same time he would say that it was the general opinion that the Government was likely to take the gaols—that portion of the gaols used for the purpose of confining prisoners after sentence—into its own hands. But the essential part in the Report which had been just presented was, not that there should be a new gaol immediately for convicted prisoners, but a place of detention for those committed for trial. And, whether the system of transportation was altered, or done away with and some other system of secondary punishments established, it would in any case be incumbent on the Bench to provide a proper amount of accommodation for prisoners committed for trial, and that was what the Report recommended. Mr. KENDALL agreed with every word of the Report. He believed it was now understood that each of the last two Governments had some view of taking the gaols into its own hands; and he thought it was not improbable that before six months had elapsed, the present Government would have some general plan for that purpose. He would therefore ask Mr. Gilbert whether it would not be well to delay for six months any proceedings on the Report just presented. At the end of that time, if nothing were done by the Government, he would be the last man to ask for any further delay. In the mean time he fully agreed in the necessity of making the proposed purchase of land; and he would beg to move that the Committee be empowered to expend £200 to make purchase of that land in pursuance of Col. Jebb’s recommendation. Mr. GILBERT felt the extreme importance of doing away with that which was quite an opprobrium to the County; but at the same time if the County would agree to give powers to the Committee for the purchase of the land (which was the essential part), he should be willing to acquiesce in the proposed postponement. Mr. ROWE urged the great importance of speedy action in effecting the proposed improvement, and would suggest that the matter should not stand over beyond the Easter Sessions. It was resolved that the further consideration of the Report be postponed till the Easter Sessions,— that the Committee be continued, and in the interim be empowered to make purchase of the land at a cost not exceeding £200. —The Clerk of the Peace’s Bill for Cravings, amounting to £55, was allowed; as was his Bill, amounting to £185 2s 10d. for expenses connected with the Registration Lists. —The CHAIRMAN said he held in his hand an abstract of all the expenses of the County during the past year, made in compliance with the Act 15 and 16 Victoria, and to be transmitted by the Clerk of the Peace to the Secretary of State. It was really and truly nothing more than a concentration of that which had already been published in the Cornwall Gazette and West Briton newspapers. He might mention, however, that the total valuation on which the assessment for the County Rate was made was £934,328. The total valuation for the Bridge Rate was £873,824. The total amount in the £ of the several rates made in the last year was one penny and thirty—one thirty—seconds of a penny. The Rev. R. BULLER gave notice, that at the next Sessions he would move the re-appointment of the committee for improving the courts. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JAMES COCK, 56, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 3rd of December, 1852, at the parish of Week St. Mary, a duck, the property of Henry Baker. (Sentence: six months h. l.) RICHARD LANE, 22, was charged with stealing, on or about the 6th of August last, at the parish of St. Blazey, a pair of collar-trees, with chains attached the property of Betsy Oliver Rogers, who, at the time of the alleged robbery kept the “Sloop“ public house, at Par, being assisted in her business by her brother-in-law, Mr. Grigg. The prisoner also was also a relative of the prosecutrix.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes, the defence.—The case lasted some considerable time, and, after long consultation, the jury returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL. RICHARD RASHLEIGH, 39, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 12th of November last, at the borough of Penryn, two brass candlesticks, the property of Mary Ann Rapson, and at the time of the robbery in charge of her aunt, Mrs. Peggy Treloar, at the Three Tuns Inn. (Sentence: two months h. l.) HORSE STEALING.—GEORGE SYMONS, 40, committed by H.G. Moysey, Esq., a magistrate of the county of Somerset, was charged with stealing, on the 25th of October last, at Roche, a bay cob hose, the property of Henry Harris.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.— Henry Harris, the prosecutor, said—I live at Bilberry, between Bodmin and Saint Austell. On Sunday evening, about six o’clock, on the 24th October, I saw my horse in my field adjoining the turnpike-road, and I saw that the gate was fastened. About half-past six on the Monday morning, I went to the field and found that the horse was gone, and the gate was fastened home. There were footsteps of a man about the field, where the horse had been galloped to be caught, and similar footsteps in a corner of the field; and tracks of the horse where he was put out at the gate to the turnpike. I and my son and a workman made every search on the Monday; and on Tuesday morning I went to Bodmin and applied to Lampier a constable and sent an advertisement about the horse to the Police Gazette. On the following Friday Lampier came to me with a letter which he had received from a policeman at Wellington, in Somersetshire; and, I went with Lampier to Wellington. We found the horse on the Saturday, in a stable belonging to a public-house kept by James Bodley, about 2 miles from Wellington. On the following Monday morning, I saw the prisoner who was brought from Taunton, before a magistrate at Wellington. I had seen him before, in my neighbourhood; I saw him at Roche fair on the 12th of October. I was examined before the magistrates; the prisoner was committed; and my horse was brought home by the constable.—James Paine, who lives at , near the prosecutor’s, stated that about half past 9 o’clock on Sunday evening the 24th of Oct., he saw the prisoner and spoke to him near Locking-gate, on the Turnpike road between Bodmin and St. Austell, and about half a mile from the prosecutor’s field; prisoner was then walking towards Bilberry.—James Bodley:—I keep an inn about two miles from Wellington. On Wednesday morning, the 27th October, I was on the road near my house, and saw the prisoner there on one side of the road and a horse on the other side. My attention was drawn to the horse, seeing it had been rode hard and ill-used. I asked the man if the horse was his; and he said it was, and that he bought it at Tiverton market the Saturday previous. He had the horse tied—the head to the near fore leg. I told him to untie the horse and come with me; he did so, and I sent for a constable and gave him in charge. The prisoner was taken before a magistrate, and remanded for a week. On the next Saturday I went to Taunton to get a Police Gazette and thus obtained information of the owner of the horse; I sent a letter immediately to Mr. Harris, and kept the horse till Mr. Harris arrived; and on the following Monday I went before the magistrate and the horse was given up to Mr. Harris.—John Lampier, constable of Bodmin:—I was applied to by the prosecutor, and caused an advertisement to be put in the Police Gazette. I afterwards heard from a policeman at Wellington, and, in consequence, I accompanied Mr. Harris to Wellington. I apprehended the prisoner at Taunton, and brought him back to Wellington, and saw the horse produced there; I afterwards brought back the horse to Mr. Harris. When I apprehended the prisoner, he kept saying it was a bad job—that he bought the horse for 7l., and had never in his life been in Cornwall. About 10 or 12 days before that, I had seen the prisoner go up in front of my door in Bodmin.—The prisoner, in defence, repeated over and over again that he had never been in Cornwall before his committal, and added that he bought the horse for 7l. about 4 miles from Tiverton.—Verdict, GUILTY.—The Court commended Mr. Bodley for his promptitude in securing the apprehension of the prisoner. (Sentence: 18 months h. l.) JOHN WARREN, 24, a navvy, known as “Jack the Driver,” was charged with stealing on the 24th of December, two geese, the property of Edwin Stephens, farmer, in the parish of St. Austell.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—The evidence against the prisoner was purely circumstantial; and, after the prosecutor, his wife, and the policeman, Sambells, had been examined, the CHAIRMAN stopped the case, and, addressing the jury, said he had never before met with a case which entirely depended on foot tracks. In coming to a decision against the prisoner the jury must be satisfied that no other person could have committed the offence charged. Now, in this case, however strong a case of suspicion might rest against the prisoner, he learned from the advocates that no evidence beyond that of foot-marks could be adduced; and he felt it his duty to say that such evidence was insufficient for conviction. They must therefore give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, and say not guilty. The jury returned a verdict accordingly. APPEAL.—, appellant; ST. CLEMENT, respondent. Mr. SHILSON moved to quash the order on the special ground that the pauper was an establishment pauper at the time the order was made.—Mr. HOCKIN consented.—Order quashed; £4 costs. SECOND COURT. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P.) NICHOLAS BARRETT, 12, and RALPH MAY, 11, were indicted for stealing a pair of shoes, the property of James Webber, of , and also charged with stealing two pairs of shoes, belonging to James Millett, of Truro. Barrett pleaded GUILTY, and the trial proceeded with regard to May. The shoes were stolen from Mr. Webber’s shop, on the 1st of December, and on the same evening the two boys took some shoes to a beer-shop in -street kept by a man named Johns. They said they were starving and Mr. Johns gave them sixpence, and afterwards at their request advanced them 2s. 1d. on the shoes. The police were subsequently communicated with, and it was found that one of the pairs belonged to Mr. Webber. But it was not proved to the satisfaction of the jury that May had a guilty participation in the matter with Barrett, and they returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.—The boy May was then charged with stealing shoes, the property of James Millett. In this case the shoes were taken to the shop of a shoemaker called Menhenick, in Charles-street, who having suspicion detained them, and the boys ran away. Verdict, GUILTY. Mr. Childs (for Mr. Stokes) conducted the prosecution. (Sentence: BARRETT, one fortnight h. l. on one conviction and one fortnight h. l. on another; MAY, one fortnight hard labour). ZACCHEUS JULIAN was found GUILTY of stealing a blanket from James Jewell, of . (Sentence: two months h. l.) JOHN SPILLER, 18, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 7th of December, at Charlestown, a pair of boots, the property of Edward Pantry. (Sentence: three months h. l.) ELIZABETH POLLARD, 25, pleaded GUILTY of stealing at Truro, on the 11th of May last, seven bedsheets, three blankets, five pillow-slips, and three bolster-slips, the property of her master, John Erskine. (Sentence: six months h. l.) ELIZABETH CORNISH, 18, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 13th of December, a satin dress, the property of William Hoskin Whiting, of Bodmin. (Sentence: four months h. l.) ELIZABETH GOLDSWORTHY, 23, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 20th of December, about 10 pounds of flour, a quarter of a pound of butter, and a small piece of muslin, the property of Edward Penman, of . (Sentence: four months h. l.) ELIZABETH PUGSLEY was charged with stealing a boa, the property of Mary Nicholls, of St. Austell. The parties were travelling in Kellow’s van from to St. Austell on the 30th of October. Prosecutrix after leaving the van missed her boa, which was afterwards found in the prisoner’s house, circumstances which induced the jury, after some deliberation, to find a verdict of GUILTY against her. (Sentence: three months h. l.) WILLIAM GREENWOOD, 37, was charged with uttering a counterfeit sixpence at the shop of T.N. Miller, of Truro, and another sixpence at the shop of Mary Ann Warren, of Truro, knowing the same to be false and counterfeit. The prisoner went into the shops in question, and purchased a small article, tendering in payment the bad sixpences, with concurrent circumstances which led to an immediate verdict of GUILTY from the jury. (Sentence: six months h. l.) The Court then rose. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5. (Before J.K. Lethbridge, Esq.) WILLIAM BARRETT, 29, was charged with stealing a blanketing shirt, the property of Henry Mitchell. Prosecutor worked at Consols, and had a shirt taken from the sump-house on the 30th of October. Prisoner was afterwards apprehended, wearing the shirt at the time. He stated that he had taken it in a mistake for his own; and Mr. Shilson, who appeared for the defence, urged that prisoner’s account of the matter was correct.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY. WILLIAM HENRY HUGO was charged with stealing half-a-crown, the property of Joanna Daniel. Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Stokes the defence. Joanna Daniel stated that she works at Par Consols. Saturday, Dec. 11, was pay-day at that mine. In the evening she went into St. Austell, with others of her acquaintances, and between nine and ten in the evening they were in Mr. Stephen’s parlour, at the New Inn. The prisoner Hugo, was at another table in the same room. A man called Harris came in to sell nuts. A game was played for half a pint of nuts, and prosecutrix won. The nutman then turned a cup upside down, and offered to bet prosecutrix half-a-crown that there were two nuts under the cup. The nut-man had been tossing the nuts, and from what prosecutrix saw, she believed there was only one nut under the cup; she therefore agreed to bet that there were not two. She put down half-a- crown on the table, and the nut-man put down three shillings. She said he had better take up a shilling and put down sixpence, and he did so. The nut-man said the money should be placed in William Hugo’s hands. Prosecutrix objected, saying that if the money was placed in anybody’s hand, it should be Peter Keame’s. She then took the money from Hugo, (the nut-man having given it to him), he placed it in Keames’s hands. The nut-man then took it from Keames and gave it to Hugo the second time. Prosecutrix however again took it from him and placed it on the table, where it remained. Keames was then to lift the cup, but before it could be done Hugo put in his hand and took up the half-crown from the table; and the nut-man and several others put in their hands and took up the other two shillings and sixpence. On the cup being turned, Keames said there was only one under it, so prosecutrix won. The nut man left the room soon after; Hugo remained about a quarter of an hour; he then left the room for some time and afterwards returned. Hugo would not give up the half-crown, and was given into custody of the police. It appeared from Keames’s evidence that there was a dispute about the matter, and Keames endeavoured to persuade Hugo to give up the money, on which he said he had given it to “Jack the nut-man.” Mr. STOKES, for the defence, submitted that there was no evidence to show that Hugo and the nut- man were acting in concert, and therefore that Hugo could not be charged with larceny in the case. He urged that there was a dispute between the different parties in the room as to whether the nut-man or the prosecutrix had won the game; and that Hugo believing the nutman to be the winner, handed him the money, there being no concerted acting between them. He stated that there were discrepances (sic) between the evidence of prosecutrix and Keames, and then called as witnesses to character, Mr. W. Whiting, of Bodmin, who said he had known Hugo for fifteen years, and having had many dealings with him for cattle, had always been found him an honest man; also Mr. Henry Stephens, the landlord of the New Inn at St. Austell, who said the prisoner had acted as an honest man in his dealings with him.—The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, put it to the jury whether they believed there was any concert between Hugo and the nut-man in the transaction in question. After deliberating from some time, the jury said they were not likely to agree; they were six each way (laughter). Again they put their heads together, and in the interim some county business was transacted. At length, after a considerable time had elapsed, the Foreman said they found Hugo guilty of taking the half-crown, but not of confederacy with the nut-man. They were then told by the Chairman that they must consider whether Hugo was guilty of feloniously taking the half-crown,—whether he stole it; or whether he took it and gave it to the nut-man in consequence of a doubt as to the winner of the game, and his believing that the nut-man had won. There was still some difference amongst the jury, but at last, the Foreman said they had come to a verdict that Hugo was GUILTY of stealing the money. (Sentence: one month h. l.) COUNTY BUSINESS. ST. BLAZEY BRIDGE.—The committee appointed on Tuesday presented the following report:— Resolved, that the two surveyors of the bridges be instructed to report on the present condition of St. Blazey bridge and its approaches, the cause of silting and flooding, and the remedy, if any can be devised, as also the cost thereof, and whether such remedy will be permanent. Further, that the surveyors be requested to ascertain whether the silting has been gradual, or whether the recent overflow has been produced by a special cause, or whether other overflows have taken place, and if so, when and whence arising.—Signed, VIVIAN, Chairman. On the motion of Mr. KENDALL, seconded by Mr. E. COODE, jun., it was resolved that the surveyors also report on Nansladdron, and bridges. MILITIA STOREHOUSES.—Mr. H. WILLYAMS gave notice that at the next sessions he should move for a grant of 15l. a year as rent for a store house at Truro for the Royal Miners’ Militia, and for the sum not exceeding 25l. to put it into a condition to receive the arms.—On Tuesday, Sir W.L.S. TRELAWNY stated that the clerk of the Lieutenancy would apply on the following day for a store-house for the Royal Cornwall Rangers, the question being whether a house should be built or hired for the purpose. In the absence of Sir W.L.S. Trelawny, Mr. KENDALL now gave notice that he should apply at the next sessions for a grant of rent not exceeding 30l. a year for a store-house for the Royal Cornwall Rangers, and for a sum not exceeding 50l. for the fitting up of the premises. TRIALS RESUMED. RICHARD STEPHENS, 28, was indicted for stealing, on the 27th of November, about 600 lbs. weight of carrots, on the 18th of December about 800 lbs. weight, the property of John Brendon Parsons. Mr. Darke for the prosecution, and Mr. Shilson for the prisoner. Several witnesses were called, and the case lasted a long time. Prosecutor is a farmer in the parish of , and prisoner had been a wokman (sic) in his employ. On the 27th of November prisoner was seen by Mr. Parsons’s foreman coming up from his carrot field with a basket of carrots, there being a number of carrots lying there on the surface of the ground. On the 18th of December prosecutor had a cave opened belonging to the prisoner, in which were carrots grown by prisoner and his father in an orchard. It was stated that a quantity of the carrots found in the cave were longer than those grown by prisoner, in the orchard, and that they were sound, whilst prisoner’s were diseased; also that a larger quantity was found in the cave than could possibly have been grown in the eight yards of orchard ground. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY on the first count for stealing from the field, but acquitted him on the second count for stealing carrots found in the cave. (Sentence: four months h. l.) HOUSEBREAKING.—SAMUEL HILL was indicted for stealing upwards of twenty pounds from the dwelling house of Thomas Bartley, of Wadebridge. Mr. Stokes for the prosecution, and Mr. Shilson for the defence. Prosecutor stated that he keeps the Cornish Arms at Wadebridge, and Elizabeth Pinch lives with him as housekeeper. On Sunday morning, the 19th of December, he and his housekeeper went to Chapel; when they left, they locked up the premises, and also the yard gate. They returned about half- past twelve, when prosecutor found the back-door unbolted, a pane of glass broken in the cellar window, one or two of the iron bars of the window ripped off, and the casement open. There was room, he said, for a man to get in where the bars had been removed from the window. He found the cellar door had been forced, and going up stairs to his bedroom, which was locked when he went to chapel, he found the door had been broken open, and also his box, and the money taken from two purses in his box. In one purse he had twenty sovereigns, and in another two or three pounds in silver. The whole had been stolen, excepting a sovereign in the bottom of one of the purses which was left behind, and another sovereign afterwards found on the bed. The back-door of the house had also been attempted to be forced. On discovering the robbery, the housekeeper went out to the back premises and called across to the prisoner, who lived opposite the gate. Prisoner is a constable of the parish, and came across, said it was a bad job, and appeared greatly astonished; he said he would go round to the public-houses and see if any suspicious characters were in them. Afterwards, about two o’clock, prosecutor saw prisoner at his own house, and asked him if he had seen any person for the day near his (prosecutor’s) gate, or going into the yard. Prisoner replied that he had seen no person.—Joseph Julian tailor, stated that on Sunday the 19th of December he was at his brother’s house, who lives three doors above prisoner’s dwelling. At half-past eleven in the morning, he came out of his brother’s house, and looking down the road, he saw Hill at Bartley’s gate, climbing in over the gate.—The other witnesses examined were J.R. Rickard, druggist, Elizabeth Pinch, (prosecutor’s housekeeper), Ellen Hoskin, innkeeper, Henry Gilbert, Henry Trebilcock, and constables Carveth and Rounseval. It is not necessary, however, to go into the details of the evidence. Mr. SHILSON addressed the jury for the defence, contending that there was no evidence to criminate the prisoner. That as to a bar of iron which had been produced, and which the constable showed fitted into marks made in prosecutor’s back door, the bar having been found in prisoner’s garden, Mr. Shilson submitted that it was placed in the garden by some other person, it being a plot of ground allotted to about a dozen persons who had gardens there. The only part of the case at all against the prisoner was his having denied to the witnesses Rickard and Gilbert that he had been into the premises on the day in question; and even that might have been the truth, for the witnesses could not swear to the exact words in which they put the question; and the prisoner might well have stated to them that he had not been in the house;—that statement was perfectly consistent with his innocence. Mr. Shilson also remarked on the other means by which access could have been gained to prosecutor’s back-yard, with a person going over the gate, and being liable to be seen from the houses in the road outside, if any of the residents were at their doors. He was then proceeding to call witnesses to the good character of the accused, when CHAIRMAN interposed, observing that the case was so insufficiently brought home to the prisoner, that it appeared to the court to be hardly fair to allow it to proceed further.—Under the direction of the CHAIRMAN, the Jury then returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.—The court then rose. WEDNESDAY, Jany 5, 1853 SECOND COURT. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq, M.P.) ANN JULIAN, pleaded GUILTY of stealing potatoes, the property of William Rowe Woolcock, of , on the 31st of December. (Sentence: four months h. l.) BULLOCK STEALING.—JAMES COOMBE, 25, charged with stealing on the 2nd of December last, at , two heifers, the property of William Roberts Elliott. William Roberts Elliott stated:—I am a farmer living at Tregony. On the 2nd of December I had two heifers and kept them in a field at . I saw them about 4 o’clock in the afternoon of the 2nd of December. About 9 o’clock in the morning of the 3rd of December I found they were gone. I traced footmarks of two bullocks, and of a man following them, from the field through a gate to the road, and on to . I slept at Grampound, and on the morning of the 4th, I trace the bullocks’ marks and made inquiries, and found the bullocks on Mr. Bice’s farm at St. Enoder. On the same day I saw the prisoner at St. Dennis, in custody of a constable; he wished to speak to me, and I told him that whatever he had to say, he must say publicly. He said he was sorry he had taken the bullocks from me.—Paul Hooker:—I live near Mr. Luke Bice’s at St. Enoder. On Saturday the 4th of December, I saw two heifers on Mr. Bice’s farm. I went with Mr. Bice, on the morning of that day, to St. Dennis, and saw the prisoner at Cooke’s public house. Mr. Bice said to him, “I fear, from the description you gave me of the road you came and the way you went, that there’s something not right about the matter; you gave me your name as Husband, but I find that your name is Coombe.” Prisoner said “don’t make a fuss about it, and I will pay back the money to you, and take back the bullocks.” After some further conversation, Mr. Bice sent for a constable, Robert Kea, and put the prisoner in custody.—Robert Kea, constable of the parish of St. Dennis:—I took the prisoner in custody on the 4th of December at Cooke’s public house, and told him what he was charged with; I afterwards saw Mr. Elliott there, and prisoner said he was sorry he took the bullocks from Mr. Elliott.—Luke Bice, an important witness, he being the person to whom the prisoner had sold the heifers, did not appear; he was called on his recognizances, and the CHAIRMAN ordered that his recognizances be estreated.— Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: ten years transportation.) GEORGE WERRING, 38, was found GUILTY of stealing a quantity of ground barley, the property of his master, Digory Warne, farmer, at Calstock. (Sentence: four months h. l.) MARTHA MILDERN, 16, pleaded GUILTY of stealing in June last, from the dwelling house of John Coombe, in the parish of saint Ive, various articles of wearing apparel the property of Mary Coombe, widow. (Sentence: two months h. l.) FREDERICK HAYMAN, 16, was charged with stealing, on the 20th of December, at Wendron, from the dwelling house of Gideon Pryor.—The proof was of a simple and usual kind. In the course of it, evidence was given by two watchmakers of , name Berenger and Ninnis, the former of whom bought a seal of the prisoner and the latter had a watch offered him for sale by him, but declined to purchase, and adopted measures that secured the apprehension of the boy. The Chairman, in summing up, felt it his duty to commend Mr. Ninnis for the proper caution he had exercised, and expressed regret that Mr. Berenger had not acted in a similar way; for robberies were much instigated by the facilities for disposing of stolen articles.—The prisoner was found GUILTY. (Sentence: six months h. l.) JOHN COLLINS, 21 and RICHARD COLLINS, 17, were charged with stealing on the 19th of December, at , about 12 lbs. weight of barley meal, the property of Henry Stephens, miller. Richard Colllins was also charged, in a second court, with feloniously receiving the barley meal. Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—Mr. CHILDS explained to the jury that, under the recent law, the prisoners had been indicted as above, in order that if the felony should prove to have been committed, by John Collins, then Richard Collins would not be a participator in that felony, but might be shown to have feloniously received the property. But, if John Collins should be found not guilty of the felony, the Richard Collins must account for his possession of the property, and, according to ordinary presumption of law, be liable to the charge of felony, if he did not account satisfactorily. Mr. Childs also pointed out to the Jury that if a servant took from his master, corn or meal for his master’s cattle, without that master’s consent, it was held to be larceny; and rightly so, for otherwise any servant stealing such articles, would always have a ready excuse.—In the present case, the prisoners were acquitted. RICHARD MADDEFORD, 19, charged with stealing on the night of the 17th of November, at Stokeclimsland, a duck, the property of Thomas Grigg, innkeeper. It appeared that, on the day named Mr. Grigg lost a duck; and in the evening of the same day, found it in the skittle-alley, dead. He set a young man, Thomas Roskilly, to watch, in a linhay; and, between 9 and 10 o’clock, after the skittle-alley had been cleared of people, Roskilly saw a person come and enter the alley stealthily, and take up something; he let him go away about 20 yards and then seized him, and found that he was the prisoner and that he had the duck with him.—Both the prosecutor and his witness Roskilly gave the prisoner a good character for honesty, and it was not imputed to him that he had killed the duck. In fact, they inclined to favour the prisoner’s defence, that his taking the duck was a drunken freak.—The Jury, however, after some considerable consultation, found him GUILTY. (Sentence: one month h. l.) WILLIAM RUSE, 38, charged with stealing, on the 19th of October, at West Mine, in Southill, a piece of rope, the property of Robert Sargent and others, adventurers in the mine.—Mr. Gilbert Hamley conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended, put pretty fully questioned the witnesses and addressed the jury.—The alleged robbery was committed on the evening of the 19th of October, on which day all the materials of the mine were sold by auction. The prisoner had been employed on the mine to allot the materials; but it appeared that Mr. Sargent had some doubts of his honesty, and directed two men to watch him. In the evening, after the sale had closed, they saw him carrying off a coil of rope. He then stated, as he now persisted in stating in court, that he had bought it at the sale, but Mr. Davis, the auctioneer, distinctly swore that, although he had bid for some scrap iron, he had not bought nor bid for any rope whatever.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: four months h. l.) MARY JENKINS, 27, charged with stealing, on the 7th of October, a silver tea spoon, 4 books, 3 silk handkerchiefs, 4 lawn handkerchiefs, 6 Irish collars, and various other articles, the property of her master, John Roskruge, in St. Keverne. The prisoner came into the service of the prosecutor on the 2nd of October, and shortly afterwards, Mrs. Roskruge found various articles missing. On the 1st of November, search was made in the prisoner’s bedroom, and concealed under the bed-tie were found 3 collars, a silver tea spoon, 3 books, 2 handkerchiefs and other articles. The various articles were handed to the constable Mildren, who produced them in Court and they were identified by the prosecutor and his wife.—GUILTY. (Sentence: six months h. l.) SAMUEL WILLIAMS, 55, pleaded GUILTY of obtaining by false pretences, on the 20th and 21st December, from William Yeoman Bennett, of Truro, 53 lbs. weight of lead, of the value of 13 shillings, with intent to cheat and defraud the said William Yeoman Bennett.—The prisoner also pleaded GUILTY on a similar charge, in which the prosecutor was Stephen Pawley Cock, of Truro, and the offence was committed on the 21st of December. (Sentence: twelve months h. l., and six months’ h. l. on second conviction. (In this case, there had been two previous convictions, and once the prisoner had had sentence of death recorded against him.)) ANN COLLINS, 23, charged with having, on the 2nd of November, at the borough of Bodmin, stolen from the person of John Weary, 9l. 11s. 6d. and a purse.—Mr. Gilbert Hamley conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—John Weary, the prosecutor, who resides at , said:—I was at St. Lawrence fair on the 2nd of November; I left there between 5 and 6 o’clock in the evening and walked in to Bodmin. When I got about 100 yards this side of the old Turnpike Gate, I saw a female either standing still, or going slowly in the same direction I was. I heard a horse coming close behind me, and stepped in rather before the female. She caught hold of my arm and said “dear me, master, we shall be rode over.” At that moment a carriage came close upon us, and she said “Oh, master, we shall be run over sure enough.” We then got a little farther towards the edge of the road, and as the coach was passing I felt a hand in my trowsers pocket. I said I was robbed; and she ran off with my purse in her hand; but I kept my eye on her, followed, and caught hold of her by the hand in which she held my purse. In the scuffle that ensued, we got against a door, and whether we broke it open in the scuffle or it was opened from inside I don’t know; but we got into the house, and the man inside caught hold of her wrist of the hand which I still held. I took the purse from her hand, and she said “you have the money all right haven’t you?” I looked at my money and said “my money is all right except three or four shillings that were loose in my pocket; and I’ll try to make you alright.”—I gave her and the money in charge of constable Lampier. The purse contained a 5l. note, 4 sovereigns, a half sovereign, a shilling and a sixpence.—John Washley, who resides at the western end of Bodmin, and John Lampier, constable, gave confirmatory evidence; and the jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: six months h. l.) JAMES BAKER, charged with having on or about the 12th of December stolen a silver watch guard, the property of Joseph Watson, mate of the schooner Harriet, of Goole. On the 12th of December the Harriet was at Penryn, having arrived there some days previously from Wisbeach. The prisoner was shipped at Penryn as one of the crew on the 9th, and deserted on the 12th; having during those few days slept in the forecastle, as did also the prosecutor. On the 12th, Watson examined his box which he had kept locked in the forecastle, and found that his silver watch guard had been stolen. He applied to a constable, and next saw his watch-guard in possession of Mr. Hall at Mr. Jacob’s pawnbroker’s shop in Falmouth, where it had been pawned for 3s. by the prisoner. The guard was identified by the prosecutor at that time, and also on its production in Court by the constable; and the jury returned a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: two months h. l.) JAMES GRILLS, 26, charged with having, within the months of November and December last, stolen a hand-saw, the property of John Squire at .—Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs and Mr. G. Hamley the defence.—It appeared that on the 9th of December the constable of Launcells made a search at the prisoner’s house for some other purpose, and there found a hand-saw. He related his circumstance next day to Mr. Squire, in whose employ the prisoner was, and Mr. Squire claimed the saw as his property, and had the prisoner and the saw delivered in charge to the constable.—The main question was as to identity of the article. Mr. Squire would not swear positively that it was his property, but believed that it was. His servant Beard, who had used the saw at his master’s a fortnight before it was found at the prisoner’s swore positively to it because it was loose at the handle and bent at the tip.—NOT GUILTY. ELIZABETH WYATT, 23, charged with obtaining by false pretences, on the 3rd of December, from Thomas Taunton Clarke, of Bodmin, various articles of grocery, with intent to cheat and defraud the said Thomas Taunton Clarke. Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—(The prisoner pleaded guilty, on another indictment of obtaining by false pretences, on the 3rd of December, 12 cakes, from Ann Kendall, of Bodmin).—In the case of alleged fraud on Mr. Clarke, the pretence was that she had been sent for the goods by Mrs. Pearce, wife of Mr. Pearce, of —a customer of Mr. Clarke’s; but, in consequence of severe illness, Mrs. Pearce was unable to leave her bed, and consequently the prisoner’s statement that she was sent for the goods on the 3rd December by Mrs. Pearce, could not be contradicted; and the Chairman directed a verdict of acquittal. (Sentence: two months h.l.) The following bills have been ignored:— Fanny Powell, charged with stealing five ducks from Richard Rundle, of St. Eval. Eliza Higgens, stealing five ducks from Richard Rundle of St. Eval. Thomas Speed, stealing from the person of Mary Martin at Truro. Richard Hender, stealing three pilchards from Joseph and Susan Joll, at Tywardreath.

THURSDAY, January 6th, 1853. (Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq.) WILLIAM MORRISH, 32, and WILLIAM RETALLICK, 33, charged with having, on the 23rd of November, at St. Austell, stolen 9½d., in copper coin, the property of William Tredinnick.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution. Mr. Stokes defended Retallick.—The prosecutor keeps the King’s Head public-house, and employs John Salter to keep a tap nearly adjoining. John Salter, being sworn, stated:—On Monday, the 22nd November, I had five pence in a pint cup in the bar, which is partitioned off from tap-room. That bar can be locked, and I carry the key. One of those pence I can swear to, from marks. I noticed the pence on Tuesday morning about 9 o’clock. I was about the premises all the day, and every time I left the bar I locked it and took the key. The prisoners came together to the tap about 3 o’clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, and had three pints of beer, for which they paid 5½d.; I put that money, with two pence more from my pocket, into the cup. I locked the bar door and went to the cellar about master’s beer; I put the key in my pocket, leaving no person in the tap besides the two prisoners. On my return in about ten minutes, the two prisoners were there alone, and the bar door was locked. Retallick asked me to let him have some tobacco. I went to the cup to take out 1½d. to buy half an ounce, and then found that there was 9½d. missing; and I did not take out any money. All that was then left in the cup was six half—pence, and no pence. I accused the men of having taken the money; Retallick said he had not rose from his seat, and Morrish did not speak. Shortly afterwards Retallick called for another pint of beer and paid me two pence for it. I took the money, and said “This is what I’ve been waiting for; I can swear to one of those pennies by two marks.” I took the penny back into the bar, and afterwards delivered it to Sambells the policeman.—Thomas Sambells, policeman, produced the penny, (which was identified by Salter), and then stated: I apprehended Retallick on Wednesday morning, and told him what he was charged with. As we were going to the lock-up, he said he had not a farthing of money when they went to the Tap, but Morrish lent him fourpence. On the same day, about half past one o’clock, I went with police-constable Westlake to apprehend Morrish at his house about 1½ mile out of St. Austell. When we came to the house, he was half dressed. When he had dressed, I asked him where was the jacket he wore in town last night. He said it was wet. I was standing in the door way and saw a jacket hanging up behind the door. I said “I shall see what is in the pocket of this.” He said “I’ll be d---d if you shall.” I went to take hold of the jacket, and he sprung towards it; instead of taking the jacket, I took hold of him. Westlake then to take hold of the jacket, and Morrish caught hold of him by the neckerchief, and Westlake was obliged to take out his staff before he could let him go. Morrish’s wife was there and he called out to her “take the jacket and cut with it.” As soon as Westlake got clear of Morrish, he secured the jacket, and Morrish tried to get it from him. After the prisoner had been before the magistrates that day, they were put in the lock-up, and Westlake and I were ordered by the magistrates to keep watch over them at night. They were placed in two different cells, with a small space between them, which is visible from outside a gate in the street. Westlake and I relieved each other in keeping watch. Whilst I was watching, about 11 o’clock, outside the gate, I heard a conversation between the prisoners. Retallick said the Morrish “the old man sticks well to that penny; but I think we should get over that if it was not for the key; that key will finish all up.” Morrish said to Retallick;—when you was put in the lock- up, why didn’t you send me word?” Retallick made an answer, but I could not hear it exactly. Retallick also said—“when you do any thing, why don’t you put away the key?” Morrish said, “I never thought of it.” Retallick said, “D---n it, you should always think enough for that.” Retallick said too, “if we should be transported, it would be a case of it.” He also said something about a month or two, but I could not exactly understand the words. Morrish said “yes; that’s what I’m thinking about; but I don’t think we shall that, for the Normington, see what a rogue he was; he broke open several locks to get at them candles, and he only had twelve months of it.” With that, the conversation stopped. John Westlake, police constable, confirmed the evidence as to the apprehension of Morrish and the taking of his jacket and said:—When I had secured Morrish in the lock-up, I searched the pockets of the jacket and found a skeleton key, which I now produce. I tried that key in the door of the bar at Tredinnick, and locked and unlocked the door with it easily three or four times. I also tried four other locks with it, and opened three of them.—This witness, after a cross-examination by Morrish, added that in August last, he and Sambells found in Morrish’s pocket at his house a jimmy and a bunch of thirteen skeleton keys, which he now produced. They appeared to form a complete set of house-breaking implements; the wards of several of the keys being moveable and changeable by screws.—Mr. STOKES addressed the jury, in behalf of the prisoner Retallick, stating, from evidence given by witnesses for the prosecution, that Retallick had but recently come into the neighbourhood—that there was no proof of concert between him and Morrish—that the whole case as affecting Retallick would depend on the credibility of Salter’s evidence as to the penny-piece being the same that he had previously seen in the cup—and that the conversation overheard in the cells did not necessarily inculpate Retallick.—The prisoner Morrish addressed the Jury in his own defence.—Verdict, both Guilty. (Sentence (each): nine months h. l.) WILLIAM MORRISH was found guilty on another indictment, charging him with stealing a handsaw and a hone, the property of John Olver, captain of Lansalson Clay-works, in the parish of St. Austell. (Sentence: two months h. l.) RICHARD LANE, 29, (who was acquitted on Tuesday on a charge of stealing a pair of collar-trees and chains) was now charged together with HARRIET MOORE, with having on the 18th of November, at the parish of , stolen about five bushels of potatoes, the property of William Ruse, a carpenter, wheelwright, and small farmer.—In the second count, both prisoners were charged with feloniously receiving.—Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution, Mr. Stokes the defence.—The case, being entirely one of circumstantial evidence, occupied the Court about six hours.—It appeared that the prisoner Lane cohabited with the woman Moore—she being the wife of another man; and, by reason of his violence and his frequent robberies, he had long been a terror to their parish—Tywardreath—and its neighbourhood. The prosecutor lives at a place called Puddle, in the higher part of the parish of Lanlivery. In November last, he had a cave of potatoes in a garden adjoining his house; and in the morning of the 19th, he saw that the cave had been opened, and a large quantity of potatoes of different sorts taken away. Near the cave, and from it to the road adjoining the garden, were a man’s foot marks; and on the road were recent cart-wheel tracks, and the foot-marks of a horse. The wheel- tracks were peculiar, because of one of the tires having been fastened with three pins, only one of which was driven in close; the other two standing up unusually high. The foot-marks of the horse were also remarkable; the two fore-feet having been very recently shod; one of the hind feet about a fortnight earlier, and only one foot having an old shoe; there was also a peculiarity that the horse had evidently the habit of over-stepping—that is, of bringing up his hind-feet in front of the impression of his fore- feet. There was also peculiarities in the heel and toe-plates of the shoe of the man who had been at the cave and drove the cart. Those marks were observed double—coming and returning from the prosecutor’s place; and were traced in a very circuitous route, to Lane and Moore’s dwelling in the parish of Tywardreath, where was found a cart, with the name “H.J. Moore, Tywardreath” on it, and with the tires corresponding with the impressions on the road. Having procured a search warrant, the prosecutor and three constables went to search the prisoners’ house, and in a pigs’ house adjoining, used by the two prisoners, were found potatoes, corresponding nearly in quantity, and in their various sorts, with those the prosecutor had lost. While the search was going on at the pigs’ house, Lane, who was at that time an active fellow, though he has since become lame, got through a hole in the ceiling in the dwelling house, and knocking off some slates of the roof, bolted and jumped down a distance of nearly 20 feet. He was immediately hotly pursued—or coosed as one of the witnesses called it—by the three constables, through and beyond the cabbage garden; unluckily for himself he stumbled and fell, and one of the constables fell across his feet and another across his neck, thus securing him until he was handcuffed; though not without a desperate scuffle.—The prisoners had no horse of their own, but it was proved that on the morning of the 19th, a neighbour’s horse, which had the gain of overstepping, had evidently been worked during the night, as it was covered with dry, curly, recent sweat.—Another piece of circumstantial evidence in the case was that the soil of the prosecutor’s farm, in the higher part of Lanlivery, was black; while that of Tywardreath, where the prisoners lived, was reddish; and the potatoes found in their pigs’ house had black soil about them.—There was also evidence that in the night of the 18th, or rather early on the morning of the 19th, a woman, who lived in a house near to the prisoners, and who was sitting up all night in consequence of illness of one of her family, heard Lane and Moore go into their house. Two women also proved that on the 18th, there were but a very few potatoes in the prisoners’ pigs’ house, but on the 19th, before the constables came, she looked into the pigs’ house and saw a large quantity of potatoes there. The jury found Lane guilty of stealing, and Moore guilty of felonious receiving.—A previous conviction was proved against Lane; at the Session in July, 1845, he was convicted of stealing a baking dish, plate, and other articles, the property Charles Rogers, of St. Blazey. (Sentence: Richard LANE—ten years transportation; Harriet MOORE—four months h. l.) THOMAS EVANS, a young man of respectable appearance, was charged with stealing, on the 28th Nov., at North Trefula, in the parish of Redruth, five geese, the property of Hannibal Orchard.—Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence. At 4 o’clock in the afternoon of the 28th of November, the prosecutor saw his 9 geese; and at half-past 7 on the evening of that day he missed seven of them. In consequence of some information, he and his daughter Elizabeth, (who had had charge of the geese) went with constables Tregoning and Hodge, to the house of Michael Collins, at , in . He there saw two of his geese, and in a short time the constables and his daughter went away and brought in three more.—Mrs. Collins, wife of Michael Collins, stated that Evans lived near her, and, either on the 29th or 30th of November came to her house, bringing two geese with him, which he left as part payment to her husband for having grazed prisoner’s cattle for some time. On the 13th December those two geese were identified by prosecutor’s daughter, and were given up to the constables.—Michael Collins stated that he took the two geese at 2s. 9d. each of the prisoner who was indebted to him for grazing his cattle.—Charles Tregoning, the constable, stated that, after finding the two geese at Collins’s, he went with Elizabeth Orchard to Evans’s house, and there, among five geese, she picked out three which she identified as her father’s property. When the prisoner was taken in custody, he at first seemed stunned, and afterwards said “I can be answerable for those geese; I can make it all right.” The five living geese were produced in Court, offering, it was said, “ready ansers for any questions put.” They were identified, severally, by Elizabeth Orchard, who had for some time daily fed and tended them; and Hannibal Orchard also swore to them.—For the defence, the prisoner’s good character, admitted by a witness for the prosecution, was urged, and a witness—a young lad named Joseph Jennings, who lived near Evans—swore very positively that one of the geese which had been particularly identified by Elizabeth Orchard, had been in Evans’s possession for some months before Orchard’s loss of his geese. Evans distinctly swore that he knew the goose, by several peculiarities which he named—as a spot on the back, her left wing being cut, and her carrying her tail a little cocked on the near side (laughter); and he accounted for his having particularly noticed this goose by stating that she was in the habit of “slocking away another man’s gander (laughter).—Mr. Stokes suggested that she was a sort of improper character among geese—laughter.) There appeared to be no imputations cast on the honesty of this boy’s evidence, either by the advocate for the prosecution or by the Court; the probability of his having mistaken the goose was admitted, if he were wrong and the prosecutor’s daughter right. But, on the other hand, Mr. Darke urged that there was nothing to impugn the honesty of Elizabeth Orchard’s testimony, and that being so, at all events her evidence remained unimpeachable as regarded the 4 other geese, and it was sufficient for conviction that any one of these was proved to be the prosecutor’s property.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: six months h. l.) APPEAL. KEMPE, appellant, Mr. Shilson and Mr. Bishop. DELBRIDGE & OTHERS, respondent. Mr. Darke and Mr. Childs. Mr. BISHOP moved this appeal, which was against an order, dated in October last, made by Sir William Trelawny Bart., and J.B. Messenger, Esq., Justices. It appeared that the respondents, George Delbridge and 4 others, miners, working in Butterdon mine, in the parish of , had claimed 1l. 16s. each for wages, from Joseph Kempe, agent at the mine. The claim was adjudicated on at Petty Sessions, and an order was made by the Justices named, for payment of 5l. to the 5 claimants jointly, and 1l. 6s. 6d. costs. Mr. DARKE took a preliminary objection that in this case there was no power of appeal. The order appealed against was that Kempe should pay forthwith. It would therefore be necessary for their worships to consider under what statute the order was made. The first statute on the subject was that of 20th George 2nd, cap. 19, which authorized Justices to hear complaints of differences between masters and servants, and to make such order for payment of wages as to the said justices should seem just and reasonable, provided the sum in question did not exceed 10l. with regard to servants in husbandry, nor 5l. in regard to any handicraftsman; and in case of non-payment within 21 days, the justices were empowered to issue a warrant of distress. That statute gave power of appeal from the Petty Sessions to the Quarter Sessions.—The 4th George 4th, cap. 34, was subsequently passed for this reason, that under the 20th George 2nd. it was found that great hardship was inflicted on the labourer who, after obtaining an order for payment of his wages in dispute, was compelled to wait 21 days before anything could be done to enforce payment; and, therefore the 4th George 4th gave the justices power to order payment within such time as they might think proper, and in case of refusal or non-payment, to issue a warrant of distress; but under this latter act, the order of Justices in Petty Sessions was to be final and conclusive. It appeared then that all their Worships would now have to do would be to consider whether the order in the present case was made under the 20th George 2nd which gave power of appeal, or under the 4th of George 4th, by which the order of Justices in Petty Sessions was held to be final and conclusive. And the test for the decision of that question was that the order directed payment to be made forthwith—an order which the Justices had no power to make under the act of George 2nd. If the parties in whose favour the order was made were in a position to levy distress before the expiration of 21 days from the date of the order, that order must have been made under the 4th George 4th, cap. 34, which statute gave no power of appeal. Mr. CHILDS followed on the same side. Mr. SHILSON contended that the order was mad under the statute Geo. The 2nd, which gave power of appeal. In that statute, no specific time was named for payment under an order of Justices; except indirectly, by providing that there should be power to distrain if payment were not made within 21 days. But the Act of George 4th, gave power to the Justices to fix a specific time for payment under their order. In the present case the order was to pay forthwith; and he contended that such an order did not fix a definite time for payment. There was a distinction between an “order to pay,” which meant payment on service of the order—at sight; and an “order to pay forthwith;” which word, according to a decision of Justice Coleridge, (ex parte Lowe, Bail Court, 1846) meant—“without such delay as cannot be satisfactorily accounted for.” Jarvis also expressly made a distinction between an “order to pay,” and an “order to pay forthwith.” He contended, therefore, that as the order did not specify any precise time for payment, it could not have been made under the 4th George 4th, which took away the right of appeal; but must have been made under the Act of George 2nd, which gave power to appeal. Mr. DARKE replied, contending that the Courts had distinctly recognized the work forthwith, as specifying a definite period of time, and that under an order for payment forthwith, the parties might issue warrant of distress in case of non-payment on service of order. The Courts had held that forthwith meant within a reasonable period of time; and, if there had been reasonable time for payment, that answered the legal definition given to the word forthwith, and gave it definitiveness. In the present order the Justices ordered payment forthwith, which was the same as immediately. The contra- distinction was, under the statute of George 2nd, which allowed 21 days to pass before payment was enforced. But the Justices would not make an order under the Act of George 2nd, which would involve a delay of 21 days, but, under the Act of George 4th, ordered payment forthwith—i.e., on the first practicable day after service of the order, and warrant of distraint might have issued immediately the money was payable according to the terms of the order. And, the parties having made the order under the Act of George 4th, that order was final and conclusive. The Court gave its opinion that the order was made under the Act of 20th George 2nd, and was therefore appellable. On Friday morning, after the prisoners had been sentenced, the Appeal was resumed.—Mr. CHILDS, for respondent, urged in support of the opinion that the order could not have been made under the 20th Geo. 2nd, the fact that the sum in dispute was 8l., viz. 1l. 16s. by each of five claimants, while the Act limited the jurisdiction of the justices to 5l.; they could not therefore have made their order under the Act of George 4th, which extended the jurisdiction to 10l., and consequently there was no power of appeal. The CHAIRMAN and Mr. SAWLE observed that they had no doubt the justices meant to draw up the order under the Act of George 4th; but they had not done so, and consequently they had let in the parties to appeal. Some conversation, inaudible to the reporters, ensued between the court and the Advocates, and eventually, without entering on the merits of appeal, the order was quashed, with five shillings cost. SECOND COURT. THURSDAY, JANUARY 6. (Before C.B.G. Sawle, Esq., M.P. PRETENDED WITCHCRAFT AND SORCERY.—ANN GREENSLADE, 44, was indicted for this offence under an ancient statute, Mr. DARKE appearing for the prosecution. The first count in the indictment stated that Ann Greenslade, the wife of George Greenslade, on the 9th of October, 1852, at Redruth, unlawfully and knowingly did falsely pretend to Mary Ann Andrew, wife of Matthias Andrew, (then confined in the Lunatic Asylum at Bodmin), that the said Matthias Andrew was ill-wished by two witches, and that she the said Ann Greenslade had power to conquer and overcome such two witches, and that thereby the said Matthias Andrew would be cured of the malady under which he was then labouring, by which said false pretences, the said Ann Greenslade did obtain from the said Mary Ann Andrew certain money with intent to defraud the said Ann Greenslade, well knowing the said pretences to be false.—The second count (which was not included in Archbold, but was taken by Mr. Darke from an old law-book), charged “that the said Ann Greenslade, on the day and year aforesaid, at Redruth aforesaid, in the County of Cornwall aforesaid, did unlawfully and knowingly pretend to use and exercise witchcraft and sorcery, to wit, that she the said Ann Greenslade did then and there unlawfully and knowingly pretend to one Mary Ann Andrew, that Matthias Andrew, the husband of the said Mary Ann Andrew, who was then confined in the Lunatic Asylum at Bodmin, in the said county, had been ill- wished by two witches, and that on the payment of money by her the said Mary Ann Andrew to her the said Ann Greenslade, she the said Ann Greenslade had power to conquer and overcome the two witches, and that thereby the said Matthias Andrew would be cured of the malady under which he was then labouring, contrary to the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.” To this indictment the prisoner pleaded GUILTY. (Sentence: four months h. l.) ASSAULT.—THOMAS VICTOR, 22, was indicted for assaulting Mr. Humphry Pascoe, of the parish of . Mr. DARKE conducted the prosecution, and Mr. CHILDS (for Mr. Shilson) defended. Mr. DARKE stated that the assault had been one of considerable violence, and the magistrates, in the exercise of their discretion, had thought proper to send the case for trial at the Quarter Sessions. After stating the main circumstances of the case, he called Mr. Humphry Pascoe, who said he lives at Treganhoe, in the parish of Sancreed, near . The prisoner is the son of a neighbour of mine, who is a very respectable man, and I am on the best of terms with him. On Tuesday the 16th November, young Mr. Marrack came to me and said he wanted a brace of rabbits. I went out with him. A woodcock was flushed, which we followed up, first from my estate on to Mr. Borlase’s property, and then to an estate occupied by prisoner’s father, on which we went for one or two hundred yards, His father gave me leave to go over the estate two or three years ago, and has never since denied me. After going for a short distance on this estate of Mr. Victor’s, we returned to my own farm. We had not seen the woodcock, nor did we fire a gun. After going back on Mr. Borlase’s estate, just as I was going over the river, I saw the prisoner coming down through his father’s furze-croft. In a few minutes he came near, and swore out with a disgusting oath, and said,—“you old beggar, I will bring you up, you have been over our land.” I made him no reply. He then came nearer to us, and I said to Mr. Marrack, we will go back to the plantation again. He then came up to me, got behind me, and dragged my gun out of my hand; he went towards the hedge which was close by, and said, “I will smash it in pieces.” I think he then saw the gun was cocked, and he put it half-cock and took off the cap, and then he flung away the gun as far as could over the common. He came back to me, and took me by the neck-cloth and collar in front, and lashed me over on the ground on my back. In a moment in the scuffle he got me over on my face, and got upon my back. He then clenched his fist, and began to thump away as hard as he could at the back of my head and neck, and at every blow he swore an oath, and used language such as “you old black-guard, you old devil. I will kill you,” and language of that kind. In a few minutes Mr. Marrack came up, having had to cross the river. He then seized Mr. Marrack’s gun by the stock, Marrack having the barrel in his hand. Marrack said, “murder will be committed, the gun is loaded and cocked,” turned the barrel away, and told Victor to take care he was not shot. He then begged him to get off from me; I heard him at last say to Victor, “Now, Tom, my dear fellow, get off or you will kill him,—consider he is an old man.” Prisoner did not move, but Marrack, by pulling and dragging, after a little while got him off, and he then said, “for God’s sake, run away Mr. Pascoe.” I then got up as well as I could, but had been beaten so much that I staggered and fell down against the hedge again. Victor then got away from Marrack, and came back to me and struck me in my right eye, giving me a black eye. He also struck me other blows, cut my forehead and filled my mouth with blood, but the most violent blow of all that he gave me was in my left ear. Mr. Marrack came up and dragged him off from me again, but he again got away, and the third time began beating away upon me. After that, on giving away, he said with an oath he would willingly be sent to Botany Bay to kill the old b----r.” I was beaten in a shocking way, and felt from the attacks for nearly a fortnight.—On cross-examination witness said he had no shooting certificate at the time this assault too place. He and Marrack had each a gun, and had dogs with them. He had no doubt prisoner would have killed him if Mr. Marrack had not been there. He gave prisoner no provocation when he first came up; he did recollect telling him it was not his, but his father’s land. Re-examined.—Prisoner’s father refused to bail him when proceeding were taken against him before the magistrates. Prisoner had been at sea,—had been with his father the last two or three years. Prosecutor’s neck was considerably swollen from the ill-usage he received, and his shoulder, where prisoner pitched him over, and stiff for nearly a fortnight. The colour did not go out of his ear for a fortnight.—Philip Marrack was next called, and gave evidence corroborative of the preceding. It appeared, however, that he was only a minute and a half in coming up after the assault commenced, instead of some minutes having elapsed, as Mr. Pascoe had supposed. Witness was unable to come up sooner, from the distance he had to go, and the river he had to cross being much swollen. Prisoner was excited, and swearing all the time.—Mr. CHILDS addressed the jury for the prisoner. He did not attempt to excuse the assault, but submitted that it could not have been that violent description that the prosecutor had endeavoured to represent. The young man had been subjected to great irritation by finding that Mr. Pascoe was trespassing over his father’s land. He came up whilst they were on Mr. Borlase’s croft, but it was not until they had got on Sellon Common, which was his father’s right, that prisoner took away the gun. He then deliberately takes off the cap and puts the hammer down,—and did that look like the conduct of a man who was intending to commit an outrageous assault? Marrack was very soon up, and the utmost that prosecutor suffered was a good pummeling. It was unfortunate that there were no other witnesses of the occurrence that the prosecutor and his witness, so that no evidence was available on the side of the prisoner. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said that even supposing prosecutor was trespassing, it would not justify prisoner in assaulting him; other remedies were available, and the law did not allow a man to avenge his own wrongs. Neither was any provocation by words admitted by the law of the land to justify an assault; and even if such a justification were allowed by law, it did not appear that in this case any such words had been used, as could be supposed to provoke such an assault as had been committed. He then remarked on the evidence, and the jury, without hesitation, found the prisoner GUILTY. (Sentence: six months imprisonment.) This concluded the business of the Second Court. FRIDAY, January 7. (Before J. K. Lethbridge, Esq.) The prisoners this morning received sentence [see individual cases above].

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 25 March and 1 April

2. Lent Assizes

About 6 o’clock on Saturday evening the 19th instant, Mr. Justice Erle arrived at Bodmin from Exeter, being escorted into the town by the official retinue of the High Sheriff, Richard Foster Esq., of Castle. His lordship proceeded to the Judge’s lodgings, and thence to the Crown Court, where his lordship opened the various commissions for holding the Assizes. On Sunday morning, his lordship attended divine service at Bodmin Church. Prayers were read by the Rev. J. Wallis, vicar of Bodmin; and an admirable sermon enforcing the necessity of maintaining the union of religion and law, was preached by the High Sheriff’s Chaplain—the Rev. Percival Frye, vicar of St. Winnow, from Matthew, 28 ch., 20 v. —“Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Mr. Justice Crompton, who was detained at Exeter, on Saturday, by the trial of the parties charged with murder at Clayhidon, left that city on Sunday morning, and arrived at Bodmin about 3 o’clock in the afternoon. His lordship, on appearing in Court on Monday, was suffering from a severe cold. On Monday morning the Crown Court was opened at eleven o’clock, before Mr. Justice Erle. The calendar contained the names of fifty-five prisoners. The following magistrates were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, Bart., Foreman. Sir Joseph Sawle Graves Sawle, Bart. James Bryant Messenger, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. Richard Johns, Esq. William Rashleigh, jun., Esq. Thomas Graham Graham, Esq. John Samuel Enys, Esq. William Peel, Esq. John Davies Gilbert, Esq. William Morshead, Esq. Richard Graves Polwhele, Esq. William Peter Kempe, Esq. John Gwatkin, Esq. Francis John Hext, Esq. William Williams, Esq. Richard Davey, Esq. Nicholas Kendall, jun., Esq. John Vivian, Esq. Thomas Hext, Esq. Thomas Simon Bolitho, Esq. Edward Coode, jun., Esq. In addition to the above, the following magistrates answered to their names; —Lord Vivian, Sir W.L.S. Trelawny, Bart., and the Rev. Richard Buller. The following Mayors answered:—The Mayors of Bodmin, , Falmouth, Launceston, East Looe, West Looe, Lostwithiel and Penzance. Of the county coroners Mr. Joseph Hamley was the only one that answered. The Royal Proclamation against vice, and immorality having been read, the learned Judge delivered the following CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY:— Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—It is my duty to give into your charge a large number of cases, and some of them of considerable magnitude,—some few of them. At the same time I have much satisfaction in observing that the facts upon which the accusation rests, in almost all of them, are extremely few in number,—that the charge, therefore, is for the most part entirely free from complicity, and your time will be shortened in the inquiry, and probably there will be but little difficulty in coming to a conclusion. Among the charges the two most important are charges of murder,—in the class of child murder. With respect to one of them, it is the ordinary charge. The prisoner appears to have left the house for a short time and returned, and upon inquiry by those who foresaw what was going to take place, as to what had become of the infant, the prisoner at last said it was in the plantation. On going to the plantation the child was found there; its skull appeared to be fractured, and of course the question for you will be confined entirely to the point,—can that fracture of the skull be accounted for without your coming to the conclusion that there was a voluntary act of violence on the part of the prisoner? If that fracture can be accounted for without coming to that conclusion, the charge of murder will fail, and the charge of concealing birth would be a more appropriate one. With respect to the other charge of murder, it differs from the ordinary charge, the act appearing to have taken place on a day or more after the birth. The child appears to have been born, and attended to by those who were called in to attend it. It is one of the facts that the mother in a manner appears to have repudiated the infant from the beginning, and on the second day the child was left in bed with the mother at 5 o'clock; there was no one else in the room, and when the nurse came in at six o'clock the child was dead. There was a red mark on the windpipe, on the outside of the throat, and the surgeon is of opinion that the child died of strangulation, of pressure on the throat of the child; and of course in this case it will be for you attentively to consider if that can be accounted for without your coming to the conclusion that it was the act of the prisoner. If the evidence in the depositions turns out to be correct, and if there was no one else in the room, the conclusion will be that which has been suggested.—There is a charge of manslaughter of a most aggravated description. It appears the prisoner demanded drink in a public house, and not being able to pay for it, was refused, and threatened violence. The woman, who was endeavouring to serve a customer, was knocked down by the prisoner, and a man who came to her aid was also knocked down by him; then, according to the evidence, the prisoner jumped on the body of the deceased, and from that violence he died. If those facts are proved to your satisfaction, it will be that species of manslaughter which is close upon the border of a higher crime. You will have the facts before you, and if those are believed, there will be little difficulty as to the conclusion you will come to. There is a charge of stabbing,—one, I am sorry to say, in the ordinary form, that of the prisoner challenging another to fight and having armed himself with a knife, under the form of fighting, inflicted two stabs on the prosecutor. This crime has become so prevalent that it is almost a matter of satisfaction to find that in such an extensive and important county as this, there is but one example of it for you to inquire into. I do not know that it is any mitigation of the offence that the stabbing in this case happened to be not of a dangerous character. From the way in which the stabs were inflicted, their not being dangerous was entirely an accident, and not to be attributed to the intention of the prisoner. There is one charge of highway robbery, on the first surface of it, of a most dangerous and aggravated class. The prosecutor had been receiving money, and was afterwards at a public house. The fact of his having received it had became (sic) known, and on the first surface it would appear he was followed home by those who had seen him at the public-house; and then an early opportunity was taken to knock him down, and after considerable violence to rob him, which was an exceedingly aggravated form of highway robbery. The case appears to be a peculiar one. The first prisoner accused, John Bray, seems to have been well-known to the prosecutor, to have gone by his side, and to have knocked him down when in conversation with him; so there was no doubt as to the assailant. There is generally an ambush in such cases of robbery, but in this case it was different. The prosecutor, it appears, produced a knife, and was in contest with John Bray, when his brother came to his aid, and the knife was wrested from prosecutor, and afterwards, as I understand the depositions, the prosecutor was robbed. The case is so much out of the common way, that it will be worth your consideration whether it is open to any explanation as to either or both of the brothers. If either of the brothers can give any explanation, of course it would be the one who interfered to save the other from the action of the knife. There is likewise a charge of arson; the accused party was committed to prison as a vagrant; he appears to have been reluctant and resisted to the utmost, but being committed for a short time, he was not searched. He had lucifer matches, and took the opportunity of setting fire to straw in the cell. It seemed that if he had succeeded in burning the gaol, the first sufferer by the fire would have been himself, for he was confined in the cell, and the gaoler will, I believe, depose to you that if the smoke had not been discovered and the cell opened, the death of the prisoner was imminent, and would have taken place in a short time. It is possible that the man, a reluctant prisoner, might have kindled the fire regardless of the consequences to himself; end if he set fire to the straw with the intention of burning the place, of course he would be guilty of the offence imputed to him.—There is also a charge of perjury, in which the prisoner having sworn that Uriah Pearce was in company with the prosecutrix on a certain day, the prosecutrix swears that was not true. You are aware that in such a case there must be a corroboration of the contradicting evidence; and the mother of Uriah Pearce will be brought before you to depose that her son at the time was a sailor on board a man-of-war out of . The only matter to be attended to in that inquiry will be, whether it can be established by legal evidence that the man was out of England at the time. A mere statement in writing that a man was in a foreign part would not be legal evidence. A post-mark affixed to letters, which Pearce's mother states she has received from abroad, would be legal evidence of his arrival abroad, and perhaps the mother may have seen him sail for a destination which would have kept him out of the way of this transaction which is the subject of inquiry. The main constituent part of the calendar lies in charges of theft in different kinds. It is always satisfactory to come to that part of the calendar which has reference to a form of crime which is the least pernicious to society. You have the crime of felony in its worst shape in one instance only, where the prisoner has pursued a path of dishonesty with industry, and embarked skill and capital in the pursuit. It is a charge with reference to stealing a large quantity of tin from a smelting-house, and the prisoner appears to have had instruments on his own premises whereby the character of the metal might be immediately altered, and be rendered extremely difficult to be recognised. In the case before you the evidence is that the stolen metal was found on the premises by those who had endeavoured to detect the prisoner, and if so, from that and his conversation, there will be little difficulty as to the decision concerning this prisoner. The only matter of regret probably will be, that others concerned with the prisoner, were not captured at the same time. The other charges of larceny on the calendar vary in every gradation of guilt from those in which the parties had some talent and were clever in their vocation; but for the most part the accused are those who are probably early in their career, and the cases vary in every gradation till some of them come down to a point where I am at a loss to say they are clearly on the side of dishonesty. Those are cases where the parties believed they had some right, One is a charge against a miner for taking the jacket of another miner. It appears he wore the jacket in the ordinary way at the mine where he was working; and from the beginning, before he was taken up, he persevered in alleging that he had lent the prosecutor three shillings, and that the agreement was, if the three shillings were not repaid on the following Tuesday, he should be at liberty to take the jacket. The prosecutor positively denies that the three shillings were lent, but I observe the prisoner has persevered in that statement, both to his fellow- workmen before he was taken up, and afterwards, so as to make it a question worthy of your attention. If that took place, it certainly would not be within the definition of larceny, because it would be taken on the ground that the man believed he had a right. There is a charge of the same description against a carter who was turned off with some degree of disrespect by his master, who called him "so stupid a fellow that he was not fit to be trusted with the horses." He was turned off prematurely at the time, and he appears to have taken with him a cart-whip which he had when in his master's empoly (sic). He is now charged with stealing that whip, of the value of 1s. The man's allegation is that his master owed him 3s. at the time he was dismissed; the cart-whip had been in a manner in his custody, and he alleges that he took it on being so dismissed. I do not say that would make a foundation of right, but if those are the facts, it is very different indeed from the act of a common thief. There are also two cases of exchange. A man is charged with stealing a knife, which is found upon him, but at the time he took the prosecutor's knife out of his waistcoat pocket, he left his own in place of it. It is said to be a smaller knife; if he exchanged a thing of small value for one of much larger, it would be a theft; but it is a case for your attention. I observe also a charge of stealing a pair of shoes. The prosecutor's shoes were found on the prisoner, but the prisoner's story is that he had left his shoes with his trowsers when he went down a mine, and when he came up he found his shoes were gone and his trowsers were there, and therefore he took the shoes of some one else. That would not be a justifiable act, but if it turns out as stated, that some one had taken his shoes away, and they were brought back afterwards by that person, and he was found out because his shoes were left there without an owner,—if that turns out to be the fact, it is a matter in which you might exercise some consideration before finding a bill, for you will agree with me that it is doubtful whether that man is over the line of dishonesty. There are other charges to which I shall no further advert than to ask you to bear in mind as to two of them, what is the essential fact that makes it come within the definition of the offence. You of course know to what cases I allude, and you will consider how far the evidence is established to your satisfaction, and should lead you to find a bill. I have now gentlemen, no further observations with which to detain you. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. STEALING TIN.—WILLIAM CURTIS, 45, was indicted for stealing, on the 13th of December, about four cwt. of tin, the property of Messrs. Williams, Harvey, and Company, at the Mellanear Smelting Works, St. Erth. In another count the prisoner was charged with receiving the tin, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Collier prosecuted and Mr. Cole defended the prisoner. Mr. Peter Harris, managing agent at the Mellanear Smelting Works, said he remembered missing tin on Monday morning, the 13th of December. He had seen it in the smelting house on the previous Saturday evening. Ten ingots were missed, weighing altogether about 3½ cwt. or 4 cwt. Four of the ingots were each about 56 lbs. weight, and six about 28 lbs. weight. The smelting-house premises were secured on the Saturday evening, the doors and windows all fastened; on the Monday morning the doors were right, but one of the windows was open. On Thursday following, witness gave information to policeman Armitage of the West Cornwall Railway. Henry Armitage, police superintendent, said he watched the house of the prisoner at Ventonleague, about a mile and a half from the smelting-house. Witness went to prisoner’s house between 11 and 12 o’clock on the night of the 3rd of January. He found prisoner standing in the porch of his house, with a key in his hand. He took the key from him, on which prisoner made a noise; other constables then came up, and witness left the prisoner in their custody, and went into the house. He there found an ingot of tin near the door, and two round pieces under the table, near to which was a crook or kettle at the end of the table. There was tin thinly coated around the inside of the crock, and the two round pieces were hot when he touched them. The ingot, near the door, was in a wet and dirty state. He took prisoner to a Temperance Hotel in the neighbourhood, where prisoner began talking about the tin. Witness told him it was his duty to caution him that whatever he said would be used as evidence again him. Prisoner then said, he did not care for the round pieces if we had not found the long one; he expected that would give him fifteen years to Australia. He said if there were no receivers there would be no thieves, and if I wanted the remainder I must go to Richards of Helston for it; he said there were three or four who ought to be taken as well as himself; he said they ought to be transported as well as me, and that he and Richards, of Helston, he hoped would go in one vessel. On the next morning witness went again to prisoner’s house, having locked the door on the night before, and kept the key in his possession. He then found a “baker” which was greased and put away in a hole in the wall. (The baker and crock, the ingot, and the two round pieces of tin found in prisoner’s house, were here produced). Witness showed that the two round pieces fitted the baker, as if they had been cast in it. He received two pieces of tin from William Petherick, one of which also fitted the baker. Prisoner said the ingot of tin had not been in his house more than two minutes when the constables came there.— William Petherick, plumber of Truro, said that on the 22nd of December, prisoner offered him tin for sale, and he paid him 8d. a lb. for 5 lbs. and some ounces. After that witness had a communication with Mr. Armitage, and when prisoner brought him more tin for sale, on the 28th of December, he wrote to Armitage, and gave up the tin to him on the day after. (The two pieces sold to witness by prisoner were produced). Mr. Harris being re-called stated that the round pieces of tin produced, found in prisoner’s house, and that sold to Petherick, was of the same quality as that which was stolen from the smelting house; he had tested it by assaying and breaking. This was the only pure tin in that form which they had at that time in the smelting-house. He identified the large ingot, found in the prisoner’s house, by the impression at each end and the private mark. It corresponded in size and weight with the larger ingots they had lost, and he had no doubt it was one of them. Cross-Examined—They had shopped ingots of the same description, and with the mark B, to Liverpool for Birmingham in the previous November; but the ingot produced could not be one of them, because in carting and shipping the ingots get bruised, which was not the case with the one produced.—Mr. Cole briefly addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending that the identity of the tin had not been sufficiently made out as that lost from the smelting- house. The learned JUDGE having summed up, the jury almost immediately found the prisoner GUILTY.—A conviction of the prisoner in October 1849 was proved, when he was imprisoned for six months; and a conviction at Penzance in October 1848, when he was imprisoned for two months.—The Judge, in passing sentence, said it is clear that you have gone on for a considerable time in a course of crime from one felony to another, and in those transactions you have come to have others to assist you, and to co-operate with you in carrying on your depredations with considerable skill and industry. You have fixed for yourself a term of fifteen years’ transportation. I shall pass on you in some degree less than that; but as to your notion that you would be transported to Australia, I think it ought to be known, both by you and others, that a long term of transportation will probably not lead to removal to Australia, but that the sentence will be carried out in another place, where it will probably be a very severe penalty. A severe penalty is due to you, and I order to be Transported beyond the Seas for Fourteen Years. WILLIAM JENKYNS, 35, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 4th of March, at the parish of , a quantity of sheet lead, the property of the Cornish Copper Company. He also pleaded GUILTY to having been convicted of two former felonies. The JUDGE said the prisoner had suffered twelve months’ imprisonment for former felonies. He had been taken into employ by the Copper Company, and had thus an opportunity of becoming acquainted with their premises. They had lost a large quantity of lead; the prisoner was detected in the act of ripping lead from the roof; and he should not be doing justice if he did not pass on him the sentence, that he be Transported beyond the seas for seven years. WILLIAM BEARD, 35, was charged with stealing at St. Mewan, on the 22nd of January, seven fowls belonging to John Johns. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. He was then tried for stealing four fowls from Walter Pound, of the parish of St. Michael Carhayes. Verdict, GUILTY. The JUDGE said, the prisoner’s evident practice was to get work for a short time at places, and then to rob the premises. He was aware of the character the prisoner had in the prison. It was fortunate for him he was acquitted of the first charge; if he had been found guilty, he would not be suffered to remain in this country. He should pass on him now the full penalty of Two years’ hard labour. WILLIAM HENRY REED, 16, and JAMES EASON, 18, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, at the parish of Budock, a metal tea-pot, pewter half-pint, brown over-coat, metal coffee-pot, tea-spoons, single-barrelled gun, castor-stand, and other articles, the property of Uleya Cock, widow. William Henry Reed also pleaded guilty of a former conviction.—The JUDGE said, you stand guilty of this felony after a long imprisonment for a former felony. I order you to be Transported beyond the Seas for Seven Years. With respect to you, Eason, there is no proof of a former crime, but you have joined with a guilty man, and I order you to be Imprisoned and kept to hard labour for Nine Calendar Months. ELIZABETH BISHOP, 16, and THOMASINE DOWER, 16, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 28th of January, at the parish of Falmouth, a silver tea-spoon, jug, piece of pork, basin, and other articles, the property of Robert Phillips. Bishop also pleaded GUILTY of stealing a shell box and some crochet work, the property of Sarah Ryan, of the parish of Falmouth. Dower likewise pleaded GUILTY of stealing four books from Jacob Lory, of Falmouth parish.—The learned JUDGE said the prisoners had confessed themselves guilty each of two felonies, but from the depositions it did not appear to him that they had become hardened in crime. He should pass on them a comparatively short sentence, in the hope that they would reflect on their conduct, and see that crime if persisted in must lead to misery.—Sentence, each Six Months’ Hard Labour. JANE LUCAS, 52, was found GUILTY of stealing, at Truro, on the 12th February, six pounds weight of pork, four pounds of lard, and a cloth, the property of Edward Michell. Prosecutor attends the Truro market as a pork dealer, and the meat was stolen from his cart. Verdict, GUILTY.—One month’s hard labour. MANSLAUGHTER.—EDWARD MARSHALL, 38, was indicted for the manslaughter of Samuel Woodrough. He was also charged with the same offence under the Coroner’s inquisition.—Mr. Bevan prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. Mr. BEVAN said the deceased, Samuel Woodrough, kept the tap of the Crown and Anchor Inn at Falmouth, which was much resorted to by sailors. About ten o’clock on Thursday night the 23rd of December, Woodrough was in the tap, and a woman called Elizabeth Downing who acted as his housekeeper, was also there. The prisoner, Marshall, who was a seaman belonging to a war-steamer then in the harbour, came into the room, and then the occurrence took place which led to the death of Woodrough. After stating the facts, he called Elizabeth Downing, who said that about half-past ten on the night of the 23rd of December, the prisoner, Edward Marshall, came into the tap of the Crown and Anchor Inn; he seemed to be rather in liquor. He asked witness to give him five shillings in pledge for a monkey jacket. She told him they did not do business in that way there. He then asked for a glass of beer, which she refused, and said he did not want it. Mr. Woodrough asked what he meant, and I told him he had better go out of the tap. Woodrough was a man of between 50 and 60 years of age. Marshall went out into the passage, and said he should not go any further. He said, if you won’t draw for me, you shall draw for nobody else. After that some person called for a glass of brandy. I went to serve it, and Marshall then knocked me back with his hand; I fell down, and the brandy went into the fire. Woodrough then jumped out and took hold of Marshall by collar, and said, “what do you mean by this?” He then laid hold of Woodrough, and threw him down across the passage on the flat of his back; he then went back a step, and jumped upon his side. He swore and said, “I will serve you out now.” I went and helped Mr. Woodrough up, and put him into the bar. Marshall went out, but stopped in the passage. I told him he had better go, for Mr. Gutheridge would be there shortly. He said he did not care for either Gutheridge or Julyan. Gutheridge afterwards came, and Marshall then went out. I took Mr. Woodrough in and gave him tea, and took him to bed in a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes, and at two o’clock in the morning I had to call the doctor for him. He only lived a fortnight and three days after that; he had pain which never ceased until a few minutes before his death. There were two strangers in the tap-room when the prisoner jumped at deceased, but who they were I do not know. By the prisoner—Did not Woodrough catch me by the beard, and try to shove me out. Witness—No. Prisoner then said there was a statement by George Marshall which he wished to put in as evidence. Mr. BEVAN replied that he was about to call George Marshall as a witness; he was then called on his recognizances, but was not forthcoming.—The Judge said he was asked by the prisoner to read Marshall’s deposition as evidence to the jury, but there was no legal ground for his doing that. Mr. John Williams, surgeon of Falmouth, then deposed that he was called between two and three o’clock on the morning of the 24th of December, to attend deceased. He found him in bed, suffering from pain in the abdomen; he told witness he had been thrown down and jumped upon. He examined him, and found that the pains increased on pressure, and also on motion; he appeared to be suffering very acutely. I found a rupture of long standing, but the pain was not where the rupture was; it was more acute on the right side than any other part. I could not see any mark of any consequence, any appearance of a bruise or contusion.—By the JUDGE—After the death of Woodrough, you had a post mortem examination? Witness—Yes. JUDGE—And did the appearances you then saw account for the pain you saw he suffered in his life-time? Witness—Completely, my lord. The witness then described the appearances on post mortem examination. Mr. BEVAN—Will you state what in your opinion caused death? Witness—External violence; the appearances I saw were quite sufficient to cause death, and did cause death.—James Gutheridge, a constable of Falmouth, said there was no disturbance in the tap when he entered it on the night in question. The prisoner was in liquor when he saw him. By the JUDGE—Woodrough was standing up when I saw him; I had no notion from his appearance that a fatal hurt had been done to him.—Mr. Williams, re-called by the JUDGE: — I wish to ask you, if a man had jumped with his heels upon the abdomen, would that have left in your judgment an external mark of a bruise. Witness.—That would depend upon the clothing he had on, which would perhaps prevent such a mark. The JUDGE.—You say you saw him? Witness.—I saw him undressed in bed; he did not get up afterwards, but died on the 8th of January. JUDGE.—Could you judge from the injury internally, whether there was a gradual process of inflammation from a slight injury, or what would probably be a fatal harm at the beginning? Witness.— He continued in the same way as I saw him at first for some days, and then he gradually got worse and worse; he was a tall thin man. JUDGE.—There was nothing in his constitution to make a slight injury into a fatal matter? Witness.—Not to my knowledge. The JUDGE—It was a very grave injury from the beginning? Witness—From the beginning in my opinion.—The prisoner was then called on for his defence, and said he was drunk at the time; he came ashore with his shipmates, and had been in the house all the evening from six to half-past six.—The learned JUDGE then summed up the case, stating that the prisoner was charged with the felony of manslaughter, which was a crime that might vary from a shade bordering on murder to that which was almost a venial act. No doubt the act of the prisoner in jumping on the deceased was an unlawful act. Then was that the cause of death? They had heard the surgeon, who stated that he complained of pain, pasticularly (sic) in the right side, which continued till he died, and then on opening the body there was in that region those appearances which would be expected by a man of science from such an injury as the woman had described, if a very grave harm had been done to the man in his right side, where the vessels had become so disordered and inflamed as to have produced death. There was no defence given by the prisoner but that he was drunk; and they would say from the evidence whether he was guilty of the charge against him.—The jury, in a minute or two, returned a verdict of GUILTY. The JUDGE said, Edward Marshall, you stand convicted of a felony of a most serious description, and imputing to you a very great guilt; but inasmuch as there was a witness examined before the magistrates who ought to have been here today, and whose evidence you wanted and could not receive, I feel it my duty to make some further inquiries that I may ascertain the facts upon which the sentence is to be settled. Stand down, therefore, now for the present. JOHN GILL, 30, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 2nd of Febuary (sic), three pairs of shoes, from a shop at Lewanick (sic), the property of Richard Evans. He also pleaded GUILTY of stealing at Northhill, on the 23d of December, a pair of shoes belonging to Frederick Ashley Thomas, from a wash-house on the premises occupied by Frederick Williams, surgeon. He likewise pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 2nd of February, a leather strap and buckle, from Richard Lashbrook, of Lewannack (sic). Second counts charged him with receiving the articles, knowing them to have been stolen. Sentence, Twelve Months’ Hard Labour. JOHN HENRY VINCENT was charged with stealing, on the 21st of January, at St. Ewe, a cart-whip from his master Richard Kerkin. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his ignorance; they considered he took it without knowing the consequences, and without concealment.—The JUDGE said it would be dangerous for servants to think that if they had wages owing they might take their master’s property for it; but he agreed with the recommendation of the jury, and should pass but a nominal sentence.—One day’s imprisonment. JAMES DEACON, 40, was found Guilty of stealing, at , on the 9th of January, a goose, the property of Benjamin Snell. Prisoner had already been in prison ten weeks, and the Judge sentenced him to One week’s hard labour.—In this case, in reference to the depositions, the learned JUDGE said it was an extremely important duty that magistrates’ clerks should return the depositions to the officer of the Judge on the commission day, as by that means alone do they become legal evidence. He hoped he should not again have to remark on this matter. JOHN BAILEY, 19, and GEORGE HARRIS, 25, were charged with stealing a mallard and six ducks, from Edward Pengelley, of . Bailey said he did the deed, and Harris was innocent. Bailey was found Guilty, and sentenced to Four month’s hard labour; Harris was acquitted. ELIZABETH STACEY, 21, was found Guilty of stealing a shawl, the property of James Yelland, of St. Austell.—One month’s hard labour. FRANCIS SODDY was indicted for having, on the 1st of August last, at the parish of Uny , feloniously assaulted and ravished Mary Ann Martin. The accused having been admitted to bail, was three times called in Court, and not answering, the JUDGE ordered the recognizance of himself and his bail to be forfeited. (We understand that he is gone to Australia). JOEL NICHOLLS, 17, pleaded guilty of stealing a pair of shoes at , on the 5th of January, from Elizabeth Gill.—One fortnight’s hard labour. THOMAS STEPHENS, 29, pleaded guilty of stealing two gallinas and a hen fowl, on the 13th of February, the property of Mr. John Vivian, of Pencalenick, in St. Clement. There was a former conviction, to which the prisoner also pleaded guilty.—Twelve months’ hard labour. WILLIAM CHENOWETH, 29, pleaded guilty of stealing, on the 22nd of August, a cloth coat and silver Watch, from the dwelling-house of Thomas Kellow, of St. Cleer. Prisoner also confessed to three former convictions, and said he appealed to the mercy of the court. The JUDGE said—Your’s (sic) is an offence of some aggravation. I have listened to what you say about your intention to reform; but after so many convictions and crime of such magnitude has been established against you, I must do my duty for the sake of example. I order you to be transported beyond the seas for ten years. DIGORY ROWE, 27, was found guilty of stealing a goose from John Robins, of . The prisoner having been in gaol several weeks, was sentenced to ten days’ imprisonment. The Court then rose. ______NISI PRIUS COURT. At 10 o’clock on Monday morning, Mr. Justice Crompton took his seat in the Nisi Prius Court. The following was the Cause List presented:—

CAUSE LIST. Plaintiff's Atty. Plaintiffs. Defendants. Defendant's Atty. Simmons & Cock Q.B. Sampson & another v. Wyld Pike Same Q.B. Blencowe v. Herring Gregory and Co. Meigh and Coode and Co. Q.B. Meredith v. others Brown Grylls and Hill Q.B. Richard v. Bickford Rodd, Darke, and Chapel Cornish Grylls and Hill Q.B. John v. Bickford Rodd, Darke, and Chapel Cornish Grylls and Hill Q.B. Carah v. Bickford Rodd, Darke, and Cornish Rodd, Darke, and Cornish Q.B. The Queen on the Pro- secution of The West Cornwall Railway Co. v. Richards Grylls and Hill Rodd, Darke, and Cornish Q.B. The Queen, on the Pro- secution of George Bow— ness Carr & Williams & others v. another Grylls and Hill

SAMPSON AND OTHERS V. WYLD.—Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Karslake for plaintiffs; Mr. Collier for defendant.—Mr. Karslake having opened the pleadings, Mr. M. SMITH stated that this was an action brought by Messrs. Sampson and , gunpowder-manufacturers, of Kennal-Vale, to recover a sum of 95l. for gunpowder supplied to mine. The defendant was the celebrated Map-seller in London, and formerly representative of Bodmin in Parliament. He was a shareholder in Wheal Jane mine, which was started in 1843 or ’44, in 256 shares, of which Mr. Wyld held 16 shares from the commencement of the mine to its cessation in 1848. The gunpowder in question was supplied in the end of 1847 and the beginning of 1848.The mine was conducted on the Cost-book system, and the books were partly kept in London, where the meetings of adventurers were held; and the orders of supplies were given by clerks residing on the spot. The case for the plaintiffs would rest on the proof that would be given of the supplies of gunpowder, and that Mr. Wyld was an adventurer. When Mr. Wyld was applied to, he did not deny his liability, but objected to being compelled to pay more than his proportionate share with other adventurers; but the jury would hear from his lordship, that if a man held but one share in a mine, he was liable for the whole of its debts.—The witnesses examined in support of the claim were, James Gundry the younger, of , and clerk at the mine in 1847 and 1848, and John Richards, also clerk at the mine in those years.—Mr. Wyld’s signatures in the Cost-book being admitted by his counsel to be in his handwriting, Mr. M. SMITH read from the book produced (but which Mr. Collier objected to being called the cost-book) resolutions and minutes of proceedings signed by Mr. Wyld, and many other adventurers. The dates of these ranged from January to September 1846; the 28th September 1846 being the last date under which Mr. Wyld’s signature appeared. The resolutions showed that the mine was in debt, and was still going on at the date of Mr. Wyld’s last signature.—The witness Richards stated that he believed there are still arrears of costs in the mine.—It was further shown that at the commencement of the book put in, under date of the 27th February, 1845, there was a list of shareholders, in which Mr. Wyld’s name appeared as the holder of 16-256th shares; and also that there was no entry of any transfer of those shares from Mr. Wyld. At the end of the plaintiffs’ case, Mr. COLLIER submitted that there was no case to go to the jury upon, as there was no proof that the goods said to have been supplied to the mine were ordered, either by Mr. Wyld, or by any agent duly appointed and authorized by him to give such orders. There was no evidence that Mr. Wyld was a shareholder, inasmuch as the proof of that allegation must appear from the Cost-book, which had not been produced, and there was no proof that the book produced had been copied from the cost-book. And, even assuming him to be a shareholder, there was no proof of authority given by him for the ordering of these goods.—The learned JUDGE decided that the case must go to the jury.—Mr. COLLIER then addressed the jury.—The learned JUDGE summed up in favour of the plaintiff's case; and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff 95l. BLENCOWE v. HERRING.—Mr. Montague Smith appeared for plaintiff; the defendant did not appear, either personally, or by counsel.—The action was one of ejectment.—The JUDGE, addressing the jury, said:—Under the rules made by authority of an Act of Parliament, in an action of ejectment, if the defendant does not appear, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the land in question. Formerly there was some mysterious proceeding under “John Doe and Richard Roe,” which procedure the legislature has thought proper to sweep away altogether. There is now a new course of procedure; and if, on an action of ejectment, the defendant does not appear to resist the claim made against him, the jury have to find a verdict for the plaintiff. There was the same result in effect, under the former state of the law.—The jury, by direction of the court, returned a verdict for plaintiff, damages one shilling. MEREDITH v. MEIGH AND OTHERS.—Mr. Butt and Mr. Montague Smith for plaintiff; Mr. Slade, Mr. Smirke, and Mr. Maynard for defendants.—In this case the plaintiff was John Henry Meredith, as representative of the late Mr. Treffry; the defendants were Messrs. Meigh, son, and Pankhurst, manufacturers of earthenware, residing at Hanley in Staffordshire. The declaration stated that the defendants were indebted to plaintiff for goods bargained and sold, and for goods sold and delivered. The defendants pleaded they were never indebted.—Mr. M. Smith having opened the pleadings, Mr. BUTT, stating the case to the jury, said the action was brought to recover the sum of £82 16s. for a cargo of china-stone. In the first place, he might mention that Mr. Close was a Commission Agent, acting for the plaintiffs in Staffordshire; and that there was also an agent of the plaintiff, Mr. Geach, residing at Par in this County. Early in April 1850, Mr. Close, the Staffordshire agent, received an order from defendants for from 80 to 100 tons of China Stone at 18s. per ton on board. It was desired that the order should be executed as quickly as possible. Mr. Close saw the defendants and made that arrangement in Staffordshire; and there was also direction given by the defendants that an insurance should be effected in Cornwall on the cargo of stone: the defendants also directed that the stone should be consigned to Messrs. The Anderton Carrying Company at Liverpool. On the 12th of April, Mr. Close wrote to Mr. Geach informing him of the directions he had received from the defendants, and giving him orders to forward the stone. On the 17th of April, Mr. Geach wrote to Mr. Close, stating that the stone would be shipped on the 18th, but that he could not effect an insurance at Par, and advised him thus early of that fact, in order that the defendants might effect an insurance of the cargo if they thought fit. On the 19th, Mr. Close, having received that letter from Mr. Geach, informed the defendants, that an insurance could not effected in Cornwall, and that they, the defendants, must insure if they wished to save themselves from any risk. On the 19th of April the cargo was shipped by Mr. Geach at Par, on board the Marietta, for the port of Liverpool, consigned, according to the defendants’ instructions, to the Anderton Carrying Company. On the 22nd of April, another agent of the plaintiff (Mr. Greenwood) residing at St. Austell, sent to the defendants an invoice of the stone, as follows:—“St. Austell, 22nd April 1850.—I am directed by the representatives of the late Mr. J.T. Treffry, to inform you of their having shipped to your order a cargo of 92 tons of China Stone, at 7s. per ton freight, consigned to Messrs. the Anderton Carrying Company at Liverpool. On the 23rd of April, Mr. Greenwood sent a bill of lading to the Anderton Carrying Company, according to the defendants’ directions, with a letter enclosing it; Mr. Gummow having received the bill of lading from Mr. Geach at Par.—Thus things continued; no complaint being made by the defendants, either to Mr. Meredith or his agents, until May, when information was obtained that the ship, on her passage to Liverpool, had been run down and lost; and then, the defendants being called on to pay, the objection was made that the cargo had not been insured.—Mr. Butt incidentally remarked that the case was not one in which a contract had been signed by the parties; and formerly, it would have been held under such circumstances, that there could be no acceptance of a cargo unless the vendee had an opportunity of seeing the goods, and, if he thought fit, objecting to either their quantity or quality. But that was no longer law; and, in the present case, the evidence of acceptance would be for the jury, and, he (Mr. Butt) submitted that the circumstances he had named would afford abundant evidence that there had been an acceptance of the cargo, and consequently, that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict of 82l. 16s., the price of the cargo.—In support of the plaintiff’s case, the following witnesses were examined:—Mr. John Theophilus Close, of Hamley (sic), Staffordshire, commission agent for the sale of china-stone and clay; Mr. Thomas D.R. Geach, now a merchant at Penzance, but in 1850, an agent of Mr. Meredith’s, at Par; and Mr. James Gummow, of St. Austell. Mr. SLADE objected that there was no proof of acceptance of goods by the defendants to submit to the jury.—Mr. BUTT argued his position that the facts of the case proved an acceptance of the goods by the defendants, and cited the cases Morton v. Tippett, and Bushell v. Wheeler.—Mr. M. SMITH followed on the same side—Mr. SLADE replied, citing Farina v. Horne, 16, Meesun and Welsby. The learned JUDGE observed that the case must, in any event, go before a higher Court, for decision on the point of law involved; and, after some consultation between his lordship and the counsel, it was arranged that the plaintiff should be nonsuited, with leave to move to enter a verdict for plaintiff for 82l. 16s., if it should be ruled that there is any evidence of acceptance to go to the jury. RICHARD CHAPPLE v. BICKFORD.—Mr. Slade and Mr. Kingdon for plaintiff; Mr. Rowe, and Mr. Karslake for defendant. In this case, Richard Chapple, constable, of Helston, was plaintiff; and John Solomon Bickford, of Tuckingmill, defendant.—Mr. Kingdon having opened the pleadings, Mr. SLADE proceeded to state the case to the jury. The plaintiff, he said, Mr. Richard Chapple, had felt himself compelled to complain that the defendant, John Solomon Bickford, had most unjustifiably assaulted and imprisoned him. Mr. Richard Chapple had been for 20 years constable of the hundred of Kirrier, and since the passing of the County Court Act, he had also been bailiff of the Helston County Court. The defendant was a man of some eminence in the western part of the County, and was a gentleman of some considerable fortune and station. The assault and imprisonment complained of arose out of the knocking up of a mine called Copper Bottom, in . That mine ceasing to be productive, as mines would sometimes do even in the most palmy days of mining, it was decided that all its machinery and materials should be sold by auction, and a committee was appointed, consisting of three gentlemen— Mr. Bidwell, Mr. Rule, and Mr. Bickford, all interested in the mine—to manage the disposal of the property and to wind up the accounts. Mr. Bidwell lived in Exeter; Mr. Rule and Mr. Bickford in Cornwall. All the property was disposed of, with the exception of the engine, for which there was some difficulty in finding a purchaser. At the auction there was a bidding for it, to the amount of 1050l.—Mr. Bidwell being also interested in another mine, called mine, it was suggested that the Copper Bottom engine would do very well for Trevenen mine, and Mr. Bidwell said he would consult his co-adventurers in Trevenen about it. Then it was agreed that the first person, who ever he might be, that should offer 1100l. for the engine, should have it; and Mr. Bidwell returned to Exeter, with the understanding that unless 1100l. should be offered, neither of the three members of the committee was at liberty to sell the engine without the assent of the other two. But Mr. Bidwell, shortly afterwards, received a letter from Mr. Rule, dated Dec. 15th, 1852, enclosing one from Mr. Bickford, dated Dec. 14th, 1852. Those letters were as follow:— RULE TO BIDWELL. 25, North Parade, Penzance, Dec. 15, 1852. My dear Sir, By the inclosed letter from Mr. Bickford, which I have just received, you will see that he has sold the Copper Bottom Engine; and, under all circumstances, I cannot but approve it. I could have wished that we had received your reply as to it being suitable for Trevenen; but, looking to the fact that notwithstanding the many parties who had seen and examined the engine, the highest and only offer we had until now was but 900l., seeing that we were incurring considerable expense in watching and cleaning the machine, and the extreme uncertainty and perhaps improbability of your requiring it, I cannot but think that Bickford has adopted a prudent course. I take the earliest opportunity of informing you of what has occurred, in the hope that it may meet your approbation; and remain, My dear Sir, Yours truly, JOHN RULE ______BICKFORD TO RULE. , Dec. 14, 1852. Dear Sir, Captain Noel has called again to-day, and after some dallying has offered 1000l. for the engine at Copper Bottom. I have thought it unadvisable to refuse it. I write this now that you may at once write to Mr. Bidwell on the subject, so that your letter may reach him if possible before he replies to your letter of yesterday. All this, of course, subject to your better judgment.—The terms offered, and which I have thought it inexpedient to refuse, are, one half (500l.) at 4 months, and 500l. at 8 months. I am, &c., &c., J.S. BICKFORD. There was, then, a proposition that Mr. Bidwell should assent to the sale of the engine for 1000l., though 1050l. had been refused at the public sale, and they had agreed that it should be sold to the first person who should offer 1100l. Now, Mr. Bidwell had received an offer of 1100l., and had accepted it, before he had this information of Mr. Bickford’s sale; and on the 18th December, Mr. Bidwell writes to Mr. Bickford thus:— Exeter, Dec. 19, 1852. Dear Sir, I write this in bed, to which I have been confined for ten days, and where I have just got your letter to Mr. Rule in one from him about the engine, saying you both proposed to accept an offer of 1000l. for it, but which I cannot give my sanction to, for, in consequence of your restricting me to £1100, I have refused £1050, and given till Wednesday next the price of £1100, unless previously sold by my colleagues at that sum, so that I am bound by the conditions stated, and cannot confirm any sale at a less price that £1100, which I thought was the limit fixed, or I should certainly not have refused the offer for £1050, as I did. My offer of £1050 was positive, and so was my refusal, in the belief that you would not accept less. I may get a reply to my offer for £1100 before Wednesday, and will write immediately. I am very vexed at this contretemps, as placing you and all of us in a very provoking position. I am, &c., &c., JOSEPH G. BIDWELL On the 21st of December, Mr. Bidwell writes to Mr. Bickford:— Exeter, Dec. 21, 1852. Dear Sir,—I had the pleasure of writing to you on Saturday; and to-day I have got the acceptance of my offer of the Copper Bottom Mine with the materials, doors, bricks, &c., to be taken away and paid for forthwith; allowing a discount of 2½ per cent. for cash, or in bills, one-half at 3, and the other at 6 months. I did not expect the answer till to-morrow; but the return of the Chairman of the Committee to- day enabled a meeting to take place, and my offer to be accepted within the time which I had given. I am still confined at home, but the contract has been sent to sign, which I have done, and Capt. Martyn will apply for possession on behalf of the Trevenen Adventurers. JOSEPH G. BIDWELL. To this, Messrs. Bickford and Rule reply:— Camborne, Dec. 20, 1852. Dear Sir,—Your letter of the 18th instant addressed to Mr. Bickford, has been duly received. We are sorry that you disapproved the sale of Copper Bottom engine, for a sale it is which cannot be annulled. Although we waited more than two months, with a constantly accumulating cost, we would gladly have waited longer; but as the party refused to give any time, and further, as we had about the time of the sale refused two offers, which we afterwards had reason to regret, and as of the several parties who had lately examined the engine, none of them would give above £900, we thought we were quite right in accepting the £1000, and think so still. We hope on reconsideration, and after the above explanation, you will not disapprove of what we have done. We remain. &c., &c. J. RULE and J.S. BICKFORD. ______Mr. Bidwell, on the 23rd Dec. writes to Mr. Rule:— Dear Sir, It is a very unpleasant affair for us all, and I am sadly vexed that, in discharge of my duty as Trustee for the Exeter and London adventurers, I am compelled to protest against any sale for less than 1000l., the only limit given ourselves as committee and upon which I acted. There can be no doubt Mr. Bickford acted as he thought for the best, but I rather wonder a gentleman of so much experience of the caution needed in acting for public bodies should have committed himself definitively without previous reference to his colleagues. If the party is willing now to amend this offer and give the 1100l., I think I should give him the chance; but if not, I must enter my protest against the sale, and refer the matter to the General Managing Committee. But previously to doing so, I should be glad to be favoured with any observations or suggestions of yours, and waiting which I am, my dear Sir, Yours truly, JOSEPH G. BIDWELL. ______On the 23rd of December, Mr. Bickford writes to Mr. Bidwell:— Dear Sir, Tuckingmill, Dec. 23rd, 1852. I received your letter of the 21st this morning. Before you receive this, you will have received a letter from Mr. Rule and myself, showing the impossibility of receding from the engagement we have made. The letter that Mr. Rule sent to you from Penzance was positive. The engine was in that letter said to be sold. I have received communication to-day from Capt. M. Martyn, in which he states that he is authorized by you to take possession of the engine for the Trevenen mine. How you can justify such an authority after the receipt of the letters above referred to, I am at a loss to know. The inclosure of a copy of a resolution passed at some committee meeting is quite incomprehensible. It is dated Nov. 22nd; your letter was written Dec. 21st, and says this meeting was held on the same day. A plurality of errors, neither the day nor the month being correct. I hope you will see the propriety of approving what, to the best of our judgment we have done, as I conceive, for the benefit of all concerned. I am, &c., &c., J.S. BICKFORD. ______To this Mr. Bidwell replies:— J.S. Bickford, Esq. Exeter, Dec. 26th, 1852. Dear Sir,—I hasten to reply to your favour by this post, that you may disabuse your mind of the error of dates which you allude to, and which I suppose to be two-fold. You will remember my letter was written from a sick room, to which I have some time been confined, and suppose had forgotten dates; indeed, on reflection you would see that I could not have written on the 21st an answer to the letter from Camborne subsequently received; I suppose my letter should have been dated the 23rd inst., but at all events it was a palpable clerical error; and so also it is evident must have been the date of the paper, which was sent to me, and which I enclosed; and I confess such captious comments upon obvious clerical errors do not impress my mind with the idea that you are quite satisfied at having taken upon yourself to sell at £100 less than the price fixed, and without previous reference to your colleagues. You, Mr. Rule, and myself are the committee appointed by the adventurers to wind up the affairs of the mine, but we must act collectively, not individually, nor even by a majority, and I protest against one member of the committee or any two of them selling at a less price than had been fixed and acted upon. My desire is anything but to raise difficulties; but I cannot consent to a sale to which I am no party, and for which there was no authority, and made too while I was under treaty for the sum to which the Committee had limited themselves, and having previously refused a higher offer by fifty pounds than you accepted. I repeat my conviction that you acted for the best, but somewhat inconsiderately; yet as I have no wish to make myself the arbiter in the case, while I cannot sanction a loss to the adventurers, of £100, it is my intention to send the whole correspondence to the General Committee and act as they may advise. Being still confined at home, and unable to refer to the office for papers and dates, I beg excuse for any seeming inaccuracies arising from want of reference, and without which my memory may not be relied upon. I wish you to understand, that although your letter is not courteous, I entertain no other feeling than that you have acted for the best and with perfect integrity of purpose, which however may at the same time be quite consistent with error of judgment. JOSEPH G. BIDWELL Mr. Bickford had stated, (the learned Counsel observed) that he had received a communication from Capt. M. Martyn that he was authorized by Mr. Bidwell to take possession of the engine; and on the 27th of December Messrs. Grylls and Hill, solicitors, wrote to Mr. Bickford.— Helston, 27th Dec., 1852. Dear Sir. Acting on the instructions of Mr. Bidwell and in part performance of the contract entered into by Capt. Michael Martyn with the Committee appointed for sale of Copper Bottom Engine, we beg to inform you that Capt. Martyn has taken possession of the engine, and is prepared to pay the purchase money as agreed. It seems the engine has not been cleaned for some time, and the Committee ought to make some little allowance for the neglect. We are, &c. &c., GRYLLS and HILL J.S. Bickford, Esq., Tuckingmill.

To that letter, Messrs. Grylls and Hill received the following reply:— Camborne, 28th December, 1852. Dear Sirs, We are duly favored with your letter of the 26th inst., (Sunday last) referring to an alleged contract entered into by Capt. Michael Martyn with the Committee appointed for selling the Copper Bottom Engine. The undersigned, being two of the three persons composing the said committee, not having by themselves nor any delegated authority been a party to any such alleged contract, presume that some misapprehension exists in the matter. We are, &c., &c, JOHN RULE. J.C. BICKFORD. On the 25th of December, Capt. Martyn, accompanied by Messrs. Grylls and Hill’s clerk, Mr. Mills, put the plaintiff and his brother John Chapple, in possession of the engine; as far as possession was capable of being taken. The engine being in a house which was locked, he put those parties in the Account- house; but in the Account-house there was already some person for the land-owner, who told the parties put in by Captain Martyn, that they must move out. They did so; and remained out until the 29th December, on which day Captain Martyn went again with Mr. Mills, and found there a man called Ching whom they asked to give them the key of the engine-house. Ching said he would not. Captain Martyn, determined as peaceably as possible to exercise his rights, produced his authority from Mr. Bidwell and read it to Ching; he then sent for the constable of the parish, John Carah; and the party then consisted of Mr. Mills, Capt. Martyn, Mr. Richard Chapple the plaintiff, John Chapple his brother, and Carah. They ask Ching for the key; which he declines to give up. They then ask him what was the best way of getting into the house so as to do the least injury; and Ching suggests that the front door should be broken open. Accordingly the front door was broken open under the authority of Mr. Bidwell to Capt. Martyn. A new lock was put on the door, and Capt. Martyn removed some brasses from the engine, as an act of ownership. Capt. Martyn then left with Mr. Mills, leaving the plaintiff, his brother, and Carah in possession. Ching disappeared; and about 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon, there came Mr. Bickford, with a little invading army (laughter) of 20 or 30 men in an omnibus and with plenty of provisions. They demanded possession, which he refused, unless authority from Capt. Martyn were shown him. With his overwhelming force, Mr. Bickford took possession of the house, took every one in it prisoners and charged them with stealing the brasses. They stated that Capt. Martyn had taken the brasses as an act of ownership; gave their names and residences; and demanded to be taken before a magistrate if they had done any thing wrong. Mr. Bickford however, ordered his constable to take them away; and they were taken away to Camborne, where they were put in custody of a constable and policeman at Matthews’ Inn, and kept there that night, and until the next morning, when they were obliged to send to Messrs. Grylls and Hill to come and assist them.—Mr. Slade gave a humorous account of Mr. Bickford’s expressions and threats towards his captives at Camborne. He admitted that the captives were allowed provisions during the time they were in custody; stating that the prisoners and their guards ate and drank together. He then observed that, after all this treatment, they were never taken before a magistrate, although the plaintiff frequently demanded that that should be done. During the morning Mr. Pendarves drove up to the door of the Inn, and had a private conversation with Mr. Darke the solicitor for Mr. Bickford’s party; and some hours afterwards, the plaintiff and the other men who had been kept in custody, were allowed to depart—after having been kept, for a space of 20 hours, in unlawful custody by Mr. Bickford and those whom he employed. Mr. Slade, in conclusion, addressed some observations to the jury, on the subject of damages; and proceeded to call witnesses. Mr. Bidwell, and Mr. Mills underwent long examinations and cross-examinations; and the absence of Capt. Martyn, of course an important witness, was accounted for by proof of his being very ill. At about ½ past 5 o’clock, the remainder of the case was adjourned; and the Court rose.

CROWN COURT. TUESDAY, MARCH 22. (Before Mr. JUSTICE ERLE.) TOBIAS DALLY, 32 and WILLIAM DUNN, 26, severally pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 4th of March, at Saint Cleer, two ganders, one duck, and one drake, the property of Francis Crapp.—Sentences:—Six calendar months hard labour, each.—In sentencing these prisoners, the learned Judge remarked that it was impossible for any one to have witnessed the trials at these assizes and not to feel that the time must shortly come when a fearful example must be made for the repression of this class of offences. JOHN GILL, 30, who pleaded guilty yesterday to three several charges of felony, was this morning indicted for stealing two augurs, the property of Thomas Moore, at Calstock, on the 4th of February. In a second count he was charged with feloniously receiving. After the examination of one witness, the prosecutor was called but did not appear; nor could he be found by the constable and other persons sent in search for him. It was stated that he was very infirm, and the court waited a long time for him. At length, the learned Judge said to the Jury that he did not feel justified in wasting more of the public time, and, in the absence of the prosecutor, the prisoner must be acquitted—The jury accordingly returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.—It appeared that, besides this case, and the three charges to which the prisoner had pleaded guilty, there were four other indictments against him for felony. JOHN BRAY, 23, and JOSEPH BRAY, 22, charged with having, on the 27th February, violently assaulted Josiah Stephen Bailey, on the Queen's highway, in the parish of Kea, and feloniously stolen, from the person of the said Josiah Stephen Bailey, a pocket-book and a knife, his property. Mr. Rogers conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stock the defence.—The prosecutor and prisoners were tributers at Wheal Jane in Kea. About half-past 3 in the afternoon of Saturday the 27th of November, prosecutor saw one of the prisoners at the door of the William the 4th, and was asked by him to drink, but did not. Prosecutor had been drinking at that inn; and went shortly afterwards to the Dolphin and there saw a friend called Samuel Bailey, and drank with him. About 9 or 10 o’clock, Josiah Bailey and Samuel Bailey walked away to go home at . Going up Kenwyn-street, they were overtaken by John Bray, who said to prosecutor, "Josiah, have you any thing against me?" The answer was "no." John Bray then asked a similar question of Samuel Bailey, and received a similar answer. Josiah and Samuel Bailey then talked privately together, and John Bray came up and said "You are talking Welch"; and struck prosecutor down by a blow in the face with the hand. Josiah took out, and opened, a knife in self-defence; and in a few minutes he received a blow on his left eye, and was seized by the arm, and presently saw Joseph Bray, who, he believed, seized his arm. While both John and Joseph were on him, they forcibly wrenched the knife out of his hand; prosecutor believed it was Joseph who did this, Samuel Bailey had gone back to seek for help. Josiah Bailey was immediately knocked down, and, whilst on the ground, received a kick which fractured his nose. At this time, Joseph Bray was saying that prosecutor was trying to murder his brother. When prosecutor came to his senses, he found that he had lost his pocket book from his left breast pocket. He was afterwards assisted home to his lodgings at Farm near Baldhu, and a surgeon, Mr. Moyle, was sent for; and the prosecutor was obliged to keep his bed till the Monday morning following.—The prosecutor stated that though he had been drinking beer and rum to day he was not tipsey; and similar testimony was given by his friend Samuel Bailey. The prisoners also had been drinking, and Samuel Bailey stated his belief that they were in liquor at the time. The prosecutor stated that at the time in question he had as much as £85 about him.—Samuel Bailey, who corroborated the evidence of prosecutor, stated that when Josiah Bailey took out the knife, he said to the Brays, "if either of you attempt to strike us, I will put this knife into your body." Afterwards, Joseph Bray seized the knife out of Josiah Bailey's hand and said "Now, I have the knife"—Mr. Moyle, surgeon, of , who was sent for to visit Josiah Bailey at midnight of Saturday the 27th November, described the nature of the injuries he had received, but said his insensibility might have arisen from drinking spirits, or from beating, he could not say which. Mr. Moyle gave the prisoner a good character for honesty.—William Joseph Nash, superintendent of police at Truro, apprehended the prisoners at their home in Hugus, in Kea, and found the pocket book and knife in a box in their bed-room.—At the close of the case for the prosecution, the learned JUDGE expressed his opinion to the jury that the charge of robbery for which alone the prisoners were indicted, could not be sustained; but it was for the jury to say if they would hear the defence.—The Jury, however, at once returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY, for both prisoners. The prisoners were then discharged; the learned JUDGE stating that they left the Court without any imputation on their honesty; as for the assault, he thought that the 44 days imprisonment they had suffered was sufficient punishment. The learned Judge commended the conduct of Joseph Bray, in snatching the knife from the prosecutor, and said he thought the prosecutor ought to feel indebted to him for so doing. JANE INGRAM, an elderly woman, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 13th of January, at Bodmin, a gallon of potatoes, the property of Thomas Richards.—Three months' hard labour. JULIUS CARMECKIES, 41, pleaded GUILTY, after former conviction, of stealing a shawl, the property of Patience Riddle, at Redruth.—Six months' hard labour. WILLIAM WATERS, 13, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 14th of March, at Truro, from the person of Grace Osborne, five shillings and one sixpence, the property of her husband, William Osborne.—The circumstances of this robbery were stated in last week's Cornwall Gazette—Mr. Nash, Inspector of Police, addressing the Judge, said he had been directed by the Borough Magistrates of Truro to state, that this young prisoner had been in custody at Truro before for picking pockets—Sentence, 6 months' hard labour, and to be twice whipped. CHARLES WILLIAMS, 11, charged with having, on the 10th of February, at Tideford, in the parish of St. Germans, feloniously stabbed and cut John Riddalls, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Bevan conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—John Riddalls, the prosecutor, said: — I live at Tideford, and on the 10th of February was at a supper given by Mr. Rosevear to the lime carriers, in a room over a coal cellar. Charles Williams was there, and came forth to me and asked me to whistle a tune for him to dance to. I told him I could not, but asked a young chap, called Richard Helling, to whistle. While Williams was dancing Helling said it was like a pig dancing; and I said “Yes, it is.” Williams said that a pig could dance as well as a Prussian. He then challenged me to fight. I told him I would not. He then struck me three times with his fist. I still refused to fight, and we shook hands and made it up. This happened about nine o’clock. About half-past eleven or twelve o’clock, I went out to go home, and Williams was outside the door. A young man, a chimney sweep, called John Golsworthy, was in the room crying, saying that some one had stabbed him in the thigh. Mrs. Rosevear told the chimney- sweeper he had better go home but the chimney-sweeper said he would not. I said to Williams, "if Mrs. Rosevear wishes the man go to home, it is her place to do so. Williams said to me "do you take it up?" I said "no, I don't take it up." Williams then said, if I would come down to the bottom of the stairs, he would fight me. We were then standing at the head of the stairs. I said I was no fighting character, and should not fight. He then struck me with his fist, and I struck him with my fist and knocked him down over the steps. I went down after him, and as I stood over him, he struck me over the left hip with his right hand. As he got up, I knocked him down again; and I felt blood running down my leg into my shoe. When I had first come down stairs, I had told him to get up, and he put his right hand around my knee, as I thought to get up; but he did not rise. A young man called Richard Helling came down the stairs, and asked me what was the matter. I said "I don't know, but I am bleeding a stream." He told me to go up stairs to Mrs. Rosevear, and Mrs. Rosevear told me I had better go to a doctor. A doctor was not within call, and I walked home, a short distance, with a young chap each side of me. The doctor came and dressed my wounds, and I was kept in bed 11 days. I had been friendly with Williams, and never had a quarrel with him. I believe he was in liquor.—John Lord Clarke, surgeon at Tideford, stated that on examination of the prosecutor on the night in question he found a wound on his left hip, and another on the outside of the leg. They were both stab-wounds, and apparently made with a knife. The wound on the hip was three quarters inch deep, and rather more than a half inch wide. The wound was not in itself dangerous or serious. I think the prosecutor was sober; I attended him for three weeks.—A man servant of Mr. Rosewarne’s proved the finding of a knife (which he produced) in the room where the dance and supper took place, on the following morning; it was a clasp pocket-knife, and was proved to have belonged to the prisoner and to have been in his possession on the 10th of February.—The jury acquitted the prisoner of the charge of felony—stabbing with intent to do grievous bodily harm; and found him guilty of misdemeanour, for unlawfully stabbing.—Sentence, Twelve months hard labour. JOHN KITT, 20, charged with having, some time in February or the beginning of March, stolen about 126 yards of clothes line, the property of Mrs. Grace , of Haye, in the parish of Callington.—GUILTY. —Six weeks hard labour. WILLIAM SANDOE, 20, charged with having, on the 13th of February, at the parish of St. Clement, stolen a cock fowl, the property of John Vivian, Esq., of Pencalenick.—The case was proved by the evidence of John Bolitho, butler to Mr. Vivian; Charles Gummow, a lad in Mr. Vivian’s employ; William Hodge, who lives in Clement-street, in the same house with his sister and with prisoner; and William Nash, Police Inspector.—The jury found a verdict of GUILTY, and the learned Judged passed sentence of nine months hard labour; stating that something must be done to check the system by which it seemed that the dishonest people of Cornwall appeared to deal with the poultry of honest people, as if they were their own property.—The witness Hodge applied to the Court for protection, stating that yesterday outside the Court he was warned that he had better not go back to Truro, because there were parties there who would put him to death for giving evidence against the prisoner.—In answer to the Judge, Mr. Nash, the Police Inspector, stated that the person who had given Hodge this caution, he had no doubt from his character, had done so from a proper motive.—The JUDGE directed the Inspector to take precautions for Hodge’s protection.—Hodge thanked his lordship. JAMES CLARK, 32, and THOMAS JERVISS, 23, were charged with the misdemeanour of having, on the 29th of January, at Penryn, unlawfully obtained from Charles Dawe, the sum of two shillings, by falsely pretending that they had won the said sum of two shillings from the said Charles Dawe, by playing cards.—There were two other counts, charging a like misdemeanour with respect to two other parties.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended, but showed some considerable ingenuity in their cross-examination of witnesses.—Mr. Cole, stating the case to the jury, said that on the 29th January, some persons were drinking at the Three Tuns Inn, in Penryn; the prisoner Jerviss being drinking in the same room with them. In the course of the evening, the other prisoner Clark came in with a basket of nuts which he offered for sale; but no one being disposed to buy, he produced some cards, with which he induced persons to play for nuts; the players invariably winning a penny worth of nuts for every halfpenny ventured. As soon as all the nuts were gone, Clark challenged different persons to play for a shilling, but no one seemed much disposed to do so. At last Jerviss, who was sitting in a corner of the room said "I will play you for a shilling;" and he did so; the first shilling Jerviss played for he lost, and then he played again and won one or two shillings. But several other persons who were induced to play, never won while playing for money, although they had invariably won at nuts. The game was this:—Three cards were produced by Clark, and the person playing staked a shilling on pointing out the highest card of the three. It was alleged that when Jerviss played and pointed out the highest card, he was allowed by Clark to touch and draw the card; but that when any other person played, and fixed on a card which, from observed marks, the spectators were positive was the highest of the three, Clark would hastily shuffle up the cards, declaring that the player had lost, or if there was any dispute, he would shuffle again. It would be shown that the two prisoners had been travelling about the neighbourhood together, and that they had been seen together in the street, shortly before the transactions in the Three Tuns. Further, it would be proved that, on a constable being sent for by the parties at the Inn, the prisoner Jerviss made off, taking up one of the cards and breaking it in pieces.—The case was proved by the evidence of the prosecutor, and two other men who played the same evening, named Webster and Gillard; and Henry Edwards, constable of Penryn. Verdict, both GUILTY.—Sentence, Three months’ hard labour. THOMAS JERVISS, was then indicted on a charge of assaulting the constable, Henry Edwards, in the execution of his duty. The alleged assault arose on the occasion of Edwards’s apprehension for the offence charged in the preceding case; and was of a very violent character.—The prisoner was found GUILTY, and was sentenced to Three Months’ hard labour, in addition to his sentence on the preceding conviction of fraud. THOMAS DAVIES, 32, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 31st of January, at the parish of St. Thomas the Apostle, a heifer, the property of Matthew Thomas.—Eight Months’ hard labour. GEORGE LINES, 19, pleaded GUILTY of having, on the 22nd of January, at , feloniously stolen a quantity of wool, the property of Peter Vosper.—Three Months’ hard labour. WILLIAM BARRETT, 13, charged with stealing on the 17th of January, at St. Teath, a knife, the property of Edward James Reynolds; and a pair of shoes, the property of James Tonkin. The prisoner, at the time of the robbery, had been recently discharged from employ at Tregandar-? mine, in St. Teath; and the articles stolen were the property of working miners, and were taken from the changing house. It appeared that the boy went to the changing-house to get his own clothes, and there took Tonkin’s shoes and wore away, and left his own which were less valuable. The prisoner asserted that, it being dark at the time, he had made the exchange in mistake. Concerning the knife, no evidence was offered.— Verdict.—Not Guilty. ROBERT OPIE, 28, charged with having, on the 17th of December, stolen from the house of Elias Hosking, in the parish of St. Ive, 1l. 16s. 4½d. the property of George Elliott.—The prosecutor was a mason working in December at St. Ive, and on the night of the 16th, he slept at the house of Elias Hosking, in the same room with prisoner, who was employed with him as a mason. On the prosecutor’s waking the next morning about half-past six, he found that the prisoner had left the room, and that all the money, £1 16s. 4½d., which prosecutor had had the previous night in his trowsers pocket was gone. George Martin, a carpenter, about 7 o’clock on the morning of the 17th of December saw the prisoner running in a direction away from his work. He said he was only going “just down here.” He never returned to his work afterwards; and he had given notice of leaving his lodgings.—He was shortly afterwards apprehended by the prosecutor and a constable, but no money was found on him, nor has the money been found since.—Verdict, GUILTY. Three Months’ hard labour. WILLIAM ANEAR, 25, charged with stealing, in the month of August last, from the dwelling house of Benjamin Lukey, miner, in the parish of Menheniot, a pair of boots and a cloth cap, the property of the said Benjamin Lukey, in whose house the prisoner had lodged.—Verdict, GUILTY.—Three Weeks hard labour. MARY PROUT, an elderly woman, charged with having, at some time between the 8th and 12th of February, at Stratton, stolen a piece of timber, the property of the Rev. John Thynne, commonly called Lord John Thynne.—Mr. Karslake conducted the prosecution; Mr. Kingdon the defence.—It appeared that at the time in question, a carpenter, Robert Cory, was employed, in accordance with instructions from Lord John Thynne’s steward, in pulling down a cottage at Hill Head, in Stratton; and some 40 pieces of the old timber, which had been laid in a garden adjoining the public highway, were found in the prisoner’s dwelling, adjoining the old cottage; of which pieces two were clearly identified as having formed part of the cottage, while the other pieces were stated to be of the same appearance and character. In addition to other evidence, there was a statement by the prisoner to the apprehending policeman, that she took the timber, and that Prout (her husband) knew nothing of it.—GUILTY—One week hard labour. ELIZABETH SMITH, was indicted for stealing a piece of wood, the property of John Thynne, clerk, commonly called Lord John Thynne; in a second court, she was charged with feloniously receiving. Much of the evidence was similar to that in the preceding case. The Jury returned a verdict of GUILTY.—One week hard labour. JOHN WOODLEY was indicted on a charge precisely similar to the two preceding cases. In this case, the prisoner was a mason, and had been in the habit of working for Lord John Thynne for many years; he was also a tenant of his lordship, and in February last, lived near the pulled down cottage.—GUILTY.— Two months hard labour. JAMES ROBINS, 38, charged with stealing, on the 22nd of January, at Bodmin, a pair of trowsers, the property of Richard Henwood, osler at the Talbot Inn.—GUILTY.—Four days imprisonment. (The prisoner had been seven weeks in prison.) MARY CROWLEY, 59, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 1st of February, a ploughshare, the property of Robert Trebilcock, of St. Columb Major.—Ten days hard labour. The Court then rose. A WARNING TO CONSTABLES.—On returning a number of bills this afternoon, the Foreman of the Grand Jury, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart., addressing the Judge, said he was desired by the Grand Jury to say that in the case of Biddick, the constable had been offering money to the prosecutor to compromise a felony. (It appears by the calendar, that Thomas Biddick is on bail on a charge of rape at the parish of ). The learned JUDGE said: Your suggestion is extremely important. I will take care to attend to it. If we can find that it is a fit case to bring to public trial, I am perfectly satisfied it will be very salutary to do so, as a penal example. Sir Colman Rashleigh then reported that there were no more bills before the Grand Jury. A HINT TO MAGISTRATES.—The JUDGE: Will you allow me to mention to you, gentleman (sic), most of you magistrates, that it has been brought under my notice that a man charged with a felony, for which if he had been convicted he would have been probably transported for life, or nearly thereto—and from the depositions I believe he would have been found guilty—I find that that man was admitted to bail, and that his family or he has paid down the £100, and he is gone to Australia. My discretion in the performance of my duty, with respect to bailing persons charged with felony, is no guide for you, unless you choose to adopt it. But the rule I uniformly act upon when a man, charged before me with felony, applies for bail, is, that I examine the depositions carefully; and if I think that conviction is probable, and that, from the nature of the crime, it would lead to a sentence of Transportation, I invariably refuse to admit to bail. For, public justice ought not to be defeated by enabling a man so charged to escape from punishment by payment of what to him might be a very small sum. It seems to me that a similar discretion might properly have been exercised in this case, where, by the payment of £100, a man probably escaped Transportation. After these observations, I beg to state that you are discharged; and I beg to thank you on the part of the country, for the services you have so effectually performed. (We understand the case referred to by the learned Judge was that of Francis Soddy, held to bail on a charge of having, on the 1st of August, at the parish of Uny Lelant, violently and feloniously made an assault on Mary Ann Martin, and then and there violently and against her will feloniously did ravish and carnally know. ______TUESDAY, MARCH 22. (Before Mr. Justice Crompton.) CHAPEL v. BICKFORD.—The examination of witnesses in this case was continued this morning. The plaintiff, Richard Chapel, was the first called, who was examined and cross-examined at great length. His brother, John Chapel, and John Carah, a constable of Crowan, (both plaintiffs in separate actions entered against the defendant) were also called as witnesses. On Cross-examination by Mr. ROWE, the plaintiff denied that there was any agreement between him and Mr. Hill, his solicitor, that the action was to be conducted at his (Mr. Hill’s) expense; he said he had gone to Mr. Hill just as he would to any other solicitor to conduct the case for false imprisonment.—The witness Carah gave evidence to the same effect that Mr. Hill had not applied to him to bring the action. (Mr. Bidwell had also said, in his examination on the previous day, that he was not responsible in any way for these actions against defendant.) A letter of the 27th of December, from Messrs. Grylls and Hill to Mr. Bickford; and a letter of the 28th December, from Mr. Rule and Mr. Bickford to Messrs. Grylls and Hill, were then put in as evidence. (These letters have already been given in the opening statement by Mr. Slade). The evidence given in the case was extended to so great a length, that even an outline of it would occupy more space than we can afford. After the witnesses had been examined, Mr. CARPENTER ROWE addressed the jury for the defendant. He said that in the whole course of his experience he had seldom heard a more frivolous and unworthy case presented to a jury. It was nothing more than an attorney’s action for costs; if the plaintiff had anything to complain of, the action might have been settled by arbitration, or brought in an easy and cheap manner for redress in the county court. The exaggeration that had been used in the case he said was ridiculous, and was with the view of adding to the damages, if any were given. There had been a great parade of law and the obedience that was due to law, but those observations came with a singularly ill grace from parties who had themselves commenced by being trespassers. With regard to the engine, he believed it would be found that there had not been a valid sale by either one party or the other, but it was important to refer to the correspondence to see which party was the aggressor in the matter. It appeared that three of the adventurers were appointed a committee for winding up the affairs of the mine, Mr. Bidwell, of Exeter, and Mr. Rule and Mr. Bickford, of the neighbourhood of Camborne. The gentleman who lived in Exeter, not being conversant with the practical working of the thing, it was reasonably enough left with Mr. Bickford and Mr. Rule, who proceeded to advertise the materials, and auctions were held, and about £2,000 worth sold without the slightest interference of Mr. Bidwell. The latter, however, having had some conversation with Mr. Rule, went away under the impression, whether rightly or wrongly, that the engine was to be sold for 1,100l. He got back to Exeter, perhaps on the 29th or 30th of November, and proposed to Wheal Trevenen adventurers to take it. There was in the meanwhile the expense of watching and cleaning the engine, and looking after the premises; and the two practical men in Cornwall, not hearing of any proposition from the Trevenen adventurers, and believing they had a legal right to sell, made an absolute sale of the engine, and on the 14th of December, wrote to inform Mr. Bidwell of that sale. The latter afterwards wrote to his colleagues on the 21st of December, of the sale of the engine by him to Trevenen mine, and this he did, though he stated in one of his letters that the committee must act collectively and not individually. Mr. Bidwell must have known that his sale was invalid, yet he and those in connexion with him instruct Messrs. Grylls and Hill, and they, though as lawyers, they must have known that the Trevenen sale was illegal, from its having been made by only one of the committee, yet they put in motion the parties who go to take possession of the engine. It was also evident that Chapel, the plaintiff, must have known that it was a disputed question as to the engine, when he went to the mine. There was no evidence that the sett had been surrendered at that time; Captain Craze was in occupation of the counting-house, and when the parties were refused the key of the engine-house, he (Mr. Rowe) contended that they were after that trespassers on the sett. They went there on the 25th of December; on the 28th, Mr. Rule and Mr. Bickford gave notice to Messrs. Grylls and Hill that they did not recognise the sale to Trevenen adventurers, and yet on the 29th the outrage was committed of breaking into the premises. Those people had no right to do what they did; they were not there to execute a civil or criminal process, and as to the authority of Captain Martyn had received from Mr. Bidwell, it was merely waste paper. Chapel the plaintiff was the man who got the pick to break open the door of the engine-house, and thus the first act of violence in these proceedings was done by his party; in defiance of law, of Justice, and of remonstrance, they got possession of that engine-house. It was now time for Mr. Bickford and Mr. Rule to look after the property. It was said in opening the case that they took 20 men with them, whereas the constable’s evidence was that they were about 12. Exaggeration was used in various ways, and as to what Mr. Bidwell said to his prisoners at Camborne, it was ridiculous for Richard Chapel to affect to believe that there was a literal meaning to be attached to those words, which were only used in a jocose manner. It only, however, showed that everything was done to augment damages if possible. There was no violence used on the part of defendant; the plaintiff said he had a blow when he was “bundled,” as he termed it, out of the engine house by defendant’s party; but that blow was not given by Mr. Bickford, because he saw him afterwards at the bottom of the engine-house steps. Then as to the question of false imprisonment, should the jury be of opinion, on the third issue, that Mr. Bickford had done more than the law absolutely justified him in doing, he should put it to them that under the extraordinary circumstances surrounding him at the time, and under the impressions he was then acting upon, the smallest possible coin of the realm would be sufficient for the damages sustained by the plaintiff. Mr. Bickford had reason to believe that the parties would not be very tractable in being got rid of. The evidence was, that after they were ejected from the engine-house, defendant ordered them to be taken before a magistrate for being in the engine-house and taking the brasses. He (Mr. Rowe) did not say that the taking them into custody was a justifiable act, but it was clear that they were not charged with felony, and plaintiff therefore had received no injury to his feelings or moral dignity. He was not searched, no handcuffs were put on him, and he suffered no duresse (sic), but was even permitted to walk off the premises of the inn at Camborne, when they were taken there. The learned Counsel then quoted from the evidence to show that the plaintiff and the other men were treated with the greatest kindness by Mr. Bickford, when they were detained in the inn at Camborne; that they had also refreshments at on their way to Camborne; and that it was a mere formal imprisonment, attended with good eating and drinking. He would ask then, what possible injury the plaintiff could have sustained, either to his person, or to his moral feelings. If Mr. Bickford was mistaken in the course he had pursued, he was very venially wrong, and the slightest compensation would be sufficient, if the jury thought the plaintiff was entitled to any compensation. The learned JUDGE then summed up the case, and said he would first call attention to the questions raised by the pleading. Defendant first pleads that he is not guilty, but if they believed the evidence there was no reason to suppose but that some kind of force had been used towards the plaintiff. Next defendant says that he was in possession of a certain engine-house, which plaintiff improperly entered, and he put him out. He (the Judge) thought there was evidence which would justify their finding for the defendant on this plea. But as to the next plea, it could hardly be supported by the defendant, who states therein that he gave plaintiff in custody of the policeman, and imprisoned him, but that he did so because plaintiff was committing a breach of the peace in the sight of the policemen. These parties, however, had broken into the place before, and probably not legally so, but at all events there was no breach in the face of the policeman. It was therefore conceded by Mr. Rowe that the defendant does not justify on that part of the case, and for that false imprisonment the jury would have to assess damages. Then the only other question was, that plaintiff says defendant did more than was necessary for his purpose, in confining him in the inn at Camborne; and on this point also they would have to assess damages. Then what were the moderate and temperate damages which they would give under the circumstances? An English jury would always feel very much on the point of unlawful imprisonment, but as in other things, there were great differences in the degree of injury of that nature. In the present case there was no slur cast on the plaintiff’s character; if he had been charged with felony by the defendant, it would be a different case. There was also no real personal injury inflicted; still it must not be forgotten that the parties were for a time deprived of their personal liberty. There was some conflict of testimony as to whether they might not have gone away from the inn sooner, but he thought there was evidence that they had been deprived of their liberty for some time. Something was said about the plaintiff receiving a blow, but the case more particularly depended upon what was done after the parties were put out of the house. It certainly was not a case of personal injury, for the parties taken into custody were treated with all the comforts and enjoyments which were consistent with virtue, so that personally they were certainly not worse situated than when they were in the engine-house. The learned Judge then made some remarks on the evidence, and with regard to the correspondence that had been read, he said it had but one bearing on the case,—it showed that Mr. Bickford thought he had a right and was not acting from malice. He had, however, no right to take the parties into custody; as they were claiming to act under the authority given to Captain Martyn, there was no reason to conclude them guilty of a felony; and defendant had no right to take them into custody, for there was no evidence to show that they were committing a breach of the peace in the sight of a constable. As to the rights of the respective parties, Mr. Bidwell and Mr. Bickford, with the matter the jury had no concern in this case. It had been said that the present actions were a matter of attorney’s costs, but that was untrue; there appeared no ground for saying so. Attorneys must be employed to bring such matters into court, and it was too much to say that these were attorney’s actions, and were a serious ground of complaint. On the other hand it was a serious ground of complaint, that though people were made comfortable, they should suffer the loss of their liberty. The jury must consider the points he had mentioned, without reference to the question of rights of parties, of Mr. Bidwell or Mr. Bickford; or whether Messrs. Grylls and Hill, or Mills, had behaved rightly or not. The defendant having taken a wrong course, and taken the law into his own hands, they were to consider, as between the plaintiff and defendant, what was the real compensation that the plaintiff ought to have. The jury, after a few minutes’ consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the first, third, and fourth issues, and for the defendant on the second issue. Damages for the plaintiff, 3l.—The Jury were then sworn in the cases of John Chapel v. Bickford and Carah v. Bickford, and a similar verdict was taken by consent in those cases. Mr. SLADE for plaintiff, made application for costs, but the JUDGE declined to certify. At the same time he expressed his opinion that the case included nothing but what it might have been tried in the inferior (or county) court. CHARGE OF STEALING BRASS.—QUEEN v. RICHARDS.—The prosecution in this case was on behalf of the West Cornwall Railway Company. The charge was one of felony, and of receiving knowing to have been stolen. The case would ordinarily have been tried in the criminal court, but it had been removed into this court by certiorari. Mr. Collier appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Slade and Mr. Coleridge for the prisoner. The brass was laid in the indictment as the property of the West Cornwall Railway Company, and Mr. Collier was about to prove that it was their property, by the first witness called, Henry Vivian. But Mr. Slade and Mr. Coleridge objected, that the act of parliament must be produced, to legally prove the incorporation of the company. Mr. Collier replied that the West Cornwall Act was one of those public acts (and not a mere local or personal act,) which all the Judges were bound to take official cognizance of, just as they were bound to know of the existence of the reform act, or of the statute of frauds. After some further argument between the counsel, and the Judge being about to reserve the point, a book was brought into court and handed to the learned Judge, it being a "Collection of the public general Statutes passed in the 9th and 10th of Victoria," printed by the Queen's printer, and amongst which appeared the West Cornwall Railway Act. The learned Judge, after looking at this, overruled Mr. Slade’s objection, and the trial proceeded, evidence being entered into at great length. It appeared that on Sunday the 4th of April last, Henry Vivian, the engine-man in charge of the stationary engine at on the West Cornwall Railway, missed some brasses of the engine, which he had seen the week before. A top-block, part of a grease-cup, and other articles were missed. The engine was not at work at the time. The boiler-house had been locked, but on the Sunday morning in question, Vivian found the window open. It further appeared that on the 20th of April, prisoner, Richards, (who was a saddler at Helston, and dealt in marine stores) went to the foundry of Messrs. Harvey and Co., at , and asked the agent there, James Hambly, their prices for old metal. Hambly told him, and on the 23rd of April, he brought 294 lbs. of brass and some pewter. Hambly bought the brass, 235 lbs. at 6d. and 59 lbs. at 5½d., which was about a fair price for it; but he did not buy any pewter of Richards. Hambly weighed the brass, and through having received information, he selected some pieces and put them in a corner in the store room. He afterwards gave information to James Uren, who is a watcher for the mines in that neighbourhood and who gave information to police superintendent Armitage, of the West Cornwall Railway. On the 25th of April, Armitage and Henry Vivian went to the Foundry, and Hambly showed them the brasses, and some of the pieces were recognised by Vivian. Hambly went to Angarrack to see if the brasses would fit the engine, and on the following day he handed them over to Armitage.—Hambly, on cross-examination, said he had often bought metal of the prisoner, and had never found him other than an honest man. He had sold to witness, from the 1st of January last to the 23d of April about 1,920 lbs. weight of old metal. They dealt also with others who sold old metal; but the engine brasses sold by prisoner in this instance were not worn out brasses. They had been put into the fire and heated, and afterwards broken up. They generally bought such brasses direct from the mines, and not from country dealers. It was a practice with witness to turn the metal out in the presence of those who came to sell it; on turning the bag upside down in this instance, he saw there were engine brasses amongst the metal; the other brasses were door-fittings, knobs, sheathings, and cocks. It was only the engine-brasses which appeared to have been put in the fire.—By further evidence it was shown that Armitage went to Helston, where he saw the prisoner, and asked him where he got the brass which he sold to Messrs. Harvey on the 23rd of April. Prisoner said he was bound not to tell, and Armitage said he must then take the consequences. Richards then asked what the pieces consisted of, and what he said led to the apprehension of a man called Annear. Richards was also apprehended on the 6th of May by Rodda, a constable of Redruth. He said he could tell him where he had obtained the brass, on which Rodda cautioned him that he need not criminate himself. Prisoner then said, "my dear sir, I am not afraid of criminating myself, I can tell you where I obtained the whole of the brass." He then asked Rodda to describe the pieces, which he did, and prisoner then said he had been in an excited state, having been drunk the night before he saw the policeman, and that led him to give a wrong description of the person from whom he obtained the brass. He said if the policeman had described the brasses in the way Rodda did, he should not have said he had them of Annear. He then told Rodda he had them of two men in the neighbourhood of Camborne, one nick-named “Stag,” whose proper name was Williams, and the name of the other he could not recollect. He asked his wife the name of the big man from Camborne, calling the other (Stag) a small man; she could not recollect, and he sent for the shopman to ask him, but he was not then to be found; he also asked Richard Chapel, the constable. Next morning he said the other man’s name was Smitheram, and that he had lain waking nearly the whole night endeavouring to recollect his name. Chapel also in the morning recollected the name was Smitheram, and Richards having been kept in custody during the night, Chapel had no means of communicating with him. Afterwards when Stag Williams was apprehended and brought to Richards, he said that was not the man, but it was the young man (his son) of whom he bought the brass.—Simeon Williams (son of “Stag” Williams) was now put into the box, and said he did not sell any of the brass to the prisoner, and had not sold any within the last two years.—On cross-examination, this witness denied that he had any conversation with Mary Richards, of Breage, in Helston, on the Tuesday before Good Friday; or that he was ever in Richards’s shop with Smetheram (sic); or that he was ever there to his knowledge; but admitted that he had been in gaol eight weeks for not maintaining a bastard child.—This witness’s father “Stag Williams” was not forthcoming, because of a mine accident which had happened to him. Smitheram, it was stated, had emigrated. A witness (James Uren), stated that in April last, prisoner had the "marine store dealer" over the door of his warehouse, but that on witness asking him, he found he did not keep an account of his dealings as prescribed by act of parliament. Witnesses were then recalled to identify the brass produced as fitting to the engine, after which Mr. SLADE addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending that no jury could convict a man on such weak evidence, and that his statements from the first had been altogether consistent with his innocence. He said he should prove that the witness Simeon Williams had perjured himself to escape the imputation of being himself the thief. It was absurd to suppose that if Richards had stolen the brass, or knew it to have been stolen, that he should have gone ten miles to Hayle Foundry to sell it within a mile and a half of the Angarrack engine-house, from which it had been stolen.—After Mr. Slade's address the court rose, the trial being postponed until the next day. CROWN COURT, Wednesday, March 23. (Before Mr. Justice ERLE) CHARGE OF CHILD-MURDER.—JANE SAMPSON, 18, was arraigned on an indictment charging her with the wilful murder of her female illegitimate child, on the 2nd of February last, at the parish of . She was also indicted for the same offence on the coroner’s inquisition.—The prisoner pleaded to each indictment, “Not Guilty, sir,”— Mr. Collier and Mr. Bevan conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—Mr. COLLIER very briefly and temperately stated the leading facts of the case, as they appear more fully in the following evidence:— Joanna Rundle, examined by Mr. Bevan:—I am the wife of John Rundle, and live in the parish of Illogan in a house under the same room as the house occupied by John Sampson, father of the prisoner. About three days before Jane Sampson had child, I saw her and said, "Jane, you are surely in the family way." She made no answer, but blushed. Between 6 and 7 o’clock in the evening of Tuesday the 1st of February, William Martin came to me, and in consequence of something that had passed, I went to Mrs. Sampson’s house, and saw Jane there with her mother. Mrs. Sampson said to me: “Mrs. Rundle, I surely believe Jane is in labour;” and she asked me to stay. I went and mentioned it to my husband who said that a midwife or a doctor ought to be sent for. William Martin went for a midwife, Mary Mill, who came in about a quarter of an hour, and I and Mary Mill attended the prisoner, who had a female child at about half-past 11 the same night. It seemed to be a healthy child. After some time, I left the bed-room and went into the kitchen, where I saw the baby dressed on the midwife’s arm. I saw the baby fed with water and sugar from a spoon; it took the food like other children. I remained that night in the house, and went there again the next day about 3 o’clock in the afternoon. The child was then lying at the foot of prisoner’s bed, on a pillow, and the prisoner was in the bed. She was very ill at that time. In the night, I thought she was dying; but when I saw her the next afternoon, she was not so ill, but was crying. The child at that time was to all appearance well and healthy. I did not stay long; but in the course of the evening, prisoner’s little sister came and called me to go to the house. I went, and saw the child lying on a pillow at the foot of another bed in the same room, into which the prisoner and the child had been moved. The child was then dead. I sent for the nurse; and after she had come, I went into the bed-room where she was. I saw the nurse take up the baby and lay it on her lap, and when she untied the child’s cap, she exclaimed “Good God what is this?” and she showed me a mark on the front of the child’s throat, a little farther down than where the string of the cap would come. At the time the nurse exclaimed, she was standing by the side of the foot of the bed, and the prisoner, if she had her senses at the time, must have heard her; but I did not hear the prisoner say anything.—Cross-examined.—When I saw the child at the foot of the bed on the Wednesday afternoon, the clothes were over it. The prisoner was so ill that she was not capable of taking care of the child, and that was the reason why the child had been put at the foot of the bed. The mark on the neck was a very slight one, and no mark was seen until the cap was untied. Mary Mill:—I live at Illogan and have been in practice as a midwife more than 30 years. I went to the house of prisoner’s father, between 10 and 11 o’clock on the night of the 1st of February, and about an hour afterwards the child was born. The child was full-grown, healthy and well.—In answer to the question, whether the mother had "a good time," the witness said "very well.” I washed, dressed, and fed the child, which took its nourishment very well. I was going to give the child to its mother, but she refused it; I said, "where shall I find it?" and she said, "to the foot of the bed." The mother at that time was just as usual—like other people; I did not see any thing amiss, while I was there; she did not seem to suffer more than woman generally do under such circumstances; she had a very good time. I put the child on a pillow at the foot of the bed; the child was then healthy and well. I then left the house; and went there again between 2 and 3 o’clock the next afternoon; the child was then at the foot of the bed where I had placed it the evening before; I took the child and fed it, and it took its nourishment well. I then saw prisoner and spoke to her, and she spoke to me; but very little. I never saw her take notice of the child in any way. When I gave the child food this second time, it had on the same dress I had put on the night before, and it has also the cap on tied. When I dressed the child, I tied the cap; the string was not tied tight. The child was not offered the breast, by its mother, as is usual. After I had fed the child on the Wednesday afternoon, I went home; and about 20 minutes past I was called back again by William Martin. I went to prisoner’s room, and saw the child at the foot of another bed to which both the prisoner and the child had been removed. I took up the child; it was then dead. Prisoner was on the bed and saw me take up the child; she said "remove it from there." I said "I am going to remove it directly; I am going to wash and undress it." I had some water fetched to me; and I washed and undressed the child. As I was going to take off its frock, I observed a mark on the throat, about an inch long; it was red; it was not where the string of the cap went; it was below, nearer the chest. If a string had been tied tight, and at that place, it might have made such a mark. The string of the cap was not tight, and it was some distance above the mark; I did not untie the string of the cap. Mrs. Rundle, Mrs. Sampson, and prisoner’s sister Jemima were there at the time. The prisoner was in bed, near enough to hear what I said if she had her senses. I called Mrs. Sampson to me, and said, "who have been about this child?" she made answer and said, "is it possible the baby is killed?"; I said, "please come here, and see for yourself;" she did come and examined the child but made no remark. I washed the child, and dressed it again, and carried into the kitchen, and put it into a box. During all this time the prisoner was in the bed; I did not hear her make any remark. When I came first to attend the prisoner, there was no baby-clothes provided that I saw. I said to her "how have you not got any baby-clothes?" She said, because I have no money to buy any." She never nursed the child during any part of the time. I was there. Cross-examined. After she said she had no money to buy clothes, she said the father was going to give her some money the next week to get some. Children when born, cannot support their heads; they have no muscular power in the neck. If a child was laid on a pillow, and its head fell over, it would so remain, generally speaking. After giving birth, women, generally speaking, go on sleeping and slumbering for a long time, in a prostrate and helpless state; not a great many pay much attention to what is passing in the room. Sometimes a child has been smothered under the clothes, and the mother knew nothing about it. If a child were to fall on its face with its head down, it might easily become smothered; but I did not see it in this case.—Re-examined. I was present at the birth, and put the child under the clothes and covered it up; at that time the child did not seem a healthy child. [Editor’s Note: The following correction appeared in the next edition of the Royal Cornwall Gazette: In the trial of Jane Sampson, there was a misprint of “healthy” for “weakly” in the last line of the evidence of Mary Mill, the midwife.] Jane Sampson; I am the mother of the prisoner; she was living in the house with me at Illogan. The day before she was confined, I was told she was in the family way. She did not enjoy good health; and I went with her to Dr. Boase’s in Redruth, who said she was in the family way. From Dr. Boase’s I went to try to find the relieving officer, to see if I could have her put into the Union; I could not see him, and I came back home about 5 o’clock, with my daughter Jane. I went into my own bed with my family; and about ten o’clock I heard Jane ill. We were all in one room. She was taken very unwell, and, about half-past 11, was delivered of a child. At that time I was in the kitchen, on the same level with the bed-room; there is no upstair room. The next day I was not in the room with Jane from 8 in the morning till 4 in the afternoon; I was away to try to see the relieving officer. When I came back about 4 o’clock, I said "Jane, how are you my dear?" She said, I am very bad, mother." I said "I will change you, directly, my dear, as well as we can." She said "no matter; I know you are very tired; you go and take a cup of tea." I went to the kitchen to get a cup of tea; and her sister, Mrs. Martin, 22 years of age, carried a cup to Jane. About 5 o’clock I went again into Jane’s room, and her sister and I shifted her from one bed to another. She was very bad and had very bad pain; she had another qualm and faintness over again. She was very weak; she did not speak to me for some time. Just as she got to lay her head on the pillow, she was taken with a faint qualm. I did not see the child till after we had shifted Jane into another bed. About half an hour afterwards, I went to fit the baby. The baby never made any alarm. I did not offer the child to Jane; she was very weak and not fit to nurse the baby. I did not dress the child; I only put on a clean cloth, and placed it at the foot of the bed, and then left the room. The child did not make any alarm, and whether it was ill or not I cannot say. I then busied myself in the kitchen leaving the door between the kitchen and the bed-room swinging open. I said twice "Jane, how are you?" She said “I am something better." About 7 o’clock in the evening, my daughter Jemima took a flat-heater into Jane’s room to warm her feet. I went to my son-in-law, William Martin’s, to get a pail of water. From 5 to 7 o’clock I was about the kitchen; I cannot say if any body went into Jane’s room at that time; I never saw any body, except my little daughter Susan, who took in some water for Jane. The carrying of this water, the carrying of the flat-heater, and the finding that the child was dead, was all within 5 minutes. I had a baby, and Jane had been very diligent in making up a few things; she made a little shirt, and a cap, and a belly-band; I thought she meant them for my baby; but after her baby was born, she said there is a cap and belly-band behind the picture. I thought it was for my baby, which was about 3 months old; I did not know it was for hers. Cross-examined.—During the whole of the evening, the door between the kitchen and bed-room was swinging. I went in backwards and forwards several times, and so did my daughter Jemima. During the whole of that evening, I never heard the child cry or make any noise, and I never heard my daughter move in the bed; I think I should have heard it if she had. I think she could not have sat up. The first day she rose she could not sit. I have had 10 children, and I felt more faint and weak with the first than I did with any one afterwards. (The name of Susan Sampson being on the back of the indictment, she was placed in the witness box; but the learned Judge said, as she was of tender years (about 7 years of age) he had questioned her, and found that she was not competent to be a legal witness.—The object in presenting her to the jury was, that they might see what sort of a person it was who went into Jane’s room between 5 and 7 in the evening of the 2nd February. She it was who took in some water to her sister Jane. Jemima Martin, sister of the prisoner:—I remember my sister Jane’s being brought to bed in February last. I was in my mother’s house at the time. I knew of her being in the family way only one day before her confinement. My sister was very ill and very weak all the time. I saw the child when it was born; and also the next day before her confinement. My sister was very ill and very weak all the time. I saw the child when it was born; and also the next day about the middle of the day, when I gave it some sugar and water; the child ate but two or three tea-spoonfuls; I then carried it to the foot of the bed where I took it from. In the course of the day, I gave my sister some tea and a crust of bread. I think that was in the forenoon. She seemed to be very bad and very weak; she did not sit up in bed, but leaned on her elbow and drank the tea; but I don’t think she ate the bread. I went into the room with mother about five o’clock in the evening, and changed Jane from one bed to another. At that time I did not see the child. I went in again that evening, about 8 o’clock, by myself; my little sister was in the room. I carried in a flat-heater for sister’s feet. There was then no person in the room but Jane, and my little sister Susan, and myself. I saw the baby at the foot of the bed; I touched it and took it up; it was then dead. My sister Jane was then on the bed; I did not mention it to her, but I told my mother who was in the kitchen. When I took up the child, the little head of it fell back; it was not very cold, but was quite dead. When I mentioned it to my mother, I was standing at the foot of Jane’s bed, the door between the bed-room and kitchen being swinging. Jane did not say anything; I suppose if my mother heard me, Jane might have heard also.—Cross-examined.—My sister at that time was lying in a faint state on the bed. From the time Jane had child, she did not take notice of nobody or nothing. Henry Harris, surgeon:—I am in practice at Redruth, and recollect being sent for to go the house of John Sampson. I got there about 6 or 7 o’clock in the evening. I saw the prisoner there, and the child which was then dead. It was dressed, and I think had a cap on. I am not sure that I undressed it that evening, but I did the next day when the Jury assembled. I looked at the child in the evening when I first saw it. The child appeared to be healthy, and well-formed, and of full time. There was a mark on the neck. (Mr. Harris exhibited to the Court and Jury, on a card, a drawing of a mark about 1¼ inch long and about ¼ inch wide; and, pointing to his own neck, showed the position of the mark across the front of the neck.) The mark was discoloured and livid. I observed no other marks on the person. When I first saw the child, it was in a box or drawer on a side-table. On the following day, I examined the child again, and made a post-mortem examination. The lungs and heart were healthy, and so were the stomach, liver, and bowels; the stomach was full of meat. I laid open the throat, and found beneath the outer mark, a part reddish, and somewhat, but not very extensively, inflamed. External force or pressure would have caused such an internal appearance. It bled very freely when opened. From that examination, I thought then and think now that the child’s death was caused by pressure on the wind- pipe preventing respiration. That is my decided opinion. I think the child had a cap on when I saw it, and I believe the cap was tied. Caps are generally tied higher up and more obliquely than this mark. This mark was more transverse. There was no mark round the neck, but only on this spot in front. If the cap had been tied at this part, it would much depend on the position of the neck, and the greater prominences at one part than another, as to the mark that would be made. If the string of the child’s cap had been tied too tight, it might have produced a mark, and certainly would; but I am not prepared to say it would have made the mark at that particular place. The mark, generally, was below where the cap-string was tied. I am not prepared to say positively whether, supposing the cap-string had been tied too tight, it would have made such a mark as that I saw. I had not seen such a mark as that before, though I have made the autopsy of many children.—Cross-examined.—I am not prepared to say with certainty that the tie of the cap would have made the mark; and I am not prepared to say such a tie might not have made it; I would rather not speak with certainty on the question. The death of the child appeared to have been produced by suffocation—by the stopping of its breathing in some manner. I have known many cases of children being found dead in bed by their mothers’ sides, from accidental causes; I have known many healthy children found dead in bed from such causes, from turning on their faces and so on. This is the 20th year that I have been in practice. It is possible for a child, placed underneath the clothes of a bed, to die from the clothes pressing on its mouth and preventing its breathing; and that might happen without the mother in the same bed knowing any thing about it, if the mother were at a distance; particularly if the child were under clothes at the bottom of the bed. I can conceive that the mother might in some cases be asleep. The death of a child in such case would take place very quietly.—I saw the prisoner in bed, on the night in question; she looked very weak and languid and spoke in a very low tone. I do not know what she said, nor what I said to her; there were very few words passed, and those not at all bearing on this case. She appeared to be very feeble indeed; more so than I have ever seen even with a first child; she appeared to be in a much worse state than was ordinary.—New-born children have no muscular power to keep up their heads. I have known midwives put on strings, which they call chin-stays, but I believe they are no good; but certainly, a young child’s neck has very little power. If this child’s head had fallen over the pillow, I think it is very likely it would have remained there unless help was at hand. Children have very often a little shirt, either tied or buttoned round the neck; but I believe most frequently tied. I cannot say if that tie would make this bruise; but if one tie would make it, it is likely another tie would.—Re-examined: In some cases of death by suffocation, the effect would be very apparent in the lungs; but in some cases it would be very indistinct. The appearance is that of dark blood, from want of oxygenization. There was no such appearance in this child; and I should hardly expect to find in a child so young, any certain indication of that kind. Martin Williams, whose name was on the back of the indictment as a witness was not called. This being the whole of the case for the prosecution, the learned JUDGE, addressing the jury, said:— The matter that you are engaged in, gentlemen, is one of the greatest importance, both to the party charged and to society; and by law it must be decided by you. I do not mean to take the case out of your hands; but I may ask you, whether on the whole of the evidence for the prosecution before you, you think it is necessary to call on the learned Counsel for the prisoner to go into the defence. The charge before you is that of wilful murder. You must therefore be satisfied, in order to find a verdict of guilty, that the child came to its death by an act of unlawful violence and that the prisoner at the bar was the person who did that act. Now, on Mr. Harris’s evidence, there was a mark on the neck, and he believes and is clearly of opinion that death was caused by stoppage of the breath from pressure on the wind- pipe. But then the question still remains in some doubt, whether the tie of the cap or of the jacket the child wore, might not have done it. Mr. Harris rather inclines to the opinion that it was not very probable it was done by either of these means; but he is by no means positive that it could not have been so done. And if that matter stands in any reasonable doubt, on an inquiry of this sort of course the prisoner is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. Even supposing that the mark on the neck is not to be accounted for, either by the tie of the cap or that of the jacket, and that there must have been an act of unlawful violence by some person, it is still a question whether you can, on this evidence, come to a firm, strong, decisive, and abiding opinion that the prisoner at the bar was the person who did that act. You have heard the state of extreme debility and faintness in which she was lying on the bed. You have heard of different persons being in the room. I do not mean to say there is the slightest ground to suspect that those persons were conducing to the death; on the contrary, they seem to have acted with every motive of humanity and consideration. But still, there is the fact that several persons were in and about the room; and the state of the mother seems to have been one that would call for a great deal of proof to show that she raised herself up in bed and extended her hand to the foot of the bed where the child lay, and placed her finger on the windpipe of the child, keeping it there till the child was dead. The midwife fed the child about 3 o’clock. The prisoner’s mother went into the room about 5. Then afterwards a sister of the prisoner gave the child some food, and an iron heater and some water was taken to the prisoner, and then the child was discovered to be dead; all this within five minutes. It is not my intention to withdraw the case from you. If you wish it to go further, no time can be too much for such an inquiry. But this evidence is all that can be offered for the affirmative of the case. If you are satisfied that that evidence is not sufficient, you will find a verdict of not guilty. If you are not satisfied, we will proceed with the defence. At the request of a juror, Mr. Harris was asked the following question by the court:—Might not this mark on the neck be accounted for by assistance rendered to the child at the time of birth? Mr. Harris:—It is not at all likely. I never saw but one child before, marked about the neck; in that case there were the marks of fingernails, and it was supposed to be a case of infanticide. After a short consultation, the Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY; and the prisoner was discharged. JENEFER WEBB, 49, charged with stealing, at Liskeard, a hen fowl, the property of James Vivian, in a second court she was charged with feloniously receiving.—Verdict, GUILTY, with recommendation to mercy.—One week’s hard labour.—The prisoner had been in prison for a month. JOHN BALSOM, a blind man, aged 35, was indicted for feloniously setting fire to a quantity of straw in a house in Liskeard belonging to William Davey Boase with intent to set fire to the house.—William Savery, constable of Liskeard stated that about 3’clock in the afternoon of the 4th of December he, by order of the Mayor, took the prisoner in custody as a vagrant. He resisted very violently; but at length, the Mayor and some other persons assisting, witness succeeded in putting him in the Town Prison, and locked him in. In about half an hour afterwards, there was an alarm of fire; witness, on going to the prison, immediately found the prison full of smoke, and a quantity of straw, apparently put together in a little heap, was one mass of fire. The straw and rug bed placed for prisoner was on the left side of the prison; but witness, on entering, saw that the straw had been drawn together to the right side and there set fire to. From the density of the smoke, witness at that time could enter no further than about 3 feet, and did not then see the prisoner; but, as he was coming out he saw him standing near the right side of the doorway. He took him out and searched him, and found on him some lucifer matches. There was no other person in prison with him. Witness said to him “How did you think of setting the prison on fire? You stood a good chance of killing your own self.” His reply was “I wish I had.” Witness then put him into another cell, and asked him some further questions about it; his reply was that he did it to get a little heat, for he was cold. The cell in which he had kindled the straw had a wooden floor, which would soon have been ignited. When witness first heard the alarm of fire, he was only about 18 feet from the prison; but heard no alarm given by the prisoner.—John Best, in the employ of last witness, was, on the day in question working in his master’s shop close to the prison. After Balsom had been put in prison, witness went to the door and spoke to the prisoner, saying he would go to Bodmin. Prisoner replied that he would be out of prison in less than half an hour; and made use of very bad language. Witness went back to his work, and in a few minutes saw smoke issuing from the crevices of the prison door and through the slates of the roof. In other points, this witness’s evidence was corroborative of Mr. Savery’s. The prisoner, in defence, stated that when he was put into the prison, he was not told, nor did he know, that there was any straw there. When he was inside he thought he should like a “bit of baccy,” and having a pipe and matches he lit his pipe and threw away the match. He soon perceived smoke, and said to himself if all this smoke is from my pipe, I must stop smoking (laughter). Then some children outside began to cry out, “The blind man have set the house afire.” He knew nothing of setting the straw on fire, more than a child just born. He had a pipe, matches, and tobacco with him.—Mr. Savery recalled, stated, that when he searched the prisoner he found a pipe on him. Verdict, GUILTY.—The JUDGE in consideration of the prisoner’s having undergone a long imprisonment already, sentenced him to One Week’s hard labour. JOHN MORRIS, 25, and THOMAS TRAYS, 25, charged with stealing, on the 21st January, at Liskeard, a black silk hat, the property of John Cook, hatter. In another count, Morris was charged with feloniously receiving.—Verdict, Both Guilty.—Two previous convictions were proved against Trays.—Sentences.— Trays, Fifteen Months’ hard labour. Morris, Three Months’ hard labour. JOHN CORRY, and MARY ANN CORRY, were indicted for stealing 10 lbs. of iron, the property of Joseph Kempe and others, on the 19th of March instant, from the Trelawny mines. The prisoners were man and wife.—The Jury found both prisoners Not Guilty. GRACE PHILLIPS, 24, charged with having, on the 17th of January, entered the dwelling-house of William Cradock, at the parish of St. Clement, and stolen therefrom two loaves of bread and one seed- cake, the property of the said William Cradock, farmer.—Verdict, GUILTY.—One week hard labour. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.—JEMIMA WHALE, 22, had been committed for trial, charged with the Wilful Murder of her female infant child, at the parish of Saint Cleather. The Grand Jury, however, ignored this Bill; and she was now arraigned on a charge of unlawfully concealing the dead body of her child. Mr. Hughes conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended:—Mr. HUGHES, having stated the case to the Jury, called the following witnesses:—Mary Summers.—My husband is a yeoman living in the parish of St. Cleather. The prisoner was in September last, and had been for 13 months, in my service. On many occasions, I taxed her with being in the family way; she said it was quite soon enough for me to know yet. On the 23rd of September I again charged her with it, and then went to ; I returned at about ¼ past 9 in the evening; soon after my return I saw the prisoner—at first in the pump-house. I asked her what was the matter; she said she was bad in her side. I told her she had better go home; she said “no, I shall be better to-morrow.” Then she came into the back kitchen. From certain appearances, I accused her of having had child; I said, “Oh, Jemima, you have been out and had child, and have killed it somewhere; where have you put it? tell me, that I may bring it in.” She said, “no I have not.” I said “You have;” and I went to look for it with some other of the servants. She went up stairs after that; and Patience Clifton went up to her. After that I saw the child brought into the house, and Mr. Sargent was sent for. I never saw the prisoner working about any baby linen.—Patience Clifton:—I am a servant of the last witness, and fellow servant of the prisoner. On the 23rd of Sept. the prisoner complained of being ill in her side. In the evening, I went to milk the cows; and when I came back, prisoner was gone out. When prisoner went up stairs afterwards, I followed her; and she told me she had had child, and the child was down near the bottom of the garden in the plantation, among the fir trees:—William Homabrook:—I am a servant with Mr. Summers. On the 23rd of September, I went to the plantation, about 300 yards from the house, with 5 other men, one of whom was Daniel Palmer. In the plantation we saw some blood; and about 30 or 40 feet from that place, we found the child.—Daniel Palmer stated that the child was lying by the side of a fir tree, with a limb hanging over it; it was dead; the place under the tree was bare of weeds. It is not often that persons go to that plantation. I brought the body into the house, and Mr. Sargent was sent for.—Mr. Sargent, surgeon, stated that on the 24th September he examined the prisoner. The result of that examination was that he was satisfied she had recently had child.—The prisoner in defence, stated that she went out with the intention of going to her father’s house, she delivered herself, and then was very faint, she did not know how long; and when she came to herself the child was dead. Verdict GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER. The JUDGE, taking into consideration the length of time the prisoner had already been in prison, sentenced her to 6 months hard labour. The prisoner was greatly affected throughout the trial. [Editor’s Note: The following correction appeared in the next edition of the Royal Cornwall Gazette: In the trial of Jemima Whale, reported in our last number, the verdict was wrongly stated, “Guilty of Manslaughter; it should have been “Guilty of Misdemeanour.”] PERJURY.—JAMES MAY, 48, was indicted for having committed wilful and corrupt perjury, before the justices assembled in Petty Sessions on the 3rd of August last at Falmouth. Mr. Bevan was counsel, and Mr. Genn, attorney for the prosecution; Mr. Houldsworth was counsel, and Mr. Gilbert Hamley attorney, for the defence. Mr. BEVAN stated to the Jury, that on the 24th of July 1852 application was made to the magistrates of Falmouth, by a woman named Catherine Addison, for an order of affiliation against a man called Richard Coombes, a shoemaker residing at Falmouth. In consequence of that application, Coombes was summoned before the justices, and appeared before them on the 3rd of August last. In the course of the inquiry, Catherine Addison was examined in support of her charge that Coombes was the father of her illegitimate child; and Coombes also called witnesses in support of his denial of that charge. The nature of the statement sworn to by May, was such that we cannot give it publication. One point, however, in it was, that on the 7th of October, 1851, he was accompanied, within the borough of Falmouth, by a young man of Mylor, called Uriah Pearce. It appears, however, that, previous to the 20th of December, 1852, Uriah Pearce had been absent, from England, for 7 years, as a seaman on board H.M. ship Havannah. The witnesses for the prosecution, were: Mr. James Young, clerk to the Falmouth Borough Magistrates; Catherine Addison: Catherine Pearce, mother of Uriah Pearce; and Elizabeth Paull. Notwithstanding that Mr. Houldsworth worked strenuously for his client, the Jury found a verdict of GUILTY; and the learned JUDGE, after making some observations on the enormity of the offence of Perjury in a Court of Justice, sentenced the prisoner to Seven years Transportation. EDWARD MARSHALL, who was on Monday convicted of a manslaughter at Falmouth, now received sentence of ten months hard labour, in addition to two Calendar months imprisonment he had already suffered. ______NISI PRIUS COURT. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23. (Before Mr. Justice Crompton.) CHAPPLE v. BICKFORD.—In reference to this case, in which a verdict for £3 damages was given yesterday, the JUDGE this morning decided that he would not certify for costs, but said there was power given by the County Court Act to apply on affidavits to a Judge at Chambers respecting costs. Afterwards he said he would consider, and give an answer to the application for costs at Taunton. QUEEN v. RICHARDS.—The case (adjourned from yesterday) was proceeded with this morning by Mr. SLADE for the defence, calling witnesses to prove the prisoner's previous good character, and to contradict the evidence of Simeon Williams, given yesterday,—Richard Chapple, constable for the last thirty years, living near Mr. Richards, in -street, Helston, (where the latter is a saddler, grocer, and marine-store dealer) stated that Mr. Richards had borne as respectable a character as any man in Helston. Witness had many times seen young Williams in Richards’ shop, and in the yard; had also seen Smitheram with him in the shop.—Mary Richards, of , who is related to Smitheram, but not to prisoner, said she had seen young Williams with Smitheram hundreds of times. She saw young Williams in Helston on Tuesday before Good Friday last year (April 7th). She spoke to young Williams at that time about Smitheram having, as she had heard, stolen a pig.—John Retallick, of Helston, had known Richards about fifteen years, and always understood he bore a high character. Witness had often seen young Williams at Helston; had seen him in Richards’ shop; saw him there within a month before last Easter; he and Richards were talking together.—John Carlyon, who had served his apprenticeship with prisoner as a saddler and harness maker, said he had frequently seen young Williams in his master’s shop, sometimes with Smitheram, and sometimes with old Williams. Witness, on more than one occasion, had helped to weigh metal bought by young Williams when Smitheram was with him. Witness saw young Williams in Richards's saddlery shop on the Tuesday before Good Friday last year, and heard Richards make a remark to him about the buttons in his shirt front, asking what regiment he belonged to (This, Simeon Williams in his evidence had denied.) Witness said he heard young Williams state he had some old metal for sale, and asked when he should bring it. Richards told him he might bring it in the course of the week, and he said he would do so. It was Richards’s practice to buy brass of collectors; mines were often breaking up, and large quantities of old metal are brought by parties for sale. Witness said there was no concealment about his master’s trade; the store was in a large yard open to the street, and where farmers used to stable their horses, the weighing taking place in the yard.—William Richards, brother of prisoner, living about seven miles from Helston, had been frequently at his brother’s shop in Helston; was there on the 10th of April last, and saw young Williams and Smitheram come into the shop; they had old brass in two bags, and asked Mr. Richards to weigh it off. It was about eight o’clock in the evening; witness held the candle in the yard whilst his brother weighed the brass. Young Williams asked what price he was giving, and was told five pence per pound. (Mr. COLLIER, for prosecution, admitted that from 5d. to 5½d. per pound was a fair price.) By the JUDGE—Witness should think young Williams and Smitheram brought about 1 cwt. of metal, consisting of a great number of articles, an old kettle, and a variety of things.—Mr. Mills, clerk to Messrs. Grylls and Hill, said it was by the advice of his employers that the writ of certiorari was moved for in this case; and they had thought it prudent not to call any witnesses for the defence when the case was before the magistrates. The witness, William Richards, was present at the hearing before the magistrates. John Harry, saddler and ironmonger, and William Harris, innkeeper and brewer of Helston, who had known Richards for a great many years, both bore testimony to his good character.—Mr. COLLIER then replied on the case, in a brief but able speech, admitting that there was no reason to suppose that Richards stole the brasses, but that the matter to consider was whether he had not received them, knowing them to have been dishonestly come by. He said that Richards not having kept a book with entries of goods purchased, and of the parties who sold them, as required of marine store-dealers, had rendered himself liable to a penalty; and for not doing this he had no reason to complain if he got into trouble.—The learned JUDGE then summed up, stating that the jury need not regard the case as one of stealing, but should consider whether it was one of feloniously receiving. He then remarked at length on the evidence, and said that even if it were thought the prisoner had been blameworthy and careless in the manner of conducting his business, yet that would not be sufficient to convict him of this serious charge, but it must be considered whether he received the brass knowing it to have been stolen.—The jury deliberated about 10 minutes, and then returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. QUEEN v. RICHARDS.—This was another prosecution against the same prisoner as in the last case, and which had also been removed by certiorari from the criminal bar to this court. The indictment was for stealing brass from Consols mine, and another count charged him with receiving knowing it to have been stolen. Counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Collier and Mr. Karslake; for the defence, Mr. Slade & Mr. Coleridge. Mr. COLLIER said he should not adduce any evidence on the first count for stealing, but should confine himself to the charge for receiving with a guilty knowledge. (The witnesses on both sides were ordered out of court till called upon). It appeared from the evidence that about the end of March or beginning of April last year, Sampson Uren, an agent at Treleigh Consols, missed from the material house a valve and seat of the engine. Moses Williams, engine-man at the mine, was afterwards prosecuted and convicted, and imprisoned for stealing the valve and seat, which weighed about 25½ pounds. He was now called to give evidence, and said he sold the brass to John Annear, a marine store- dealer for 4½d. per pound, but did not tell him he had stolen it; he broke it up before he sold it, and told Annear, who asked where he got it, that he had found it in the old mine. The other witnesses in the case were John Annear; his wife Margaret Annear; James Hambly, foreman at Messrs. Harveys’ foundry at Hayle, where the brass was sold; James Uren, a mine watcher; Henry Armitage police superintendent; constable Rodda, of Redruth; and Capt. William Richards, of Redruth, the manager of Treleigh Consols, who was merely called to prove that Mr. G.B. Carr (in whose name the property was laid in the indictment), was a shareholder and one of the directors of Treleigh Consols. The witness, John Annear, stated that he purchased the brass (produced in court as the valve and seat of the engine) of Moses Williams, and that he and his wife went to Helston on Easter Tuesday last year, and sold the brass which he had bought for 4½d. per lb., to the prisoner Richards, for 5d. per lb. Then it was proved by James Hambly, foreman at Messrs. Harveys’ Foundry, at Hayle, that on the 22nd of April last year, Richards sold to him at the foundry 204 lbs. weight of brass, (as deposed at the previous trial,) and amongst that quantity was that which was now produced in Court, and identified as the valve and seat of an engine. The other witnesses deposed to incidental circumstances in the case, and particularly John Annear stated a conversation he had with Richards on Long Down, when he said Richards offered him 6d. a lb. for brass, and 7d. for copper, and said he had a market to put it, where Annear could never see it or hear of it more. This communication was also deposed to by Annear’s wife, but another conversation which Annear said he had at Helston with Richards when he sold the brass to him (about six months after he saw him on Long Down,) the wife of Annear was not questioned upon. This latter conversation deposed to by John Annear was, that when Richards was weighing the brass, he said he had been down to the Court against two “smuts” about a copper boiler, and if the constables had been about ten minutes later he should have packed it up, and sent it away, and they would have seen it no more. I said I should not like to have any trouble about this little lot I have got here; on which he said, if they should come here it would be but a folly for them, he should laugh at them as it could not be sworn to, it was so small.—This conversation Mr. SLADE, in addressing the jury for the prisoner, remarked upon as being unworthy of credit, contending that from other circumstances it was highly improbable, that it was uncorroborated, and that the defect of Annear’s memory in only a few words might make a great difference in the meaning. He said the fact that the counsel for the prosecution did not venture to ask Annear’s wife, who was present, whether she heard that conversation, spoke trumpet-tongued in regard to the little reliance that was to be placed upon it. He said the only question for the jury was, whether Mr. Richards when he purchased the brass knew that it was stolen. He gave a fair and proper price for it,—that was admitted by the prosecution; he was a man of high character, which had been deposed to by numerous witnesses; he had dealt in this way openly and without concealment; out of the large quantity of metal he had sold at the Foundry, 1,920 lbs. in three months, there had been nothing wrong, detected, and of the 294 lbs. he sold on the 23rd of April, there was only this very small quantity that was said to have been improperly obtained by some parties. There had been no shuffling in the accounts Richards gave of matters to the policeman, and altogether, the learned counsel contended, such a very serious charge was never before presented to a jury on such a weak and insufficient evidence.—The learned Counsel made a most able and impassioned speech in behalf of the prisoner, and at the conclusion of his address the jury intimated that they did not require the case to be summed up. The JUDGE said if they were not satisfied that they could rely on Annear’s evidence, they might probably make up their minds in the case.—The jury then immediately returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY, and the Court rose. NO BILLS.—The following bills were ignored by the Grand Jury; —Jemima Whale, for the murder of a female infant at the parish of St. Cleather (sic). (The Grand Jury ignored the bill for murder, but found a true bill for concealment of birth). Sarah Pearce, charged with stealing articles from E.W. Phillips, of Falmouth. John Gill, stealing a hammer from Sampson Prest, of Lewannick. Jane Hodge, stealing a fowl from William Paull. Samuel Terrill, charged with an unnatural offence. The only case left for trial on Wednesday evening was a charge of rape preferred against Thomas Biddick, the offence alleged to have been committed on Susan Brenter, on the 14th of January, at the parish of Egloshayle. This case was expected to occupy several hours of Thursday. CROWN COURT, Thursday, March 24. (Before Mr. Justice ERLE), THOMAS BIDDICK was indicted for feloniously ravishing Susan Brenter, at the parish of Egloshayle, on the 13th of January last. Mr. COLERIDGE conducted the prosecution, Mr. MOODY the defence. In opening the case, Mr. Coleridge said the prisoner was a farmer of respectable circumstances in the parish of Egloshayle, and the prosecutrix and her husband were two of his farm servants, who lived in a cottage on the farm. They were both working for the prisoner on the 13th January last. The prosecutrix was employed in the barn, and the prisoner being also there with her alone, desired her to throw together some straw; and whilst she was doing that, there was an attempt, at least, on the part of the prisoner, if not an actual completion of the offence of rape. She left the barn and went and told her husband; he came in a state of great excitement with a hook in his hand, threatening vengeance against his master, who ran out of the barn apparently greatly alarmed, and the next day dismissed them both from his service. If the jury should be of opinion that the rape was not committed, they would be enabled to find the prisoner guilty of attempting to commit that offence. He should also state that besides the two witnesses, the prosecutrix and her husband, he should lay before them the prisoner's statement when before the magistrates, and he would venture to say that it was somewhat curious (as observed by a higher authority in a case at Exeter), that the prisoner's statement, though denying that he had intercourse with the woman, yet admitted certain circumstances which were of a highly substantiating nature as regarded the statement given by the prosecutrix. There was no ground, he believed, for imputing any bad intention to the prosecutrix or her husband,—no attempt to extort money, or anything improper to be imputed to them.—He then proceeded to call the following witnesses, it being ordered that the witnesses on both sides should leave the court until called for examination. Susan Brenter:—I am the wife of Martin Brenter; he is a labouring man; we were both in the employ of Mr. Biddick, and were living in a cottage belonging to Mr. Biddick on Thursday, the 13th of January last. My business was to work in the barn; there was a thrashing machine there which I attended to sometimes. I was employed in the barn between 10 and 11 o’clock in the morning of the 13th of January; I was making reed; Mr. Biddick was in the barn making reed also. When the making of the reed was finished, he went into his own house, and I remained making binds. The barn is part of the farm- buildings close by the house. I was in the barn alone about 10 minutes; he then came back; the door was then wide open; he came in and put home the door, and fastened the top hatch and the under hatch; the door had been open all day before that. There was a good deal of straw in the barn. When he came in he took up a pike and shook back the straw, and ordered me to do likewise; I did so; that was at the further end of the barn; while I was doing that he catched me by the two shoulders and threw me down on the straw. Then I got up, and said if he didn’t let me alone I would acquaint his missus on it. He said "I insist on your throwing back the straw again;" and I did so. I threw back one pike full. Then he threw me down again; I got up again and struck him twice on the shoulder with the pike. Then he pulled up my clothes and caught me against the machine. I was coming out, but he would not let me; he catched me by my clothes and held me that I should not get out; then he threw me down on the straw by the door. (The witness proceeded to relate circumstance which the learned Judge afterwards stated legally amounted to the crime of rape). I threw him off and turned round, and he went back to the farther end of the barn. I rose up to get out of the barn, and he catched hold of my clothes again; I took up the pike when I rose from the floor, and said I would run him through with it; he had twisted the pike out of my hand before he threw me down. I said again that I would tell his missus; "he said "no, you won't;" he said too that if I acquainted his missus of it, he would say he had had to do with me before. I got away out of the barn and went to my husband who was at work on the farm about a quarter of a mile from the house; I complained to him and he came back at once to the barn, with a hook in his hand; when he came back with the hook, I found Mr. Biddick still in the barn. When my husband came to the barn, he came to the higher side, and Mr. Biddick jumped out at the door on the lower side. My master and husband quarrelled and had high words together; he struck my husband with a pike; my master’s wife come out while the quarrel was going on. We were at that time living in one of Mr. Biddick’s houses; we are not living in it now; he ordered us to leave it at that time; we left it on the second day afterwards. Cross-examined:—One door of the barn opens into the mowhay; that is about 30 paces from the house; persons in the house could not hear any screaming in the barn, nor any talking; I don’t think they could when the doors and windows were fastened; supposing the window of the house was open and the door of the barn open, persons could not hear conversation from one to the other. I observed his coming in and shutting the door that had not been shut before; I thought there was something wrong, but I did not say nothing. One door of the barn looks into the mowhay, and the other into the dung-yard by the public road; but there is a large dung-yard between the mowhay and the public road. The barn- door looking towards the road was part-ways open; perhaps if any person had been passing along the road, he might have heard a scream or call. When he came in and closed the door, he had no conversation with me; he did not ask about my husband beating me; my husband did give me one slap on the back of the head about Christmas; that was not about a dance in a barn and my husband’s hearing that I had danced there with a man; my husband never beat me before or since that time. I have had three children; one of them was born before marriage. This is the first occasion I have ever had occasion to charge any person with violence. I know a man by the name of Brabyn; I never charged him with violence before I was married; I was going along the road and he took my umbrella and bundle out of my hand; I had not seen him before, and I did not like it; I told my mother of it, and she told his friends, and they did not like it; I did not say that he had attempted to have connection with me; I did not tell Brabyn and his cousin that he had made overtures to me to take me into a field.—The first time that I was examined before the magistrates was on the Monday following the 13th of Jan. When my husband came down to the farm, he went before me with the hook in his hand. I did not hear Mr. Biddick say "I will not have people about me, one swearing false against me, and the other trying to kill me;" I will swear he did not say so at that time when I was present; he said so at Bodmin before the magistrates. When I said I would tell his missus, he laughed. The machine is within two or three yards of the door that looks towards the house; but there was a great heap of straw near the door so that I could not get out. I tried to get out at the door, but he took me hold by my clothes both times.—The witness’s deposition before the committing magistrates was put in and read. It did not contain the statements now given in evidence by her—that she struck Biddick with the pike—that he caught her clothes to prevent her getting out of the barn—and that he said, if she told his missus he would say he had had to do with her before. The witness however, now swore that she made this statement before the magistrates, and that she told them twice that she struck him with a pick.—Elizabeth James came and looked into the barn about an hour before this happened; before master went away into his house, she came to the hatch and spoke to master. I was not wishing to get away from Treglith.—Re-examined.— My husband struck me because my husband’s brother and some chaps came to the door; the door was bolted and we were going to bed; I said, "shall I leave in your brother?" and my husband said "No, they are coming to play cards with Biddick, and they shall not come in;" but I rose and let in my husband's brother, and it was for that he struck me. When I was before the magistrates, I was asked certain questions and I answered them, and it was my answers to those questions that was put down and read over to me. Brabyn is a tailor; he was a young man at the time that passed with me. I don’t know where he lives now; his cousin who came with him to me is a farmer living at Withiel. Martin Brenter:—I am husband of Susan Brenter; on the morning in question I was working on the farm about a quarter of a mile from the house; my wife came to me between 10 and 11 o’clock in the forenoon; she complained to me; I had a hook in my hand, and I went straight to the barn, to Mr. Biddick. I got to the barn before my wife, and when I came to the fore door, Mr. Biddick jumped out at the back door, over the under hatch.—(The prosecutrix, standing near the witness-box, was here taken faint, and was carried out of court; the learned Judge humanely allowing her husband to assist, and directing that a medical gentleman in court (Mr. Mudge) should go out and attend to her. After the lapse of nearly a quarter of an hour the husband returned into court, and his examination was continued:—I went round the barn over the hedge, and came down into the court where Mr. Biddick was; I said to him "What have you been doing with my woman?" He said "nothing." I said, "You're a liar, you have." Then he said to me "Get your woman." I said I would; then we came up to the dwelling- house—me and Mr. Biddick, and met my wife at the dwelling-house. My woman told before Mr. Biddick's missus, how he had used her. He said he did not ill-use her. I had the hook in my hand, but I did not use it. Mr. Biddick said he did not pretend to think that my woman told me any thing about it. We stood there about 10 minutes; and then he ordered me and my wife to leave the house we were living in; and we left it on the following Saturday.—When my wife came to me in the field, she was crying and looking very pale as if she had been hurried a good deal. I gave my wife a cuff in the head about Christmas; we had a party at the place where we lived, and I was not agreeable about it; we had words about it.—Cross-examined—I was not jealous; I did not strike her concerning any man. I may have threatened the husband with the hook, but I did not use it; a servant came out of the house and said "master, come away, for Brenter is going to kill you." He said he would not allow two people to stay in his house, one of whom wanted to kill him, and the other was swearing false against him. The next day he sent and insisted we should go out of the house, and said if we did not leave it by 10 o’clock, he would send a bailiff to take our things. We left on the Saturday. The first time we went before the magistrates was on the Saturday afternoon; on the Monday my wife was examined; and on the following Thursday, the whole thing was gone into before the magistrates. Mr. Biddick was not in custody all that time; he was summoned to appear. I know Mr. Stevens; he is a neighbour; I saw him on the same day when this affair happened.—(The Under-Sheriff entered the court and reported to the judge that the prosecutrix continued ill, and that Mr. Mudge desired she should be taken to a bed. The Judge ordered that this should be immediately attended to; and requested that the examination of the husband should completed as soon as possible, that he might go and attend to his wife). Mr. Moody to witness:—Did not Mr. Stevens say to you, it is a pity it has been carried so far as to go before the magistrates; it would have been better settled? Witness:—No; he did not say that. Mr. Moody:—Did you not say in answer to that, it would not have been carried so far if he had offered her any money? Witness: Mr. Stevens never spoke no such words.—Re-examined. Mr. Stevens is a farmer living at ; he is a friend of the prisoner, I believe. The prisoner's statement before the Committing Magistrates was then read. In it he stated that when he came back to the barn after going to the house to take some cyder, the fowls were in the barn; he told Susan (the prosecutrix) to drive them out; she did so and shut the door to keep them out. He then asked her if she and her husband had not disagreed at Christmas, and whether her husband had not beat her, and what it was for. She said, she did not know what it was for unless it was for the man having pulled her about at a dance in the barn. He said "that man never did you any harm; he only did that"—touching her on the back. She immediately went out of the barn; and in 5 or 6 minutes, he heard a screech of a female servant saying, "Master, quickly; Martin will kill you." He then jumped over the hatch; and some words afterwards took place about Martins (sic) wife and he told them to get out of his house for he was not going to keep two people, one trying to kill him and the other swearing falsely against him. Mr. MOODY then addressed the jury for the defence, and called the following witnesses: Henry Sambell, a surveyor, proved plans and measurements of the premises.—He was cross-examined with a view to show that obstacles to hearing, existed between the barn and the house. Elizabeth James:—I am a servant to Mr. Biddick. His family consists of missus and three servants and Miss Thomas, an aunt of his wife. About 10 o’clock on Thursday the 13th January master came into the kitchen to have something to eat and some cyder; and then he went again to the barn. I went to the barn-door for a maund of doust. I went from the dwelling-house to the door that was near the mowhay; the top-hatch was about half open, and the lower part, I believe, was closed. I took up the doust and put it into the maund, and then pushed open the upper half of the door and leaned over the under hatch and talked with master and the woman for nearly 5 minutes. I then left the barn, and left the door in the same state. When I got into the house again, I went to my work about the cooking dinner; in about 8 or 10 minutes, Martin came to the back door and said “Where’s master,” and swearing that he would kill him with a hook. I gave an alarm to my master; my mistress went to the mowhay door of the barn, and I went to the other door and told master to jump out; and he did. A person coming down the public road from Burlawn to Washaway, could see that door out of which Mr. Biddick jumped; but that door could not be seen from the farm road. The kitchen door was open, I believe. Missus and Miss Thomas were there, and I. A person in the kitchen can hear ordinary talking in the barn; I heard no screaming or noise that day; if there had been any screaming that day, I must have heard it.—Cross-examined.—On the morning in question, I was heating the oven and attending to it, for about three quarters of an hour between 10 and 11; the oven is in the back-kitchen, that opens at the back of the house. I know the front door was open, because I was passing to and from several times. Master has two boys and a young man in his service; I have heard them talking in the barn when I have been in the kitchen, when the barn doors were open. The doust that I picked up was outside the barn; I did not pick up anything from inside. When master came to the house I and missus were both in the back kitchen. The barn is a stout building, built of stone, and slated.—Re-examined. When they are at work in the barn, the window over the machine is open, to let out the doust. I was to work in the barn that day. Master, when he came in to have some meat and cyder, said I must make haste, for he should want me almost directly in the barn to help thrash.—By Mr. Coleridge:—I believe they had not been thrashing that morning. It was about 8 or 10 minutes after I went away from the barn with the doust, that I saw Martin come to the house. Elizabeth Thomas, (aunt of Mrs. Biddick).—I live at Mr. Biddick’s. On the Thursday morning I was in the kitchen. From the kitchen I should think we can hear people talking in the barn; but I did not hear any thing then, either talking or screaming—not to my knowledge.—Cross-examined.—I was in the front- kitchen, sitting by the fire knitting; I am sure if there had been any alarm in the barn, I should have heard it; I have heard Mr. Biddick’s men talking in the barn, when I have been in the kitchen. Stephen James, a little boy:—On the day this disturbance took place, I was at work for Mr. Biddick, at the higher side of the mowhay, topping turnips. From where I was, I could see into the barn door, and I heard people talking there, all the morning before this took place. I did not hear a bit of screaming. I saw Martin come down with a hook and a bramble in his hands, swearing that he would kill master. Cross- examined.—I was at the bottom of the field, the nighest side to the mowhay; between the mowhay and the field there is a hedge hardly so high as I; when I looked up from my work, I could see then in the barn at work making reed; the whole of the barn door was open all the morning; I looked straight into the barn; I did not see Elizabeth James go there for some dust (sic). When Martin came with the hook, I was just opposite the barn, in the field, close up by the hedge, which is about my height. They began to thrash that day between 10 and 11; Master and Elizabeth and Susan. I could see right through the barn from one door to the other opposite. I did not see Susan go out of the barn; I believe she went out before she began to thresh at 11 o’clock.—Re-examined.—It was after I saw the thrashing, that I saw Martin come down with the hook. I thought they were thrashing; but I did not go to the barn. The hedge between the mowhay and the field was not too high for me to look over as I stood on the heap of turnips. John Brabyn.—I now live at Gorran. I recollect seeing Susan Brenter two or three times before my marriage. I had on one occasion to complain of her. William Brabyn, my cousin, went with me; we saw her, and I charged her with bringing out a report that I should want to have connection with her, and that I had robbed her of her bundle. At first she said that what she had said was true—that I did try to rob her of her bundle and that I wished to have connection with her. I threatened to punish her if she persisted in saying so; and then she and her mother both began to cry and she said that what she had before said was false. It was false. I don’t recollect ever having seen her before; I did not know her, nor who she was. This was before she was married. I once overtook her on the road, and that was the occasion on which she got up that report.—Cross-examined.—I think this was about 5 years ago. I had been living for a short time about a mile from her, pursuing my trade, as a tailor; but I did not know the girl, and don’t recollect that I ever saw her till that time when I met her on the road; I did not know her name till that report about me was brought out. My walk with her might have lasted altogether about 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour; it was along the high road to Wadebridge. I overtook her and gave her the time of day; she walked on fast by my side till we came to a farm-house, where she went in. I afterwards missed my way, and went back to the farm-house for the purpose of inquiring, and a servant girl and she both went out with me; the servant girl went back before she did. Upon this second occasion when I was alone with her, the walk did not last more than two or three minutes; when I came to ascend the hill I walked faster than her and left her. I don’t recollect that any conversation took place on that second walk. It was on a Sunday that I walked with her, and I heard of her complaint against me on the next Tuesday, and on the Tuesday evening or the Wednesday morning, I went to her with my cousin. William Brabyn, cousin of last witness. I remember going with him to Susan Brenter's; he complained to her that she had said he had assaulted her, and endeavoured to take the bundle from her and to have connection with her. At first she maintained the charge; but afterwards she abandoned the charge, or the greatest part of it at least. I was constable at that time; I summoned Martin Brenter on an order of affiliation; it was not heard, for Brenter agreed to marry her (the prosecutrix). Cross-examined—It was in the summer season about 4 or 5 years ago that I went to her with my cousin. The part of the charge she abandoned was the most material part; she abandoned that he wanted to have connection with her. In fact she abandoned nearly the whole; there was one little point she wished to maintain, but it was altogether immaterial, and my cousin took no notice of it, nor did I. I cannot remember what it was that she maintained. William Stevens. I live at Burlawn, in the parish of St. Breock. I saw Brenter about the middle of January last; he had not at that time removed his goods. I am not aware if he had quitted the house or not. He was standing in the garden. I said to him "It is a pity it has been carried so far as to go before the Justices; it had been better settled;" and he said "Master never offered her any money at all, it would not have been so."—This witness also gave the prisoner a good character as a moral and peaceable man; and similar evidence of character was given by Mr. W. West, Mr. W. Menhennick, and Mr. John Grigg, farmers, and by Mr. John May, innkeeper, of Bodmin. Mr. COLERIDGE addressed the jury, ably and eloquently, in reply, and the learned JUDGE summed up; after which the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. This concluded the business of the assizes.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 8 and 15 April 1853

3. Easter Sessions

These Sessions opened at Bodmin, on Tuesday the 5th instant, at Bodmin, before the following magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman Lord Vivian. Day Perry Le Grice, Esq. Sir W. L. S. Trelawny, Bart. F. J. Hext, Esq. Sir J. Sawle Graves Sawle, Bart. H. Thompson, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. E. Stephens, Esq. Sir S. T. Spry. E. Coode, jun., Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M. P. N. Kendall, jun., Esq. W. H. Pole Carew, Esq. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. J. Gwatkin, Esq. T. G. Graham, Esq. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. D. P. Hoblyn, Esq. J. S. Enys, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. C. G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. Rev. – Glencross. W. Morshead, Esq. Rev. R. B. Kinsman. Michael Henry Williams, Esq. of Tredrea, qualified as a magistrate. Rev. Cuthbert E. Hoskins took the oaths, on presentation to the vicarage of Luxulyan; and the Rev. Samuel Andrew, for the rectory of Halwell. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. R. Sobey, Liskeard, foreman; Messrs. R. Abraham, Liskeard; W. Brendon, Liskeard; Crispin Brenton, St. Wenn; E. Brooming, Calstock; T. Crouch, St. Cleer; John Carswill, jun., Liskeard; J. Davey, Egloshayle; W. Elford, St. Cleer; J. Gilbert, ; T. Harris, Lanreath; R. Hender, St. Neot; W. Hawke, St. Tudy; T. Henwood, St. Teath; J. Hicks, St. Wenn; E. Mutton, St. Ive; J. Mason, ; James Magor, Colan; T. Moon, Liskeard; G. Pye, ; R. W. Philp, St. Teath; N. Proctor, Calstock; J. Rawe, Egloshayle. The following gentlemen also answered to their names: —Mr. W. Harris, Lanteglos; Mr. N. Stephens, St. Tudy; Mr. W. B. Sanders, Liskeard; Mr. T. Wakeham, St. Teath. The Queen’s Proclamation having been read, the Chairman delivered his [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY—not transcribed] VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The Visiting Justices, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. F. J. Hext, and Mr. Thomson, reported that the Gaol was in its usual most excellent state. [CORONERS’ BILLS.—not transcribed] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—Mr. Everest, the Governor of the Gaol, was happy to be able to report the general good conduct of the prisoners, and consequently, that few punishments had been inflicted since his last report. The Male Hospital had not been occupied for many months. Some female prisoners had been ill, and two were now remaining in hospital, but they were convalescent. The usual certificate was attached that the rules and regulations for the government of prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with; and that the buildings of the prison continued much in the same state as mentioned in his last report. The Chairman said that the Governor’s Comparative Statement of Prisoners, at the present time and this time twelve months was rather painful. At the Easter Sessions 1852, there were but two in custody for breach of the peace. Now there were 6 in custody for felony; 5 on bail for felony; 5 on bail for misdemeanours; and 2 on bail for assaults; making a total of 18, against 2 this time twelve months. [GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE PAST QUARTER—not transcribed] BRIDGES. Mr. MOORMAN, surveyor, for the Western Division reported—“That the River at the Higher Carnon Bridge has been and still is so much choked up with gravel and other deposits from the mines and Stamping Mills above the Bridge, that the surface of the water is within a few inches of the soffit of the arch, and that the road (from the great accumulation of the mud, &c.,) is upwards of two feet lower than such accumulation on each side of the road; it may therefore be necessary to raise the arches (five) of the Bridge, to the height of three feet; the expense of which would amount to about £45. COUNTY BRIDGE ROADS.—The CHAIRMAN said he had received from Sir Samuel Spry a letter, requesting him to lay before the Bench the following Resolution adopted by the Trustees of the Truro Turnpike Roads:— “Resolved:– that a representation of the bad state of the County Roads over the Six County Bridges within the limits of the Truro Turnpike Trust be made to the next General Quarter Sessions, and the Magistrates be requested to make an inquiry into the facts of such state of repairs, more especially Bridge, and that a copy of this resolution, signed by the Chairman of this Meeting, be forwarded to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions. Moved by Mr. Enys; seconded by Mr. W. M. Tweedy. (Signed) SAMUEL T. SPRY.” Mr. ENYS confirmed the statements of the bad condition of the County Bridge Roads, at Ponsanooth, Sticker, and Carnon. He also suggested the necessity of having some standard, in order to keep the Contractors up to the mark in their repairs of those roads. He thought the Contractors should be compelled to keep their roads in as good a condition as the adjoining Turnpike roads.—Mr. M. H. WILLIAMS corroborated Mr. Enys’s statements in respect of the bad condition of Ponsanooth and old Carnon Bridges; and Mr. D. P. LE GRICE did the like with regard to Bridge and Long Bridge.— With respect to Carnon Bridge, Mr. GILBERT read the following memorial from the waywardens of the Parish of Feock:— The waywardens of the parish of Feock beg to call the attention of your worships to the present state of Carnon bridge and causeway, to the improper means used by the county contractor to relieve himself, and to the injury thus caused to the public and to them. Owing to the gradual rise of Carnon valley by the deposit of sand from the Gwennap mines, the bridge over (on which was formerly the turnpike from Truro to Falmouth, now a Feock parish road) has had its waterway so much diminished that during the heavy rains of last year the full stream was unable to pass; consequently, as early as November last, the river overflowed that part of the causeway maintained by the county, and considerably interrupted the traffic. This overflow continued more or less to December, when the county contractor,—Evans, to relieve himself from the cost of further repairs, which then repeated interruptions rendered necessary, cut through the embankment of a private enclosure, and by this means diverted the chief portion of the river towards a culvert on the opposite side of the valley, more than one hundred yards from the bridges, and in the parish of Feock. One result of this great change in the course of the river has been to convert this culvert into the principal watercourse, for which, being less than four feet in diameter, it is not sufficient, and consequently to produce great inconvenience to the public, by causing the river to overflow that part of the causeway, which the parish is liable to repair, and to put the parish to considerable expense, in the endeavour to maintain the roadway. The culvert spoken of was built about 25 years since, by the turnpike trust, aided by a grant from the county, to carry off a small stream that rises on the Feock side, and the overflow from the bridge; but as the dimensions clearly prove, not to carry the whole river. Another result produced by this improper diversion of the river from its original course, is the further blocking up of the channel. So much was this the case, that when inspected on the 31st of January last, the five openings of the bridge, each seven feet wide, had only in one place eleven inches, and in the other three to four inches of height left above the sand, measuring from the lintels on which, instead of on arches, the road is built, the original height having been five feet.—Signed, JOHN MAGOR, waywarden and church warden; DANIEL , waywarden and overseers. Some conversation ensued on the necessity of taking measures to keep the contractors well up to the work in the maintenance of the County Bridge Roads in proper repair; and then, on the motion of Mr. M. H. WILLIAMS, seconded by Mr. ENYS, it was resolved that a sum not exceeding 35l. be expended on Higher Carnon Bridge, in pursuance of Mr. Moorman’s Report; that the magistrates of the adjoining districts be requested to meet the Surveyor on the spot, and that tenders for the work be afterwards issued. Mr. PEARSE, Surveyor of Bridges for the Eastern Division of the County, reported that since the last sessions, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty had returned the plans for the proposed new bridge at Looe, and signified their assent in the usual way. He subsequently advertised for Tenders for building the Bridge; several were received, and on Wednesday last he submitted them unopened to the Looe Bridge Committee.—At Wadebridge the severe weather since the last sessions had prevented that progress from being made in the work that he had hoped for, but the widening of the lower or north side of the bridge was now all but completed, and could not fail to give satisfaction.—At Rodd’s Bridges repairs had been effected to the foundation at an expense of 1l. 19s.—At Stratton Bridge a new covered drain 30 feet long had been made and the old drains cleared and improved, at a cost of 4l. 13s.—At Boyeton Bridge some slight repairs had been done to the wood work.—Reports as to the condition of the County Bridges, on the St. Blazey, St. Austell and Fal rivers had been submitted to the Committee appointed at the last Sessions to enquire into the state of those Bridges. Lord VIVIAN then read the following Report:— The Committee appointed to consider the condition of St. Blazey Bridge are of opinion, from the Report of the County Surveyors, that the County is not called upon to take any steps for raising St. Blazey Bridge, but that the overflow which has from time to time occurred, and the damages arising therefrom is a matter to be provided against by the adjacent landed proprietors and the owners of adjacent mines, clay and stream works.—The committee, having also considered the cases of Nansladron and London Apprentice Bridges on the St. Austell river, and of Cornelly Bridge on the Fal, are of the opinion that the same cause of silting exists at these different places as in the case of St. Blazey Bridge, and should in like manner be dealt with by adjacent proprietors, mine-owners &c.—In conclusion, the Committee think it highly desirable that the able Reports of the County Surveyors should be made generally known through the medium of the County Papers. (Signed) VIVIAN 5th April, 1853, Easter Sessions. [The Surveyors’ Reports referred to are too long to admit of publication in our present number. We shall give them in extenso next week.] WADEBRIDGE.—Mr. KENDALL stated that an Order in Chancery had been obtained, by which the Trustees of the Wadebridge Fund would now be able to sell the property, and raise money to pay all expenses connected with the improvement of the Bridge, and perhaps leave a small sum in the hands of the County (hear). He hoped that the sale of the property would take place in about a month, and that in a few months the alteration of the Bridge would be completed. The CHAIRMAN then read the following:— In the matter of the Bridge at Wadebridge— Whereas an Order was made by the High Court of Chancery on the 19th day of February, 1853, on the petition of Sir William Molesworth, Bart., Sir Charles Lemon, Bart., and Sir William Lewis Salisbury Trelawny, Bart., the present Trustees of the Wadebridge Trust property, whereby it was ordered that the said Trustees should cause the two houses at the east end of the Bridge at Wadebridge to be pulled down, and that they should sell or cause to be sold, the remainder of the lands, hereditaments, and premises of which the said Trust property consists, and the sum of 346l. 13s. 3d. reduced annuities, standing in their names and in the name of William Molesworth deceased, in the books of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, and that after payment of the costs, charges, and expenses by the said order directed to be paid out of the monies to arise by such sales as hereinbefore mentioned, and out of the cash in the hands of the said Trustees, they should pay the clear surplus of such monies to the Treasurer for the time being of the County of Cornwall, upon the said Treasurer and the Justices of the said County in Quarter Sessions assembled, undertaking to widen the said Bridge and to improve the approaches thereto, and to maintain and repair such Bridge and the approaches thereto for the future; it is therefore resolved, that upon the said Trustees paying to the Treasurer of the county of Cornwall the money by the aforesaid order directed to be paid to him, the said Bridge shall from thenceforth be and be considered a County Bridge, and the said bridge shall be widened so as to make the same fit and sufficient for the traffic over the same, and the approaches thereto shall be improved, and such bridge and the approaches thereto, so widened and improved shall thenceforth be maintained and kept in repair by and out of the County Rates of the said County of Cornwall, or such other fund or funds as shall for the time being be applicable to the maintenance and repair of Bridges and Roads in the said County of Cornwall. Mr. STEPHENS gave notice that at the next Sessions he will move for a sum not exceeding £60, for necessary repairs and improvements at Trewarnan Bridge and of so much of the roads adjoining as by law the County is bound to repair. The Rev. R. BULLER gave notice of an application at the next Sessions for a sum not exceeding £20, for repairing the approaches to Sowden’s Bridge in the parishes of Duloe and Pelyn. COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM.—Report of the Visitors.—The CHAIRMAN read the following:— The Visiting Committee of the County Lunatic Asylum, in making their Annual Report, beg to state that the medical treatment and the domestic superintendence of the patients, have, as on former occasions, continued to receive their approbation. The application for Colney Hatch Asylum by Mr. Tyerman (made under the sanction of the Committee) having proved successful, the election of Dr. Boisragon as his successor, has been the consequence. Amongst 45 competitors, all of high respectability, and many of great ability, the Committee felt the difficulty and responsibility of a selection; but they hope in their next Annual Report to be enabled to state that the zealous attention, ability, and conciliating manners of the present Medical Attendant will have justified their choice.—The new washing-house, Laundry &c., will, the Committee hope, be complete in about a month, and at a cost not at all exceeding the estimated sum granted by the County. The erection of this most necessary building will complete the series, making the establishment very efficient and at a comparatively moderate cost.—The Committee regret to announce that in consequence of the rise in the contract prices of provisions, they must return to their late sum of Seven Shillings per week for pauper patients, but the earliest opportunity will be taken to make any reduction that can safely be adopted.—Although the committee do not anticipate for some time any further outlay for the accommodation of patients, they think it right to call the attention of the County to the fact that the number of inmates is now 248 and that only 20 beds remain unoccupied. Fortunately the old washhouse and laundry can at a very modest expense be converted into wards for 24 patients, and thus a considerable saving will be effected.

There remained in the establishment Males Females Total on the 31st December, 1851 120 111 231 Admitted in 1852 41 49 90 Total number under care 161 160 321 Discharged recovered 17 17 34 ---- relieved 1 2 3 Died 15 18 33 Total discharged and died. 33 37 70 Remaining under care Dec. 31st 1852, 251 patients. (Signed) —NICHOLAS KENDALL, Chairman. C. RASHLEIGH. CHARLES G. PRIDEAUX BRUNE. EDWARD STEPHENS. Mr. KENDALL said the reason why the committee had raised the charge for pauper patients was that by the last contract, meat was charged to the asylum at 34s. per cwt.; now it was 47s. The average contract price for wheat had been 15s. 6d. to 15s. 8d.; now it was 20s. And, when he stated that in the asylum was consumed 850 lbs. of meat per week, and 11 bushels of wheat, they would see the reason why the committee had been obliged to raise their charges. The following letter was subsequently read by the chairman, and referred to the Asylum Committee. To the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions. Bodmin, 5th April, 1853. Sir,—I would solicit the attention of the magistrates and visitors to the state of the Asylum, especially to the duty imposed on me, not only of interring the dead, but also of providing a burying-ground out of the town, as our churchyard is already full.—This service is now become very frequent and onerous, and is not likely to be diminished with 250 patients, weak and diseased, collected together from every part of the County.—On examination of all the circumstances, some plan of relief will, I trust, be adopted. I am, Sir, your very obedient servant, JOHN WALLIS, Vicar of Bodmin. PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF THE COUNTY GAOL.—The next business on the agenda being the further consideration of the report of the Justices with reference to the gaol, presented at the last Sessions and postponed, Mr. GILBERT, the Chairman of the Gaol Committee, said he thought that before they proceeded to consider the report presented at the last Sessions, the magistrates ought to know what had previously been done with references to the same subject. At the Easter Sessions of 1848, a committee was appointed to take into consideration the state of the county gaol and house of correction, and to communicate with the Home Office on the subject. That committee met on the 22nd of April, 1848, and wrote to the Secretary of State, inquiring the probable expense of the alterations and improvements that had been suggested by the Inspector General of Prisons, who had sent a plan for a new gaol to accommodate 244 prisoners. In answer to that inquiry, Sir George Grey, the then Home Secretary, suggested that the estimate should be framed by a builder or other competent person on the spot. The committee consequently took the opinion of an experienced architect, whose estimate was upwards of £35,000; and the committee, in the immature state of the system of separate confinement, whilst the views of the Government as to the future mode of dealing with prisoners after convictions could not be said to be fully defined, and considering too the probability that the number of prisoners might not amount to so large an average as of late, and the prospect of an alteration in the law of bail, were unwilling to recommend the immediate expenditure of so large an outlay.—At the Epiphany Sessions of 1849, it was ordered that the visiting Committee of the gaol with other magistrates be appointed a committee to take into consideration the state of the county prison, to put themselves in communication with the Home Office with a view to an economical arrangement of the present gaol, and to report to the next sessions. On the 24th of January, 1849, that committee resolved “That it appears to this committee that a very considerable relief to the present want of accommodation in the gaol and bridewell at Bodmin will be afforded by a building as per plan annexed, to be erected within the present walls on the south west angle, and which would not by estimation cost more than £800 and would hold twenty-two prisoners.” That resolution was communicated to the Home Office, and in reply, Sir George Grey informed the Justices, that the proposed provision for sleeping accommodation with day room and yard attached was so objectionable, and outlay so great if it were viewed as a temporary expedient, that he was unable to sanction the plan.—On the 28th of February, the committee, having regard to a resolution adopted at their last preceding meeting (on the 14th of February), that a new ward might be erected at a cost not exceeding £5,000, and having examined the state of the gaol for some years, and again carefully weighed the necessity of some additional building, were of opinion that accommodation for forty prisoners should be built.—and that plans to that extent should be procured, and begged to report that opinion accordingly to the sessions, and to recommend that the sum of £25 should be offered for the best plan and specification of such a building, to be adapted to the requirements of the Government. The committee reported accordingly, and at the Easter Sessions, 1850, it was ordered that the sum of £5,000, for the repairs and alteration of the gaol in conformity with the resolution of the committee be granted.—But nothing more was done, and the subject was allowed to drop until the October Sessions, 1852, when the Governor and Chaplain of the gaol, in their annual reports, expressed themselves strongly on the evils resulting from want of means to separate and classify the prisoners, and to prevent association and contamination. (Those reports were published at the time in the Cornwall Gazette.) A committee consisting of the Visiting Justices of the gaol and other Magistrates, was then appointed to take into consideration the reports of the governor and chaplain of the gaol, and to report thereon at the next sessions; and as he (Mr. Gilbert) was going to London he was requested to endeavour to see some of the authorities on the subject; he did so, and had an interview with Colonel Jebb on the 10th of November, 1852. Col. Jebb very strongly urged the necessity of a gaol being provided with a number of full-sized cells, to contain all the prisoners committed for trial, but not tried, so that those not committed to hard labour should be enabled to pass in them all their time except the periods allotted for exercise. After this interview, Col. Jebb referred him to some printed prison reports on the subject, extracts from which Mr. Gilbert read, observing that what he had mentioned was all the information which he, as an individual, had obtained; and they were now called upon to consider the report of the committee, to which he had referred, as having been appointed at the Michaelmas sessions. He then read the following report:—“The Committee appointed at the last Quarter Sessions to take into consideration the reports of the Chaplain and Governor, met at the gaol on Thursday the 16th of December: present, Captain Hext, J. S. Enys, Esq., and J. D. Gilbert, Esq. The Committee having read the said reports, proceeded to inspect the gaol, and report that the gaol was originally built in the year 1778, and constructed to contain 42 prisoners, whereas at present the average number confined within its walls is 127, and occasionally the number has exceeded 200. The room required for this increased number has been obtained, partly by additional buildings occupying portions of the original airing yards, and partly by contracting the space formerly allowed for prisoners, so that each prisoner has now a smaller amount of accommodation than was formerly deemed necessary. The cells in which prisoners are confined separately during the night are only divided from each other by wooden petitions (sic), through which communication can, and constantly does take place. During the day the prisoners are congregated in day rooms, at work, and at their meals, thus affording constant opportunities of intercourse, and necessarily, of contamination. The evils arising from this state of things are extremely great in that portion of the gaol appropriated to convicted prisoners, but the effects of the system are still more injurious to the unconvicted, many of whom are probably at the time of their committal, not hardened in crime, some may be entirely innocent, and all are certain to be more or less injured by the forced contact, into which during a period of comparative idleness, they are brought with others of the same class, among whom will be found some of abandoned character. The walls in some portions of the gaol (those between the male and female convicts) are in such a state, and the committee have reason to believe, were originally built in such a manner, as to allow of communication taking place between the prisoners confined on either side. The committee are of opinion that the evils complained of by the chaplain and governor in their reports, are by no means exaggerated, but that they exist to such an extent as to render it incumbent on the county to take immediate steps to enable the governor to enforce the discipline required by the various acts of parliament relative to gaols, and the propriety of which is now universally admitted; though they have reason to believe all has been done by the governor that the imperfect nature of the buildings will allow, to carry out these regulations. The only remedy the committee can suggest is the erection of a new gaol, either immediately or by degrees, and so arranged as to admit of future additions when required; in confirmation of which opinion the committee refer to the recommendations of several previous committees, and to an order of the quarter sessions by which the sum of £5,000 was granted for the purpose of erecting a building capable of containing forty prisoners, and so constructed that at a future time it might form a portion of an entirely new gaol. It however appears to the committee that the first step to be taken in any case must be the purchase of such a sufficient quantity of land, as, in addition to that belonging to the county, would contain the buildings at present required, and space for future additions, with an area round them for the purpose of preventing communication with persons from without. In case the county should determine to build by degrees, the committee strongly recommend the erection in the first place of suitable accommodation for prisoners committed for trial; but whether a gaol be built at once or by sections, it is equally necessary that a plan of an entire gaol should be obtained at once, and that each section should be a portion of this plan. Proposed by Capt. Hext that the committee, being so small in number, be adjourned to the County Hall, on Tuesday the 4th of January, at 10 o’clock, and that a copy of the above report be forwarded to each member of the committee.—In pursuance of this adjournment, the committee met at the County Hall on Tuesday the 4th of January, and received an opinion obtained by the Clerk of the Peace, from Mr. F. Bacon, by which it appears that a title can be made under the acts of the 4th and 5th of George IV; and the committee therefore recommend that immediately steps be taken to purchase the necessary quantity of land. (Signed) J, D. Gilbert, chairman. Mr. GILBERT continued—It was ordered at the last sessions that the above report be received, and the further consideration of it be postponed to the next quarter sessions, and that the committee be continued in the mean time, with power to purchase any adjoining land to the gaol at a sum not exceeding 200l. Since then the committee had applied to Mr. Shilson to negotiate the purchase of land thought necessary, belonging to Dr. Michell, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Edyvean, and Mr. Preston Wallis, altogether nearly 1¾ acres, and the cost 120l. 8s. 9d., being within the sum they were authorised to expend at the last sessions. The removal of the road to a greater distance from the prison was also very desirable, and that being an improvement, and a saving of distance, Mr. Everest had ascertained that the borough authorities would offer no opposition thereto. The next step after the purchase of the land in question, would be to inclose it, so that no communication should take place from without, and the boundary wall would have to be erected in conformity with the act of parliament regulations; it must be twenty feet high above ground, and six feet underground,—three feet thick at the base, and gradually sloping upwards to two feet. The expense had been estimated by Mr. Pascoe, at 884l., exclusive of stone, which would be about 300l. additional, or about altogether 1,200l. Mr. GILBERT then moved the following resolution:– “That the gaol committee be continued, with power to negotiate with the proper authorities for the removal of the roads to a greater distance from the gaol, and to superintend this and all other works connected with the gaol. That the sum of 1,200l. be allowed to be expended out of the 5,000l. granted at the Easter Sessions in 1849, for the alteration of the gaol, and the erection of a wall 26 feet high, and 3 feet thick to enclose the gaol and adjoining land, now the property of, or that shall be purchased by the county.” Mr. Everest, he said, would inform them that the prisoners, under certain regulations, could be employed in the work, and therefore another part of the resolution would be,— “That the Governor of the gaol be directed to employ such prisoners as he may deem fit, to raise the stone, and for removing rubbish, and erecting a wall on the south of the gaol.—Mr. KENDALL seconded this resolution, and it was carried; after which Mr. GILBERT moved another resolution:– “That the gaol committee be empowered to advertise for a plan for an entirely new gaol for the reception of 244 prisoners, to be designed in accordance with the government regulations, and so arranged and built in sections, that the portion first erected for the reception of forty prisoners shall not interfere with, or involve the destruction of any part of the present gaol; and that the committee be empowered to offer a premium of 100l. for a plan for the same.”—With regard to this resolution, some discussion took place, in which the Chairman, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Enys, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. Carew, Mr. E. Stephens, and Mr. D. P. Le Grice took part. It was thought that the resolution was somewhat of a pledge to the building of a new gaol; therefore the following cause was appended to it:—“This resolution being intended to pledge the county only to a sectional addition, but not to the immediate building of an entirely new gaol.” With regard to the accommodation of two hundred and forty four prisoners in the new gaol, Mr. Gilbert said he had embodied in the resolution the number suggested by the government inspector some time since. In reply to Mr. D. P. Le Grice, Mr. Everest said he thought that accommodation for two hundred would be sufficient; and after some further remarks by the magistrates, the resolution was seconded and carried unanimously, with the omission of the number of cells, as a matter to be left to the committee. In the course of the discussion Mr. Kendall remarked that the time must come when a new Gaol would have to be built at an expense of from £25,000 to £30,000—Mr. GILBERT said, although the chief part of the work in removing the road would be done by the prisoners, yet there will be other work, and the committee should be authorised to expend £100 for that additional labour, making altogether £1,300 to be granted. He then moved a resolution to that effect, which was agreed to. MILITIA STORES.—Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH (on Mr. Humphry Willyams’s notice at the last Sessions) moved that a sum not exceeding £15 per annum be granted for the rent of the store-house at Truro, for the Miners Militia, and a sum of £25 for fitting up. Mr. R. GULLY BENNET seconded the motion, which was unanimously agreed to. The complement of this regiment was stated to be 456 men. Sir W. L. S. TRELAWNY, Bart., stated that it had been found there was not accommodation in Bodmin for the full compliment (sic) of the Cornwall Rangers Militia—1200 men; and therefore the Secretary at War had directed him to form a regiment of 200 to be embodied at Launceston; leaving 1000 to assemble at Bodmin. It was unanimously resolved, on the motion of Mr. KENDALL, seconded by Sir W. L. S. TRELAWNY, Bart., that a sum not exceeding £30 be granted for the rent of a store-house at Bodmin, and £50 for fitting up; Sir WILLIAM TRELAWNY gave notice that at the next sessions he would move for a grant of 15l. per annum rent, and 25l. for fitting up, of a store-house at Launceston. COUNTY BRIDGE CONTRACTS.—At the close of the proceedings with reference to County Bridges, the CHAIRMAN stated that a great number of tenders had been received from persons willing to contract for the repair of County Bridges and Roads; and probably it would be well if a committee of magistrates adjourned to another room for consideration of the tenders. A committee of five magistrates accordingly so adjourned, and on their return into court, Mr. GWATKIN read the following report:— The committee appointed to consider the tenders for keeping in repair the county bridges and roads report as follows,—that the following tenders be accepted:—Lots 1, 2, 5, John Buller, for £26 10s., £14 5s., and £5. Lot 3, John Eard, £13 10s. Lot 4, Henry Bullen £13 10s. Lots 6 and 7, Wm. Davey, £8 10s. and £9. Lot 8, R. Marks, £10 10. Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, William Kellaway, £7, £12, £12, and £7. Lots 13, Richard Hosking, £35. Lot 14, William Woolcock, £8. Lot 15, William Woolcock, £22. LOOE BRIDGE.—The Grand Jury having had witnesses before them in regard to Looe Bridge, made a presentment to the court that it was insufficient and inconvenient. This was a necessary formality to be complied with before borrowing the money for rebuilding the bridge. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. WILLIAM THOMAS, 22, was charged with stealing a woollen shirt from Trebell Consols changing- house, belonging to John Datson, miner. Mr. CUMMINS for the prosecution, and Mr. SHILSON for the prisoner. The prosecutor, John Datson, worked at Trebell Consols in the parish of . He left a woollen shirt in the changing-house on Friday the 4th of Feb.; the door of the house was locked, but on the following Monday it was found that the staple of the door had been forced, and prosecutor’s shirt had been stolen. On the following 23rd of March, constable Marshall, of Lanivet, having received information, went with prosecutor’s wife and apprehended prisoner on Lamorrick moor, in Lanivet parish. He was then wearing a shirt which prosecutor identified as his property. For the defence Mr. Shilson urged that the prisoner had not been seen in the neighbourhood about the time of the robbery, and that the account he gave the constable, that Hawkes of Bodmin had given him the shirt, was probably correct. One or two of the witnesses admitted that they had heard one of the Hawkes had left the neighbourhood. Prisoner, when apprehended, was in the turnpike road, not for from prosecutor’s house; if he had stolen the shirt, he was not likely to wear it so near to prosecutor’s house.—The CHAIRMAN having summed up, the jury, after some time, retired from the court, and were locked up to consider their verdict.—At about half-past eight in the evening, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. MATTHEW ROGERS, 23, was indicted for stealing shirt buttons from the shop of Mr. William Hicks, of St. Columb; and JAMES JOHNSON, 27, was charged with receiving the same knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. G. Collins conducted the prosecution. Several witnesses were examined; the prisoner Rogers was in the shop on the 29th of March on the pretence of buying buttons, and after he had left some were missed. The other prisoner, Johnson, was afterwards detected offering the buttons for sale to the landlady of the Seven Stars Inn, in St. Columb. Both prisoners were found GUILTY. (Sentence (both): 4 months hard labour) SAMUEL KEAST was charged with stealing wheat, the property of Francis Tamblyn; a second count charged the prisoner with felonious receiving of the same. Mr. H. GRYLLS for the prosecution, and Mr. BOWEN for the defence. On the morning of the 25th of January prosecutor missed three sacks of wheat from his barn. He searched around in brakes and plantations without success, and carried samples of the same sort of wheat to millers in the neighbourhood, with a view of detecting the thief. On the 28th of January, another farmer, James Olver, having lost fowls, obtained a warrant from the Hon. G. M. Fortescue, and went with two constables to search prisoner’s premises on suspicion. Prisoner had a small barn in which they found about four and a half bushels of wheat; prisoner had only grown barley last year. There was a large gravel, prosecutor said, in the wheat he had lost, from its having been thrashed on a lime-ash floor. A sample of the wheat found in prisoner’s barn was produced, and prosecutor swore to it as being his property. When the wheat was found, prisoner’s wife at first said it belonged to her husband, but afterwards she said it was not his. For the defence it was suggested that a shoe maker, who had lodged with the prisoner, but had left his lodgings, had probably been concerned with the matter. Verdict, GUILTY of feloniously receiving. (Sentence: six months hard labour) The Chairman discharged the Grand Jury at about half-past six o’clock, with the thanks of the county for their services. The Court was shortly afterwards adjourned. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6. (Before J. King Lethbridge, Esq.) —Hender John Molesworth St. Aubyn, Esq., of Clowance; and John Borlase, Esq., of , qualified as magistrates. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. STEPHEN CONDY, 53, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 26th of March, at the parish of St. Germans, about 7 lbs. weight of hay, the property of Edmund Snell Tucker. (EDITOR’S NOTE: Sentence not reported in the Royal Cornwall Gazette, but given as two months’ hard labour in The Cornish Telegraph of 13 April) ELIZABETH HAYCRAFT, wife of James Haycraft, charged with stealing on the 23rd of March, one sovereign, two half-crowns, and a purse, the property of Jonathan Congdon.—Mr. Hockin conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Susan Congdon, wife of Jonathan Congdon, seaman, of Feock, deposed that on Wednesday, March 23rd, she went to the shop of Mr. Dixon, at Truro. She had a purse containing a sovereign and two half-crowns. There was no one in the shop but Mr. Gibson the shopman, and while he was serving her Mrs. Haycraft came in. Another customer also came in, but she was served and left before witness took her purse from her pocket. She had a list of articles she wanted in her purse, and having been served with part, she referred to the list, and laid the purse on the counter, covering it with her hand. The shopman meantime served Mrs. Haycraft, who was standing close by. Witness found she wanted some cocoa and went to the higher end of the shop to taste it, leaving her purse on the counter. Mrs. Haycraft then left the shop, and when witness returned in about two minutes, the purse was gone. There were three children at the higher end of the shop; the counter was more than 14 feet long; witness was at the bottom of the shop close by Mrs. Haycraft. The children were on one side of witness, and Mrs. Haycraft the other; the purse was between witness and Mrs. Haycraft. Witness went to the police station, and a constable went in search of Mrs. Haycraft. After that witness went to the shop of Messrs. Hodson and Crowle; saw Mrs. Haycraft there purchasing some drapery; and then ran and got a policeman.—Samuel Mawberry Gibson, shopman at Mr. Dixon’s, grocer, of Truro, corroborated the evidence of the last witness. He thinks the children went out before Mrs. Haycraft, and they had not to pass where Mrs. Congdon stood. Maria Cuming lives with her mother, who keeps a confectionary (sic) shop in Truro. About half-past one on the 23rd of March changed a sovereign for Mrs. Haycraft. Witness has the sovereign. Thomas Davey, police constable, apprehended Mrs. Haycraft about two o’clock on that day, in the shop of Messrs. Hodson and Crowle. William Woolcock, police constable, while Mrs. Haycraft was at the station, enquired what money she had? She had 19s. 5d. in her pocket. Went to Messrs. Hodson and Crowle’s shop, and found about ten shillings scattered loosely in her basket. Asked her if she had changed a sovereign. She said she had not changed or seen a sovereign that day. Witness produced a purse which some other person had picked up, and which Mrs. Congdon identified. Mr. STOKES addressed the Jury for the defence, and called the following witnesses:—John Edwards:—I have lodged with Mrs. Haycraft about 8 years. I am a lawyer’s clerk, employed by Mr. Joseph Newton, steward of Mr. Enys, at St. Agnes; and by others. On the morning of the 23rd March, Mrs. Haycraft called me down to breakfast. She lives at Sunny-Corner, about 1¼ miles from Truro. When she was about to start for market, I asked her whether she had seen Mr. Clinton. Mr. Clinton receives rents for the Devonshire family. She said, “I have not seen him yet, but I have got it here”; she then took a white handkerchief, or a piece of rag from her pocket, and showed me a sovereign, 5 shillings, and 2s. 6d. and I think three sixpence. That was put aside to pay her rent. I thought she might want change; but she said, “I have 8 or 9 shillings in my pocket loose besides. I am quite clear I saw the sovereign and silver on that morning about half-past 8; and I saw her go away.—Cross-examined—Mrs. Haycraft has been living at Sunny Corner since last June; before that, she lived at St. Austell-street; she went to Sunny Corner because it is more convenient for her husband who is a timber-measurer for the Customs. Her things were taken some time ago by her former landlord, for double rent.—Mr. William Barrett:—I am an inhabitant and a native of Truro, and a member of the Town Council. I have known Mrs. Haycraft from her childhood; I never in my life heard any thing against her before.—Mr. HOCKIN replied; after which the CHAIRMAN summed up, and the Jury found a verdict of GUILTY, but recommended the prisoner to mercy, on account of her previous good character. (Sentence: four months hard labour) CHARLES FAULL, 16, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 22nd of March, at the parish of Illogan, 2 lbs. weight of candles, the property of John Carpenter and Samuel Tregoning, tutwork-men in . (Sentence: one month hard labour) THOMAS PHILP, a respectable looking young farmer, was charged with having, on the 24th of March, at the parish of Lanreath, stolen two barley sheaves, the property of John Marshall, miller.—Mr. Humphry Grylls conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs (for Mr. Shilson) the defence.—It appeared that, on the 10th of March, the prosecutor, a miller, living at Penpol, in Saint Veep, attended a public sale of farm stock at Higher Trevollard, in Lanreath—a farm in the occupation of Mrs. Philp, the prisoner’s mother, and with whom he lived. He bought part of a barley-mow for 6l.; the prisoner being present at the sale; and, as the mow was to be thrashed and the straw left on the premises, he left the mow in charge of two men living close by—called William Willcock and Peter Hamley. His turn to thrash arrived on the 24th of March, and on the morning of that day he found that several sheaves of barley had been removed from the mow. In consequence of information he had received, he caused a watch to be set at night.—In the afternoon of the 23rd of March, Martha Willcock, who lived close by the mowhay, went thereon with a cousin, Mrs. Searle, who has the present occupation of Higher Trevollard; and while there the prisoner said to her “your fowls have been eating Mr. Marshall’s barley-mow.” She said, “not mine, but yours also.” She had before observed that barley had been taken from the mow since the sale. On the night of the 23rd, Mrs. Willcock watched for him, in her own premises; and while she was in her own linhay, about 8 yards from the hedge of the mowhay, which it overlooked across a road, about ¼ past 12 o’clock she saw prisoner pass under her in the road in a cart; he walked up to the barley-mow, and with a lantern and candle, began looking about under the steeds, and beating about the mow and the hedge with a large stick: he kept calling out “Come out, Knacker; I know you’re here.” “Knacker” was a nick-name of one of the men who had been put to watch. He then went and looked over the hedge, and seeing no person in the lane, he went to the off corner of the barley-mow and took out two sheaves which he carried away. It was bright moonlight at the time. Mrs. Willcock exclaimed to him—“Now then I have catched the rogue; this is not Mrs. Willcock’s fowls eating the barley, but I see how it has been carried away.”—Philip Hamley was examined in corroboration.—Mr. CHILDS addressed the Jury in defence; and called Eliza Edwards, wife of Thomas Edwards, of Trevollard; her son Thomas Edwards, a little boy; and Mrs. Philp, the mother of the prisoner. The object of the defence was mainly to show that at the time of the alleged felony, the prisoner was either at the house of Mrs. Edwards or at his mother’s, who was staying up that night preparing for quitting the premises.—The CHAIRMAN, however, in summing up, considered that the evidence given in defence was not inconsistent with Mrs. Willcock’s statement that she had seen him commit the felony at the time she had named; and although her manner of giving evidence was peculiar, he did not see that there was anything in it to impeach the credit of her testimony.—The Jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: four months hard labour) ANN WHITEFIELD, 42, charged with having, on the 25th of March, at the parish of Stratton, stolen a quantity of potatoes, the property of Richard Scown, butcher.—GUILTY. (Sentence: three months hard labour) WILLIAM DYER was charged on three several counts, 1st, with larceny as a servant; 2nd, with simple larceny; and 3rd, with feloniously receiving. The prosecutor was Thomas Taunton Clarke, druggist, grocer, &c., Bodmin, and the principal witness was an approver, a boy in Mr. Clarke’s service, who deposed to having taken from his master’s stores and given to Dyer, at the request of the latter, at different times, sugar, currants, and tobacco. The character of the boy for honesty and truth appeared to little advantage on the cross-examination, but the prisoner made admissions in the presence of his employer and the constables, of having received from him some currants, sugar, tobacco, and a pipe. Mr. Darke called witnesses to character, and the CHAIRMAN summed up with great care, telling the jury that the acts would constitute felony supposing the jury should credit the approver’s testimony, which had received corroboration from the prisoner’s admissions that he had received certain articles from the approver. The jury retired at 6 o’clock, and in half an hour returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on each count. The trial of John Hunkin, Samuel Langmead, and John Golly, of , for disturbing the congregation of Mevagissey Church, by grossly indecent conduct, laughing, talking, whistling, and pushing each other about, was to take place to-day, Thursday, and was expected to occupy several hours. APPEAL.—John Dingle, appellant; Parish of Linkinhorne, respondent. Mr. SHILSON, on the part of appellant, moved to quash a rate made in November 1852; and Mr. CHILDS, for respondent, consented with common costs. The Court then rose. SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) ASSAULT ON A CONSTABLE.—CHARLES IVEY and JOHN SLOGGETT, were charged with assaulting William Hart, a constable of the parish of St. Austell, whilst in the execution of his duty, and a second count charged a common assault. Mr SHILSON prosecuted, and Mr. DARKE defended the prisoner Sloggett. Mr. SHILSON in stating the case, pointed out the importance of protecting the constables in the execution of their duty, especially in a parish like St. Austell. Mr. Shilson called several witnesses, from whose statements it appeared that the assault took place at the Stag Inn, St. Austell, on the 23rd of March. The owner of the house, Mr. May, was making arrangements with Mr. Inch, sen., to whom he had let the inn. The prisoners and several others were in the house. Sloggett had assaulted May, who sent for constable Hart, and when he arrived requested him to remove Sloggett. It was after this that the assault on the constable took place. Hart said he believed the men who fell upon him were Ivey, Inch, Sloggett, and . He was held down, and received a kick; he was nearly choked by his throat being held; his shirt was torn; his skin was off his neck and breast; and he was struck by Ivey. Mr. Aaron Parsons, and Mr. Inch, sen., came in and rescued the constable, and policeman Westlake also came up. The witnesses for the prosecution were William Hart, constable, Jane Cillan, a servant, Nicholas May, the owner of the Stag Inn, and Aaron Parsons, currier. The constable had been directed by the magistrates to carry the case to the Quarter Sessions.—For the defence the witnesses called were Henry Boase, butcher, and John Westlake, policeman. Mr. DARKE submitted that Nicholas Inch, and not Sloggett was the originator of the row, and that the constable’s expressions on the occasion were very improper, and tended to excite the parties. The witness Boase stated that Sloggett took no part in the scuffle; and that Ivey only held the arm of the constable to prevent him using his staff on Inch; and policeman Westlake’s evidence was, that on the same night, Hart complained to him of Inch and Ivey, but said nothing that night about Sloggett. Other portions of the evidence were of a contradictory nature. After about ten minutes’ deliberation, the jury found Sloggett GUILTY on the second count of common assault, but recommended him to mercy. Ivey was returned NOT GUILTY.—The trial lasted between four and five hours. (Sentence: John Sloggett—one month imprisonment, and fined 40 shillings) JOHN EDE and MARY EDE, an elderly couple, the old man paralysed, were indicted for keeping on the 1st of March, and at divers other times, a certain ill-governed and disorderly house in the parish of Kenwyn, for the purpose of gain and lucre. The house in question is situated in St. Dominick-street, Truro, and the witnesses called were residents in the same street, and Mr. Nash, police inspector at Truro. These witnesses stated occasions on which they had seen men and women of ill-fame go into the house, and deposed to disorderly and noisy conduct there. The house had been kept by the prisoners about six months. Mr. Nash deposed that he had received complaints of the house, and in consequence had gone there and found men and women of ill-fame in the house. He believed the old man, the prisoner, to be palsied, and not in his right mind when he saw him at the house. Verdict, both GUILTY.— (Sentence: John Ede—one week’s imprisonment; Mary Ede—four months hard labour) The Court then rose. Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq. Chairman DISTURBANCE IN A CHURCH. On Wednesday evening, the 6th inst., JOHN HUNKIN, SAMUEL LANGMEAD, and JOHN GOLLY (young fishermen), were indicted, for that they, on the 16th of January last, “unlawfully and wilfully intending maliciously and contemptuously to disquiet and disturb a certain congregation of members of the United Church of England and Ireland, assembled for the purpose of religious worship at and in the parish of Mevagissey, for the purpose of the public religious worship of Almighty God according to the rites and ceremonies of the United Church of England and Ireland, with force and arms did then and there, willingly, wilfully, and of purpose maliciously and contemptuously come into the said parish church whilst the said congregation was so assembled there for the purpose aforesaid, and did then and there willingly, wilfully, and of purpose during the time of divine worship maliciously and contemptuously, to wit by laughing, whistling, singing, and pulling each other about, disquiet and disturb a certain congregation of members of the United Church of England and Ireland being then and there assembled in the aforesaid church for the purpose of the public religious worship of Almighty God according to the rites and ceremonies of the United Church of England and Ireland, (the said parish church where the said congregation were then so assembled not being then locked, bolted or barred), in contempt of public worship and against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.” In a second count, the prisoners were indicted, for that they, “on the day aforesaid, being the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, wickedly, irreligiously, and in contempt of public worship in the parish church of Mevagissey, then and there, during the celebration of divine service, did, by laughing, talking, whistling, singing, and by pushing and pulling each other about, unlawfully and irreverently occasion a great disturbance, and did then and there wickedly, irreverently and unlawfully obstruct and hinder one William John Alban, clerk, then and there being minister of the parish church aforesaid, and then and there being in the execution of his office as such minister aforesaid, and in the reading of divine service; in contempt of public worship, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.” The prisoners severally pleaded “Not Guilty,” on each indictment; Golly stating that he was guilty of smiling in church, but not guilty of disturbing public worship. The jury that had sat during the day, having retired to consider their verdict on the case of William Dyer, and it being found impossible at so late an hour of the day to find 12 other jurors, the trial of Hunkin, Langmead, and Golly, was postponed till the following morning. THURSDAY, April 7. This morning, after the Chairman had passed the sentences recorded in our last number, a jury was empanelled, and Hunkin, Langmead, and Jolly, were placed at the bar. Mr. STOKES, their attorney, addressing the Chairman, said:—In this case I have to apply, on the part of the defendants, for leave to withdraw their plea of Not Guilty, and to plead Guilty, on the last count of the indictment—that at common law. The jury were then sworn, and the prisoners, being charged, severally pleaded “Not Guilty,” on the first count of the indictment, and “Guilty” on the second count. Mr. SHILSON, attorney for the prosecution, said:—I appear on the part of the prosecution in this case. The indictment charges the defendants with having disturbed public worship at the parish church of Mevagissey, against the form of the statute. That statute is the 1st of William and Mary, chapter 18. It is an Act entitled “An Act for exempting their Majesties’ protestant subjects, dissenting from the Church of England, from the penalties of certain laws.” Avowedly it was an act passed for the purpose of dissenters. But there is a clause in that Act—the 18th section, as follows:—“Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if any person or persons, at any time or times after the 10th day of June, do and shall willingly and of purpose, maliciously or contemptuously come into any cathedral or parish church, chapel, or other congregation permitted by this act, and disquiet or disturb the same, or misuse any preacher or teacher, such person or persons, upon proof thereof before any justice of peace, by two or more sufficient witnesses, shall find two sureties to be bound by recognizance in the penal sum of fifty pounds, and in default of such sureties shall be committed to prison, there to remain till the next general or quarter sessions; and upon conviction of the said offence at the said general or quarter sessions, shall suffer the pain and penalty of twenty pounds, to the use of the King’s and Queen’s majesties, their heirs and successors.” —Under that section it is that the parties have been charged. But there is also a second count in the indictment charging them with a common-law misdemeanour, for the indecent outrage therein alleged.—The object of the prosecution in this case has been solely to prevent a recurrence of such disgraceful and outrageous practices as those there stated—disturbing public worship in the manner mentioned in the indictment, and charged against those defendants. Each of them, if convicted on the first count of the indictment, would be liable to a penalty of 20l., and there would be no power in the court to remit any part of that penalty; the consequence would be that, in default of payment of the penalty of 20l., each of those men would be committed to prison and there must remain until he could obtain his discharge through the Secretary of State. It is not the prosecutor’s wish to proceed to that extremity with them; and, since the matter has been brought here, the defendants have applied to him for his merciful consideration of it. I apprehend we shall hear from them that they are willing that such an occurrence shall not take place again. So far, the object of the prosecutor will be obtained. At the same time it cannot be permitted that an outrage of this kind should pass wholly unpunished. The prosecutor is not willing, and has not desired, that the full punishment I have mentioned should be awarded them according to the statute; he has no vindictive feeling of the kind; and therefore he has consented that the defendants shall plead guilty to the second count of the indictment, rendering them amenable for the offence at common law, for which your worships are empowered to impose on them fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. That arrangement has been come to; and therefore I am instructed on the part of the prosecutor, not to offer any evidence on the first count of the indictment. I shall leave the case in the hands of the Court, to award such punishment as in your judgement, will tend to prevent a recurrence of such disgraceful conduct. I may mention that the public are indebted to the prosecutor for having, in the face of difficulties and at some considerable expence, brought this matter before the Court and the public, so that those parties and others of her Majesty’s subjects through them, may know that such conduct is not to pass unpunished. Mr. STOKES:—On behalf of the defendants, I am desired to state that they exceedingly regret any conduct of theirs that induced the present prosecution. They are sorry for any thing they have done; though the matter was not, perhaps, of that exaggerated character that the wording of the indictment conveys. That may easily be understood. But that such occurrences, either in a more aggravated form or less, are not to be tolerated, is beyond all question. These young men feel that they have done what they ought not to have done; but they trust that looking to their stations and their characters—I believe they are all well conducted young men in their stations in life—your worships will inflict such punishment as will not be vindictive, while at the same time the law may be vindicated and it will be shown to the country that occurrences of this kind can be and will be always repressed. The Magistrates (The Chairman, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. Gwatkin, Mr. D. P. Le Grice, Mr. E. Coode, jun., and the Rev. R. Buller) retired to their consulting room for a few minutes. On their return, the Chairman, addressing the jury, said:—Gentlemen of the Jury; in this case, John Hunkin, Samuel Longmead, and John Golly, have been indicted for disturbing a congregation at the parish church of Mevagissey. The first count, under a statute of William and Mary, would impose on them a penalty of £20. The second count charges a common law offence. On this second count they have pleaded “guilty;” and on the first count “not guilty.” But, in the exercise of the discretion of the learned advocate who conducts the prosecution, and with the express sanction and the kind feeling too of the clergyman who instituted it, no evidence is offered on the first count, and, therefore, on that count you will say “not guilty.” The Jury returned a verdict accordingly, and were discharged. The CHAIRMAN then passed sentence on the defendants:—John Hunkin, Samuel Langmead, and John Golly; you have severally pleaded guilty of a common-law offence—that of disturbing a congregation, at the parish church of Mevagissey, during the hours of divine service. In consequence of the anxious desire of the clergyman of the parish, Mr. Alban that this prosecution should only operate to deter yourselves and others from a repetition of this offence, the sentence of this court will only be one to affect your pockets, and that not to a very great extent. But I cannot sufficiently impress on your minds that the offence of disturbing a congregation, either of members of the establishment, or of dissenters, is a very serious offence,—one that if repeated will call, from this Court, for something like severe punishment. In order to impress on your minds the importance of this offence, and the way it has been dealt with before, I remember, not many years ago, a case here in which a defendant was found guilty, and we were obliged to pass on him the sentence of the statute, that he should pay 40l. He appeared at the same bar that you do; he retired from the bar; and was afterwards taken up, under sheriff’s process, and was confined under Mr. Everest—I am afraid to say how long, but for a very considerable time. And such was the nature and character of the offence, and such the difficulty, that after he had remained there a very long time, we were obliged to petition the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State wrote to me; and I explained the circumstances and stated that we were satisfied with the punishment he had received; but it was a considerable time before the Secretary of State could or would discharge him. And such would have been the case very probably with you, if you had been prosecuted to conviction on the first count under the statute, the penalty by which is 20l. But you have thought proper to plead guilty on the second count, of the offence of common-law, and for that we have power to inflict on you either fine or imprisonment, or both. But we are anxious to follow up the wish of your clergyman, who has expressed a desire that you should not be punished in your person, and only slightly in your purse, and we hope that this will deter you and others from offences of this kind in future. They are highly discreditable to you; and recollect that however religious opinions may differ, you may depend on it that such conduct is a high offence against God. This disturbance of a congregation during the hours of divine service, whether it be in a church of the Establishment or in a chapel of Dissent, is an offence against the Almighty as well as against the laws of man. I will say no more than to impress on you that you are indebted to your clergyman for the lenient sentence we are about to pass. The sentence of the Court is that each of you pay a fine to Her Majesty of forty shillings, and be detained in the custody of the Governor of the Gaol till that fine be paid; and that you severally give security to Her Majesty in 10l. each, to keep the peace towards all Her Majesty’s subjects for Twelve months. The Court apprehends that your parents are here, and that they can give that security. After some little delay, all the fines were paid, and the recognizances entered into; and the defendants were discharged. IMPORTANT APPEAL. GUARDIANS OF THE TRURO UNION, appellant; Mr. Hockin and Mr. Darke. CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS OF ST. CLEMENT, respondent; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Smith. Mr. DARKE moved this appeal, which was against a poor-rate, dated the 4th of March, 1853, on the Truro Union-house; the gross estimated rental was stated to be 300l., and the rateable value, 250l. Mr. HOCKIN put in a copy of the grounds for appeal, which, he said, were—that the rate was not made in accordance with the principle of the Rating Act; and that the appellants were over-rated. The Board of Guardians had felt themselves obliged, as Trustees for the public, to object to this rate, which they considered to be unreasonably large; on inquiry they found that no Union in the county was rated to half the amount, and they were at a loss to understand on what principle the rate had been made to so large an amount. He need hardly tell their worships, who were guardians, that the law on the subject was regulated by the 6th and 7th William 4th, chapter 96. That Act laid down, though in terms perhaps not altogether free from doubt and obscurity, the principle of rating—that no rate shall be valid that is not made on an estimate of the net annual value; and then the statute went on to say that the net annual value meant the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to be let by the year, free of rates, taxes and rent-charge, and making some deductions for repairs necessary for the maintenance of the property. This principle was not necessarily, the amount which the property if let, ought to bring; but the amount at which it might reasonably be expected to be let. Their worships would see that that regulation, imposed by statute, was one which, when it came to be applied to different properties, would produce very different results. It was quite obvious that in considering the question for what sum a property might reasonably be expected to be let, it would be most material to see where the property was situate. For instance, if a Union Poor House were situated in a town, and should cease to be occupied by the Guardians, it might be converted into various sets of lodgings, each of which might be let advantageously, and so the whole property might reasonably be expected to be let at a fair rent. But, supposing the Union House to be situate out of a town and in a comparatively uninhabited district, it might cease to be letable (sic) at all. So that locality was a very material element in the question.—It was also important to consider the form and construction of the building. A house of this description might be constructed as to be capable of being applied to many purposes; or, it might be so constructed as to be applicable to very few purposes.—In addition to the requirements that he had cited, the Act also required that the letting should be from year to year. And that was a very important consideration; because it might be that a large building of this description might reasonably be expected to let for a considerable sum provided it were let for a long term; inasmuch as a person wanting it for the purposes of a manufactory might then effect necessary extensive alterations, such as he would not undertake if he were subject to be turned out at the end of the year. Now he would venture to say that the Truro Union-house, distant one mile from Truro, was one that it would be very difficult to let at all; it certainly could not reasonably be expected to be let for any thing like a rent worth having. Although there might be a nominal rent for some possible purposes, yet from its construction and its distance from the town and so on, the rent that it could reasonably be expected to bring would be very slight.—Of course, it was too late now to say that a Union House could not be rated. It had been decided by the Court of Queen’s Bench, that Union Houses were rateable, and the principle on which they were rateable had been laid down in several cases. Mr. Hockin cited Queen v. Wallingford and Queen v. St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch; and observed from them that a Union Work-house was held to be rateable because its occupation was held to be beneficial to the parishes forming the Union. But, although it had been thus held that legally there was a beneficial occupation of Union Houses such as rendered them rateable; still the Poor Law Commissioners had recommended that they should cease to be rated, on the ground that there was not actually any beneficial occupation, and that, to rate them was to impose a tax on a tax. If then, the Poor Law Commissioners entertained the opinion that the rate was unjust in principle, it was clear that when such a rate was made, care should be taken that it be made on a reasonable basis. Truro was unquestionably, a populous district; but it would be shown that in two instances in that neighbourhood, of large buildings—not so large as union houses, and therefore more applicable to useful purposes—they remained unlet for about 14 years, and at length were pulled down for the sake of the materials. These buildings were about a third of the size of the Union-house; one had been a paper manufactory at about the same distance from Truro as the Union-house; and the other a carpet manufactory within the borough. If then, such buildings as those two could not be let, how much more difficult would it be to let this great Union-house, inconveniently constructed for any purpose but that for which it was built. And, in proportion to the difficulty of obtaining tenants for it in the event of its being unoccupied, so, the appellants contended, the rating of it should be low and moderate. He would now proceed to call witnesses:— Thomas Olver, the younger (of the firm of Olver and Sons, builders, &c.) stated that he resided at Falmouth and carried on business as a builder and surveyor. He built two Union-houses at Falmouth and Redruth, and had been very largely accustomed to value house-property; had valued from 70,000 to 100,000l. in one year. Had been recently requested to look over the Truro Union House, and had gone very carefully over it. Independent of the site and some wastrel, there was attached to the house about 7 acres of land available for agricultural purposes. Valuing that building on the same principle as he had been in the habit of using in valuing other buildings in towns, he should consider that a fair tenant’s rent for it would be 159l. a year. That was the net annual value, at which he thought it should be rated. His opinion was formed by assuming the building was letable, and comparing it with other buildings he had valued. He did not consider, however, that this Union House, situated and built as it was, would be easily letable. If the building were converted into what he thought it would be most suitable for, and supposing a tenant could be got, 159l. was about the utmost rent that he thought could be obtained for it; but, looking to the nature and situation of the building, he should not think it reasonable to expect to get a tenant even at that rent.—Cross-examined.—The purpose for which he thought the Union-house would be best suited, was that of a brewery. Had valued one Union-house before this one; valued that one as a Union-house, not for the purpose of a Brewery. In each case, he calculated what the House would produce, both as a Union-house and for any other purpose.—As a Brewery he believed the Union-house would be worth £159 a year; but for any other purpose, except to the Guardians, it would not make £100 a year.—For the purpose of valuing the Union house, he had also taken the average of the ratings of different Union-houses in the County. St. Columb was rated at £35 a year; should think that a low value.—Had got returns from every Union in the County, of the rateable value of each Union- house, and the number of paupers it contained; and, deducting the land in each case, and making his calculations, he found that, according to the average of those houses, the value of the Truro House would be about £139. Some of those houses he considered were rated high and some low.—Re- examined. There were five Union-houses included in the average he took. St. Austell Union-house was calculated for 350 paupers, rated at £130; average of rate 7s. 5d. per head.—Liskeard; for 350 paupers, rated at £93; 5s. 4d. per head.—Penzance; for 386 paupers; rated at £79 10s.; 4s. 2d. per head.— Redruth; for 450 paupers; rated at £103; 4s. 7d. per head.—St. Columb; for 180 paupers; rated at £31; 3s. 5d. per head.—In each case the land was deducted; and the number of paupers was taken according to the Poor Law Commissioners’ Regulations. The average rating on the five Union-houses was 5s. per head. Taking the number of paupers in the Truro House at 500, the same ratio of charge, 5s. per head, would give 125l. as the rateable value of the house; and to this he added 14l. as the rateable value of the 7 acres of land; making together, 139l. Henry Badcock:—Resided near Launceston, and had been a professional valuer for many years. Had been in the habit of valuing extensively for the purposes of poor-rate; had valued two Unions expressly for the purpose. Had gone carefully over the Truro Union-house. Supposing that house to be letable, he thought it might be reasonably expected to let for 177l. 14s. as a Union-house; but he considered that it would not be letable for any other purpose that he could conceive, except as a barracks or hospital, or something of the kind. Had been valuing for rates regularly for 30 years. Supposing the Truro Guardians chose in future to maintain the poor in their own cottages and offer the Union-house to let, he did not think there would be any reasonable expectation of letting it from year to year. He supposed the guardians could maintain the poor at their own cottages, at a rent equal to about 6s. or 7s. per head per annum.—(Mr. Hockin stated that the house was built for 500 paupers, but the average number in it, since its occupation had not exceeded 270).—Cross-examined.—The cottages at an average rent of from 6s. to 8s. per head would not be quite so good as to accommodation, as the Union-house; but he had no doubt the poor would be better satisfied with them (laughter). Had valued two Union-houses for rates—Southmolton and Plympton St. Mary. Believed that the Plympton Union-house was built for about 250 paupers, and the Southmolton for a little under 300. In valuing on that occasion, he arrived at the rateable value by valuing every room in the house, and considering what it was fairly worth for the purpose then applied to, if it was let out to the public; but he valued it at more for the guardians than he should have done if it had been let for any other purpose. Supposing the House belonged to other parties, and he was called on to value between those owners and the guardians as tenants, he should value on the same principle. He valued the house as a Union-house in the occupation of the guardians; and he valued each room in it on the same principle. His valuation of the rooms would depend on how they were finished. Had heard that the Truro Union-house cost about 10,000l.; should think the guardians ought to have a return of 4 per cent. on that outlay; by that return, he meant net receipts after paying for repairs, insurance, and so on. The Truro house was a plain, substantial building, and very well built; did not see that any money had been thrown away in ornament; but if it had been built on a level, instead of by the side of a hill and in a valley, about 2000l. might have been saved in underground work. But the underground work was not useless on that site. The only useless expenditure about the building was some extra work—some cut stone—on the front, and that might have cost about 300l.—Had valued the Truro Union-house in the same manner that he valued the Southmolton House and the Plympton House; and believed that, if the Guardians of the Truro Union, instead of building the house, had had an opportunity of taking it at a rent, it would not be worth more than 177l. 14s. a year; or 172l. 7s. without the chapel; and, if he were a Truro Guardian, he would rather, if it were possible, rent the house at 177l. 14s. a year than he would build. Mr. Shilson:—How do you reconcile that with your estimate of 4 per cent. net returns on an outlay of 10,000l.? Witness:—I say that the guardians ought to lay out their money to get 4 per cent., but it is another question whether they can get it (laughter). Rather than build the house, he would give 4 per cent. on the outlay for a time, because the guardians would then incur no risk, and might give it up when they liked.—The Southmolton Union-house was built to accommodate between 2 and 300 paupers; the gross estimated rental was £150, and the rateable value 118l. 15s.; he had not the population of the Southmolton Union. The Truro Union-house was built to accommodate 500. The Southmolton house was more highly finished throughout than the Truro one; and a small Union-house would cost more to build in proportion than a large one; in valuing a small house, he valued more per square than in valuing a large one, because the rent of a large house was never so large in proportion as that of a small one. It is almost as difficult to describe the mode of valuation of a house as it would be to describe how to value a horse (laughter).—Mr. Shilson.—Then I suppose a valuation is a thing that can be understood, only by the man who makes it (laughter).—Re-examined.—There were a great many rooms in the Truro Union- house that had never been occupied, and which were at present quite useless to the guardians. He had valued the Truro house as to what it would be worth to the guardians to rent, supposing it were in the hands of some other party; if it were in the hands of another party, the guardians would now be ready for to occupy it, but there would be no competitors for it, and the guardians might say to the owner, “we will give you so much and no more; if you don’t like to take that, we will build.” Many large houses and mansions cost large sums of money, but could hardly be let at all; and on these the rates were obliged to be put very low; in some cases, one, a half, or a quarter per cent. William Barrett, was brought up a builder, and had lived in Truro all his time, except 5 years. Knew the position of the Truro Union-house; if it were to be let, he did not know any purpose it could be used for, except such as it was used for at present. If the Union were to be dissolved to-morrow, he believed the house would be useless. Was aware of other large buildings in Truro having become unoccupied; there was the Carpet Manufactory and the Paper Manufactory. The Carpet Manufactory was situated at Truro Vean, in the town; it was a considerable building, about one-third the size of the Union-house; it remained unoccupied for a considerable time, and for 10 years it had been of very little value, and at length it was taken down and the materials sold. The other building was the Coosbean Paper Mills, about a mile from Truro; that remained unoccupied for at least ten years; it had been all pulled down and the materials sold.—Cross-examined. Was owner of several houses at Truro. Truro was thriving now, and many houses were being built. Should think a person laying out money in cottages for the labouring poor, ought to get a return of 7 or 8 per cent. if on leasehold property. The cottage dwellings of Truro do not reach out so far as the Union-house; the farthest are those at the top of Michell-hill, nearly a quarter of a mile from the Market-house. Supposing a person were to build the Union-house and let it to the guardians, should think that person ought to have 4 or 5 per cent on his outlay, if for a long term; but if for a short term, or from year to year, he did not know how it could be calculated what it should let for. If he were to build such a house, he knew that he should ask for rent more than ever the guardians would give him; in fact, no living being would ever build such a place, as an investment. The rent would be enormous, if it were built as an investment; he should expect, if it were on leasehold property, 7 or 8 per cent. If he had laid out £10,000 in building that house, he should ask 5 or 600l. a year rent; but he was sure the guardians would never give it. Before this house was built, the guardians had three houses, in which they used to maintain their poor for a little above £100 altogether; but the Poor Law Commissioners compelled them to build a Union-house. Supposing the guardians were to have rented this house instead of having built it themselves, he should think they would not be willing to give more rent than they had before given for the three houses. Was a guardian of the Truro Union, when discussions used to take place about building; but was not guardian at the time this house was built.—The Chairman:—Do you know the principle on which the money for those large buildings is obtained?—Mr. Barrett :– The Government lends the money, to be repaid in a certain number of years.—The Chairman:—Do you think, on that principle, it is better to build, or rent—repaying in 10 or 20 years?—Mr. Barrett: It is better to rent than build, I believe.—Re-examined.—The amount to be reasonably expected to be got as rent for a building, depended on the number of competitors for it. If he had been fool enough to lay out 10,000l. in building a house for which there would be but one person to offer, he should not expect to get 4 per cent. for his money. The Board of Guardians resisted building this House as long as they could, but at last they were compelled to build, or the Union would have been dissolved or divided; the guardians would never have built but from compulsion by the Poor Law Commissioners.—Would not have the Union-house at any price, to convert into labourers’ residences, and run the risk of letting in that way. The amount of rent to be expected would be so little, that no man would think of building a Union-house as an investment, any more than he would of building a mansion as an investment; in many such instances, the amount of rent would be merely nominal, as compared with the outlay Mr. DARKE then addressed the Court on the appellants’ evidence; observing that, from the course of cross-examination directed to some of the witnesses, it was evident that his friends, the respondents’ advocates, were attempting to set up a principle of rating that could in no way be warranted by Act of Parliament. The act required that the basis of rating was to be the rent at which property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year; and that being the case, the Court had nothing to do with what might have been the cost of the building. Mr. Darke reviewed and enforced the evidence given on this point by the appellants’ witnesses. He then adverted to the case of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, by which a Union-house was made rateable, on the ground that the Guardians had beneficial occupation of it in respect to house room for the poor. Though the Truro Union-house was built for 500 paupers, yet the average of paupers in the house had been but 270; and these, it had been said by Mr. Badcock, could be housed at their own cottages, at a rental of 6s. to 8s. per head, amounting to £108 as the whole extent of beneficial occupation of the Union-house by the Guardians. And from Mr. Barrett they learned that if the Guardians had been allowed to exercise their own discretion, they would have continued to provide sufficient accommodation for the paupers at little more than £100 per annum; and he strongly asked their worships to come to the conclusion that that was about the sum at which the Union-house should be rated. Mr. SHILSON, addressing the Court for the respondents, said he thought a mistake had been made on the part of the appellants, in taking their estimate of this property on the supposition that it was to be let for some other purpose than a Work-house. His view of the case was that the property must be rated with respect to its present condition; the mode in which it was occupied was that which rendered it of value. Take the instance of an Inn; occupied as an Inn, it might reasonably be expected to let for a certain sum; but, converted into a private dwelling-house, it would only let perhaps for half or quarter that amount.—One of the witnesses however had said that he did not think the Union-house would let at all for any other purpose. But if that were so,—if it should be wholly unoccupied, the law had expressly made provision for such a case, and it would be exempt from rate. The moment it became occupied, it was rateable; and its value was to be ascertained according to what it might be expected to let for in the state in which it was at the time occupied; and in the present case, they must consider what the Union-house was worth, occupied as such. If the Guardians were tenants, there would be no difficulty; but in this case they were owners. The Court must therefore inquire, by the best means possible, what rent the Guardians might reasonably be expected to give for the property, supposing they were tenants. He thought that, in the present instance, they had great advantages in forming an estimate on this subject. It had been said that the Guardians were forced to build; he did not think that was quite correct; he believed they might have been allowed to hire accommodation for their paupers. But that was not material. They required a Union-house for 500 paupers; and, for the present question, the building must be regarded in that extent, whatever might be the number of paupers now in the House. The guardians had borrowed money for building the house, and were to repay that money in a certain number of years, with interest; and it might be taken that the amount they paid as interest was their rent for the occupation of the House. He believed the cost of the Union-house was about 13,000l., irrespective of the land. The cost of the land was 1247l.; the cost of the building, 9896l.; the cost of the foundations 2,300l. In addition to this, there was the cost of apparatus for cooking, washing, and drying clothes, &c., amounting to about 500l., and some other works, making together about 1,000l. So that it might be taken in round numbers, that the total cost of the building, exclusive of the cost of the land, was about 13,000l. The interest paid was at the rate of 4 per cent. He affirmed therefore that in fact the guardians were actually paying rent to that amount; and, prima facie, that was the evidence of value.—But if that were not correct, they must come to the question—what rent the guardians might reasonably expect to give for it as yearly tenants. The guardians were the occupiers; and the Overseers were to look to the present occupation of a property, in order to ascertain what it might reasonably be expected to let for from year to year. Mr Badcock had said, if the guardians must either build or rent, he would prefer paying a rent of 4 per cent. on the cost of the building, than to build. It might therefore be inferred that the guardians would prefer to pay 4 per cent. as rent, rather than build.—His argument was based on the principle that they were not to consider what the house was worth for any other purpose than that for which it was now used. It was admitted that a Union-house was to be rated precisely on the same principle as every other description of property. And in coming to the question of value, he drew this distinction between the rateable value of a property, and its value in respect of beneficial occupation. One man occupying a shop might have a greater beneficial occupation of it than another would, because of his greater skill and industry. They were not, however, to consider what was the actual amount of beneficial occupation to the occupier; but what it might be considered to be let for to a tenant from year to year, as a property capable of such beneficial occupation. In the present case, the overseers could not estimate the value of the actual beneficial occupation; and therefore were driven to consider what rent the guardians might reasonably be expected to give year by year, for the building. He had shown that the actual cost of the building was 13,000l.; and the guardians must be very bad Trustees of the public money if, having laid out that sum, they were not willing to pay a rate on a net rental of 250l.—the amount on which they had been rated. He did not mean to say that, because a property had actually cost a certain sum of money, there must be a certain amount realized from it by way of per centage; but he did say that the overseers were justified in saying that they reasonably expected that the guardians would give 250l. a year for their occupation of the property in question, for the purposes of a Union Work-house.—Mr. Shilson cited Lord Denman’s judgment in a case Rex v. South Western Railway Company, to show that the purpose for which a property was occupied was to be taken into account in considering the rateable value.—In the present case, he affirmed that the overseers had rated the guardians at a much less sum than, considering all the facts of the case, the guardians might reasonably be expected to have given for their occupation of the house. He would ask whether the Truro guardians would not have given 250l. a year for the house, rather than have outlaid their money as they had done.—Mr. Shilson proceeded to remark on the appellants’ evidence, stating that the surveyors, in making their estimate of value, had adopted principles not in accordance with the Parochial Assessment Act. The only question was, what the property was worth for the purpose to which it was now applied by the guardians. It was not a sound principle to ask what it would be worth as a brewery—nor whether Mr. Olver would or would not give 100l. a year for it—nor whether, if the house were unoccupied, there would or would not be any competition for it. The sole question was— what the tenants, at present in occupation, might reasonably be expected to give for it. On this point, they had the actual cost of the building; and it could not be doubted that a tenant would pay, as rent, 4 per cent. on that outlay, rather than build. But the guardians had not been rated at 4 per cent., nor at half that amount.—Mr. Badcock, who valued the Southmolton Union-house, said it was built for between 2 and300 paupers—just about half the number that the Truro Union-house was built for; and the Southmolton House was rated at 118l. very little less than half the valuation of the Truro House; while Mr. Badcock stated that the Southmolton house was a better building than the Truro house, and, it was evident, that he must have taken into account the cost of the buildings to some extent.—As to number of paupers, it mattered not what was the actual number in the house at the time of making a rate; the question was as to the number the house was built to accommodate. The Truro house was built to accommodate 500; and Mr. Badcock’s estimate of 7s. or 8s. per head as the cost of accommodation in cottages would amount to 200l. And then, look at the difference between the cottage accommodation, and that in the house. Besides, to that 200l. must be added the value of Board-room, Master’s and Matron’s and other rooms, offices, cooking apparatus, &c.—As to the evidence of the average rating of other Union houses, that was not applicable, inasmuch as it was not shown whether they were rated rightly or wrongly; clearly, St. Columb must be a mere nominal rating; and the discrepancy between the ratings of St. Austell and Penzance Union-houses, showed that the evidence adduced could be no guide.—In conclusion, Mr. Shilson said that as he was desirous the Court should have all information possible, he should call witnesses to show the value of the Union-house, calculated with reference to the cost of cottage accommodation; but, still, his own view was that the Court must come back to the question—what was the rent that, under all circumstances, the guardians might reasonably be expected to give; and, the answer to that question might be arrived at, irrespective of any opinions of Surveyors and Valuers either on one side or the other. Nicholas Whitley, land surveyor and civil engineer. Had been engaged as a land-valuer for 20 years, and had valued for the Cornwall Railway; was also land-agent for various proprietors of land in the county. Had inspected the Truro Union-house, and estimated the net rateable value to be 302l. 10s.— First-class property of that kind was usually estimated by surveyors to return 5 per cent. on the outlay. Applying that principle as a test, he found the rateable value, at 5 per cent. on his own estimate of the outlay, to be 334l. 10s.; and 18l. a year the annual value of the land—about 6 or 7 acres. The amount of 334l. 10s. was arrived at after deduction of 35l. (10 per cent.) for repairs, and 13l. 10s. for insurance.— His own estimate of the gross value was 351l., which, less 48l. 10s. for repairs and insurance, left 302l. 10s. as the net rateable value. Had pretty good experience and information as to the cost at which cottages could be built for the class of persons for whom Union Houses were built; was now building five such cottages. Had plans with him (which were handed in) for two cottages of such description; and on them had formed his estimate of the value of the Union-house. The estimated cost of building houses of that character, would work out 13s. 4d. per head per annum as gross rental; for 500 persons, the number for which the Truro Union House was built, that would make 333l. That accommodation would be in good, substantial, respectable cottages, very superior to the class spoken of by Mr. Badcock at 8s.; which he considered low. This calculation was based on the accommodation of 500 paupers, and did not include the board-room, chapel, or master’s and matron’s rooms.—He had tried the valuation in another way. As a test, he had assumed that a house for 500 paupers could be built, with ordinary bare accommodation, at 14l. per head; that would give a capital of 7000l.; to which add as to 7 acres of land, 300l. would make a total of £7,300. 5 per cent. on this sum would give 365l.; add for 6 acres of land £18, would make 383l., deduct £48 10s. as before, would leave £334 10s. as the net rateable value of a house for the accommodation of 500 paupers.—The area of the Truro Union House was 42,555 square feet; at 80 square feet for each person, it would hold 532. The Truro Union-house cost nearly double the sum he had mentioned; there were very expensive foundations. His estimate was for bare cottage accommodation simply for the poor, without reference to the accommodation for the guardians or officers.—As to the sum that might reasonably be expected from the guardians as yearly rent for the house for the purpose for which it was now used, it was certain that they would be willing to pay as much rent as the sum they were now paying as interest; they would pay 400l.; if it was to let, they would allow no competition; it was their own property, and they would take it themselves. Independently of any question of competition, he thought there would be no difficulty in their giving the same amount for which the poor were now ordinarily accommodated; that would work out 351l. gross, and 302l. 10s. net; and that was the sum which he thought the guardians might reasonably be expected to give for the property as rent, independent of the board-room, chapel, and offices. £250 was, in his judgment, a very low rateable value.—Cross-examined. Had made no deduction from the gross, for poor rates, highway rates, or church rates; did not think they ought to be included. Believed that his estimate of per centage on outlay for ordinary accommodation was the proper way of making a valuation. Had not rated the Union-house on the cost of its building. If he knew that a gentleman’s house that cost 10,000l. let for no more than 50l. a year, he should rate it at that rental, without reference to its cost; nor should he make any calculation as to what any other house cost.—Supposing the guardians were to offer to let the Union-house, he did not think they would be likely to get an occupant.—The plans of cottagers’ dwellings which he had produced were on the basis of the plan put forward by the Society for Improving the Dwellings of the Poor; they had every accommodation suitable for the class of persons who might occupy a Union-house. They were stone-built and covered with slate; each cottage would accommodate six persons, and cost 70l. Was building some houses of the sort, near St. Austell, for the Railway Company. The rent he had put on each house was 4l., which for 6 people—the number it could accommodate—was 13s. 4d. per head. There were persons waiting to come into them at that rent; the occupants would be labourers, who, if misfortune came upon them, must go into the Union-house; there were paupers in the Union-house of a class above them. Some of these houses might be unoccupied at times, but he did not think it likely. Had taken the gross rental of each cottage, and made his calculation for the Union-house on that basis. Believed that similar cottages would let for more than 4l., in the position of the Union-house.—£18 a year for the land was not a strong price; should be happy to give that for it per year, and make a profit of it. There were 12 acres of land, some of it very poor; but his calculation was on 6 acres only, at 3l. an acre.—Lived in St. Clement’s parish.—Re-examined. The gross sum he had mentioned, was after deducting tenants’ rates and taxes. £351 was what, in the rate book, he should place in the column for “gross estimated rental,” and would not include tenants’ rates; it was the rental payable to the possessor of the property. John Thompson: Was a land surveyor and civil engineer living at Newlyn in Pydar; had been so for 20 years, and had had large experience in valuing land and also in valuing for poor rates. Had examined the Truro Union-house with reference to giving evidence in this case. Considered the rateable value of that property should be 291l. 11s. The total cost of the building was 12,316l., from which he deducted 2,300l. for such parts of the property as, in his judgment, the guardians received no beneficial interest from—150l. for the top of the octagon, and 2,150l. for the foundations. The house could not have been built on that site, without those foundations; but he deducted 2,150l., on the assumption that the house might have been built elsewhere. Taking the outlay at 10,000l., he calculated the rental at 4 per cent., making 400l. on the gross estimated rental on that capital; he added for 6 acres of land, 12l.; making the gross estimated value, 412l.; and then, in order to arrive at the net rateable value, he deducted 40l. for repairs; 10l. for insurance; 47l. 10s. for rates and taxes, 2l. 10s. tithe rent charge; and 20l. a year for the chapel; leaving a net rateable value of 291l. 11s. 0d.; or 311l. 11s. if the chapel were included. He believed that the guardians would give 400l. a year (the interest on the outlay of 10,000l.,) rather than build a house.—Cross-examined. According to his opinion, Mr. Whitley’s plan of entering the “gross estimated rental” in the rate book was wrong; he (Mr. Thompson) in entering the gross estimated rental should first of all deduct the tenants’ rates.—Mr. Darke:—Mr. Whitley thinks that 7000l. would be enough to afford accommodation; and he puts 5 per cent. on that, and so makes his gross 350l.; should you deduct tenants’ rates and taxes from an estimate so formed?—Witness:—I should.—Mr. Darke:— You think that 5 per cent. Is too much, and that 4 per cent. is enough?—Witness—I have taken it at that.—In valuing a parish for rating, he should not deduct for risk of non-occupation, unless he found that the house was in a locality where there was a probability that it would not let, and then he should make his valuation accordingly. Taking the average of parishes, it would depend on local circumstances, what he should deduct for risk of non-occupation. If he were rating a set of cottages on the site of the Truro Union-house, he should make deduction for risk of non-occupation if he found houses in the district unoccupied; but not otherwise. For cottages renting at 4l. a year, he should put down, on an average, 40 shillings as rateable value; should think that six persons in such a cottage would be cramped; it might give an accommodation for five persons, and then the rated value per head would be 8 shillings. Had heard that the Truro Union-house would accommodate 500 persons in accordance with the rules of the Poor Law Board; supposing he were to find cottages intended for 500 persons, occupied by 270, he should not rate the remainder. In the Union-house, perhaps the inmates might have access to all parts of the house; but if there was any part unoccupied, he should not rate it.—Re-examined.—In order to arrive at the rateable value of a property, the only deductions from rent, allowed by law, were for repairs and insurance. He supposed the repairs of a cottage renting at 4l., would not cost more on an average, than 1l.; and the insurance would be on about 50l.—which would cost about 2s. 6d. a year. His plan of entering “Gross Estimated Rental,” was to take the Gross in the first place including tenant’s rates, insurance, and tithes; but Mr. Whitley deducted these before he entered his Gross Rental. Truro Union-house was at a very easy distance from Truro, and had a very good supply of water, which was a very great consideration. Thomas Hicks, land-surveyor, living at Truro, had looked at the Truro Union-house for the purpose of estimating its value. Made the gross value 314l. 17s. 6d., exclusive of the Chapel, which he valued at 20l.; and also exclusive of the Boys’ school-room and sleeping rooms, which he valued at 18l. 10s. He valued the field at 22l.; a portion of the field, about 2½ acres, was now in actual cultivation as garden ground; and the other part was tillable. For repairs, he made a deduction of 47l. 5s.; and 20l. for insurance, on 10,000l. Should think that insurance on half that amount was as much as was necessary. Also deducted 2l. 18s. 6d. from the 18l. 10s. 0d. for school-room and sleeping-rooms attached. The total of the deductions made the rateable value 285l. 7s. 0d. exclusive of the chapel, or 305l. 7s. 0d. inclusive of it. Had been living at Truro 24 years, and now rented land adjoining the Union-house property.— Cross-examined. Had taken the land occupied by the Guardians, as 8 acres, exclusive of the site of the house. Considered Mr. Thompson to be wrong in valuing the land at 2l. per acre. Witness himself gave 5l. per acre for the field adjoining. The upper part of the Union land was very bare and poor. In making his valuation, he went through the different apartments; put down 15l. for the Board-room; thought it would bring that if let, and that the guardians could not get for less, another room so suitable for their purpose. Lived in St. Clement’s parish, and was a rate-payer. Samuel Rugg, architect and surveyor. Had been engaged in matters connected with building nearly 30 years; was Clerk of the Works at the building of the Truro Union-house. The cost of the Building, including the extra foundations and fixtures, was 12,196l. 15s. 0d. That sum did not include the cooking apparatus, nor the architect’s charges, about 250l.; nor his own charges, about 200l. It was built for 500 paupers, and was sanctioned by the Poor Law Commissioners. Had been engaged in various places; had calculated 18l. per head as about the average cost of Union-houses generally; that would include ornament very often; should think 16l. a head as an average quite enough. In making his estimate of the value of the Truro house, he should deduct about 35l. a year for repairs and insurance; thought it ought to be insured in about 5000l.; it was now insured, he believed, in 3500l.; the cost of insurance of 5000l. would be about 11 or 12l. It was a very substantial, well-built house, with very little ornament. There was an extra cost of about 70 or 80l. for the cut-stone in front; and there was a considerable expense— about 2000l., for the foundations. Its situation, as a Union Work-house is good, and there is an excellent supply of water.—Cross-examined. Should not think there would be any great difference, per head, in the cost of building a Union-house for 500 or for 250 paupers.—After much cross-examination on this point, the witness said that it would cost about 1l. more per head for a building for 250 paupers than it would for a building for 500, on the same site; if Truro cost 20l. per head for 500 = 10,000l., it would cost for 250, 21l. per head = 5,250l. Mr. SMITH then addressed the court, on the respondent’s evidence. He denied the applicability of the comparison that had been suggested on the other side, of the Truro Union-house with gentlemen’s mansions, as to valuation for rating, on the basis of outlay. In the rating of mansions there were many considerations in favour of a comparatively low rating that could not enter into the present question.— In the present case, he went on to observe, the guardians were both owners and occupiers—both landlords and tenants; and this unusual state of things rendered it necessary to look to the outlay as some criterion of value. He did not say it was a principle on which they should wholly rely; but he did say it was a very fair and proper element in the question, to consider the outlay the guardians had put themselves to, in order to be able to occupy a building of this description. The Act of Parliament authorised them either to build or hire; they might have hired, if there had been a suitable building; they could not find one, and therefore were obliged to borrow a large sum of money for building. But, he would ask, if there had been an available house for renting, whether they would not gladly have done so at a rent of 250l.—It was said on the other side that if the house were to let, there would be no competition for it; but, on the other hand, it must be remembered that there was an occupation of it provided by Act of Parliament; and, as long as the existing Poor Law continued, there must be tenants of the house, and, consequently, nothing could be deducted from the valuation, for risk of non-occupation. That being the case, the value must be arrived at by some other means as he had pointed out, namely, by taking the outlay as a basis; and, assuming any reasonable rate per cent., the amount would be much beyond the 250l. in which the house had been rated. Mr. Smith cited the case of the Queen v. St. Giles, Camberwell, to shew that a per centage on the actual cost of construction, might be taken as a test of value; and then, after recapitulating the evidence of respondents’ witnesses on the point, he said the parish of St. Clement had dealt leniently with the Board of Guardians, and it was rather too much for the Guardians to say, after an expenditure of 15,000l. which, it must be assumed they, as careful trustees of the public money, had laid out carefully—it was too much for them to say they were not occupying a house of the fair rateable value of 250l. He then commented on the evidence for the appellants. Mr. Badcock, he asserted, was quite a witness for respondents, inasmuch as he said the guardians would rather pay 4 per cent. on the outlay than build. Mr. Olver’s principle of valuation of the Union-house as a Brewery, would not stand for a moment; for the principle was laid down by Act of Parliament that the overseers must take the present value of a property, and must not speculate on the future; and this principle was in accordance with the original Poor Law—the 43rd of Elizabeth.—In support of this position, Mr. Smith cited the King v. Grand Junction Railway Company, Law Journal, p 101; and Queen v. Great Western Railway Company, 15, Law Journal.—He next replied to the statement of the appellants—that the whole of the building had not been occupied. On the authority of King v. St. Mary the Less, Durham, and King v. Aberystwith, he asserted that the guardians were liable to be rated for the whole building, whether they occupied the whole or any portion only. In conclusion, he repeated that the parish had dealt leniently with the guardians, in putting down 250l. only as the rateable value. Mr. HOCKIN then replied on the whole case. The Justices (Mr. Lethbridge, Sir Colman Rashleigh, Mr. D. P. Le Grice, Mr. E. Coode, jun., and the Rev. R. Buller) retired for consultation; and in about half an hour returned into Court, and the Chairman said:— The Court decides that this rate shall be amended by charging the house and premises at 125l., and the fields at 15l.; making a total of 140l. Mr. HOCKIN applied for costs; but the CHAIRMAN said, as the case had been brought forward to decide a principle, the Court would only give common costs. Mr. SHILSON asked if the Court had fixed on any principle.—The CHAIRMAN replied:—We did establish a principle of calculations on which we came to this conclusion; we are not bound to state it; but I have no objection to state that it is not a mere imaginary sum; we have not arrived at our decision by mere vague guess. Application was made by the respondents’ advocates for a case for the Court of Queen’s Bench; but the Court declined to grant it, the Chairman observing that the Bench had done what they believed to be legal and right and had not lost sight of the Act of Parliament, in coming to their decision. Mr. SHILSON urged that if would be important for persons to know if the Court had established a principle for such ratings. The CHAIRMAN:– If any other Unions think right to appeal, we shall be here, and shall have a principle that we shall abide by. This appeal, which occupied the Court about 6 hours, concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 1 and 8 July 1853

4. Midsummer Sessions

These Sessions opened on Tuesday last, at Bodmin, before the following magistrates:— J. King LETHBRIDGE, Esq., chairman Sir W. L. S. Trelawney, Bart. E. Coode, Junr., Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. F. G. Graham, Esq. W. H. Pole Carew, Esq. R. G. Bennet, Esq. E. Collins, Esq. H. M. St. Aubyn, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. N. Kendall, Jun., Esq. C. G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. R. Davey, Esq. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. M. H. Williams, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. W. Williams, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. H. Thomson, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. Edward Stephens, Esq. Rev. R. B. Kingsman. J. Fincher Trist, Esq., of Falmouth, qualified as a magistrate; and the Rev. F. C. Jackson took the oaths on his presentation to the rectory of Grade. The following gentlemen (only 19 in number) were sworn on the Grand Jury:- Mr. Thomas Baker, Menheniot, foreman. Mr. R. Blake, Menheniot. Mr. R. Burdon, . Mr. Oliver Banbury, Jacobstow. Mr. W. Bennett, Budock. Mr. T. Ching, . Mr. John Davey, Gwennap. Mr. J. Gill, Penryn. Mr. N. Holman, St. Just in . Mr. R. Michell, Gwennap. Mr. T. Merilyn, Mabe. Mr. J. Martin, Jun., Callington. Mr. E. Northy, Jacobstow. Mr. R. Pearce, Jacobstow. Mr. N. Pascoe, . Mr. W. Rawlings, Sanceed. Mr. J. Saundry, Sennen. Mr. H. Tresize, St. Just in Penwith. Mr. W Tonkin, Paul. [Chairman’s Charge to the Grand Jury – not transcribed] COUNTY BUSINESS. VISITING JUSTICES REPORT. – The Visiting Justices had much satisfaction in reporting the high state of cleanliness that prevailed throughout the prison. But the Governor had lately complained of the disorderly conduct of a particular class of females confined in the House of Correction, and who had been encouraged, by association, to give way to the grossest depravity which the Governor found it almost impossible to restrain, the present inefficient state of the prison preventing the possibility of supervision. – There was at present no sickness in the gaol, and the hospitals were unoccupied. [Coroners’ Bills.—Not transcribed] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The Governor regretted to be unable to give a satisfactory account of the behaviour of the prisoners since the last sessions. While the present system was continued, of associating prisoners together in the day-rooms, the evils pointed out in his own report, and also in the Chaplain’s report, at the last Sessions, must be expected to follow. It was only a week or two since that he requested a visiting magistrate to go into one of the female wards and admonish one of the inmates for gross depravity on the previous day, and for which he had been under the necessity of locking up the whole of them in their respective sleeping cells the whole of that day, being unable to fix the offence on any one of them in particular. He was thus repeatedly prevented from punishing prisoners as they deserved; and was unable fully to conform to the rules and regulations.—The health of the prisoners at present was excellent; the hospitals were unoccupied; and the cases of casual indisposition were very few.—The rules and regulations for the conduct of the prison had been, as far as practicable, complied with. Some of the areas and passages required repaving; and some of the roofs of the dormitories wanted repairs; but in other respects the prison continued much in the same state as before reported. The comparative statement of prisoners at the Midsummer Sessions of 1852 and 1853 respectively showed that last year there were 35 prisoners for trial, and now 39. [Gaol Expenses for the past Quarter—Not transcribed] GAOL ENLARGEMENT.—Mr. GILBERT, as Chairman of the Committee for the improvement of the gaol, stated that at the last Epiphany Sessions they made a report which was ordered to be taken into consideration at the Easter Sessions. So far they had acted in accordance with the Act of Parliament. But it appeared that the Act also required that notice of intention to consider such Report at an ensuing Quarter Sessions ought to be advertised three times in the newspapers. By an inadvertence this notice was not so advertised, and consequently the Committee were not now in a condition to make the purchases of land, or to proceed in any way, as directed at the Easter Sessions. He believed he need now do no more than call attention to the Report presented at the Epiphany Sessions, to the discussion that took place at the Easter Sessions and the vote then unanimously come to, and to the report which Mr. Everest had just presented—that the gaol was in such an imperfect condition that he was unable to conform to the rules and regulations required by law. He would then move that it be ordered by the Court that notice be given in the public newspapers, that the report which he had referred to would be taken into consideration at the next Sessions, pursuant to the Act 4th George 4th, cap. 64, sect. 49. The Rev. T. PASCOE seconded the motion. The CHAIRMAN referred to the resolution adopted at the Easter Sessions—to grant out of the £5000 originally voted for the enlargement of the gaol, £1200 for the purpose of carrying up outward walls, etc. He thought the Court could do no other than accede to Mr. Gilbert’s motion, and so enable the committee to comply with the resolution adopted at the Easter Sessions.—The chairman then put the motion, and it was carried unanimously. BRIDGES.—The CHAIRMAN, stating that Mr. Pease, Bridge Surveyor for the Eastern Division of the County, was attending a parliamentary committee, read his Report. It stated that since last Sessions the work at Wadebridge had progressed very satisfactorily; and there only remained two or three arches to complete the widening of the bridge. Mr. Pease reported some small repairs at Polston and Beal’s Mill Bridges, and stated that he now required two levies. The CHAIRMAN, after consultation with Mr. Symons, solicitor, of Wadebridge, stated that some portions of the bridge property had been sold remarkably well, since the order of last Sessions to that effect; but there remained on hand some of the least saleable portions of the property. It was now for the Court to consider whether it was not desirable to offer those portions for sale peremptorily.—Mr. GILBERT and Mr. STEPHENS thought it was desirable so to dispose of those portions; and a resolution to that effect was unanimously adopted. Mr. MOORMAN, Surveyor for the Western Division, reported that the sum of £35, voted at the last Sessions for the improvement of Higher Carnon Bridge, had been found insufficient for the purpose, on inspection by magistrates and himself.—Mr. Moorman also reported that the persons whose tenders had been accepted for the repair of bridge roads in lots 14 and 15, had refused to sign the agreement; and two other respectable persons had offered to accept the contract on the like conditions.—Mr. Moorman reported that he should require one levy. The CHAIRMAN read a letter from Mr. Enys, (who with Mr. M. H. Williams, had inspected the bridge roads in East Kirrier), stating that the late contractors had greatly neglected their duties, but expressing belief in their statement that they left the bridge roads which they had contracted to repair, in as good condition as they were at the commencement of their term; and, on this ground, Mr. Enys was of opinion that the contractors were entitled, equitably, to their last half year’s payment.—Mr GILBERT, however, and some other magistrates, were opposed to this view of the contractors’ claim; and the following resolution, moved by Mr. GILBERT, and seconded by Sir Colman RASHLEIGH, was unanimously agreed to:– That Mr. Moorman be directed to withhold payment for the last half year to the late contractors for repairing the bridge-roads in lots 14 and 15, unless within a month they fulfil their contract to the satisfaction of the magistrates; and also, as William Woolcock and John Bennett, the proposed contractors for these lots had declined to sign the agreement, that the tender of William Phillips and James Martin to take their contract at the same sum, be accepted. Mr. GILBERT stated that the necessary repairs of Higher Carnon Bridge, ordered at the last Sessions, could not be effected for the sum of £35 then voted for the purpose. He therefore moved that an additional sum of £15 be granted. Mr. M. H. WILLIAMS seconded the motion; which was unanimously agreed to. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH complained of the neglected state of the roads of St. Blazey and Grampound Bridges, stating that the latter was almost impassable in the last winter. Sir Colman further complained with respect to all the county roads between Truro and Lostwithiel; and moved that, in future, no money be paid the Bridge-roads Contractors, until such roads be repaired to the satisfaction of the Surveyor of Bridges for the Division.—Mr. E. COODE junr., seconded the motion; which was unanimously carried. MILITIA STORE ROOMS.—Sir W. L. S. TRELAWNY, in compliance with notice, moved that a sum of £15 yearly be granted for the rent of a store-house at Launceston, for the Duke of Cornwall’s 2nd Regiment of Rangers; and a sum of £25 for fitting it up.—The resolution, seconded by the Rev. T. PASCOE, was unanimously agreed to. BRIDGE.—On the motion of Mr. STEPHENS, seconded by Capt. HEXT, it was resolved to grant a sum of 60l. for the repair and improvement of Trewornan Bridge. SOWDEN’S BRIDGE.—The Rev. R. BULLER stated that, on examination by Mr. Pease, it had been found that the sum of 22l. 10s., for which he had given notice at the Easter Sessions, for the improvement of this bridge, in the parish of Duloe, had been found insufficient. He therefore begged to withdraw his notice for that sum, and to give notice that he should at the next sessions, require a sum of 40l. CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS.—The CHAIRMAN stated that two tenders for contracts for the conveyance of prisoners from Stratton to Camelford had been received, both at the same amount; the one offer being from Mr. Goddard, who had been a very useful police officer; and the other was Alfred Jarrett, now a police officer at Stratton. The magistrates of the district, considering it desirable that the contractor should be a constable, recommended the appointment of Mr. Jarrett. In accordance with this recommendation, it was resolved, on the motion of Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, seconded by the Rev. T. PASCOE, that Mr. JARRETT’s tender be accepted. REGISTRATION LISTS.—The CHAIRMAN stated that two tenders had been received for printing the Registration Lists for the Eastern Division of the County; one from Messrs. Liddell of Bodmin, for 55l., with condition that if a new Reform Bill be passed, the contract be void; the other from Mr. Lancaster of Falmouth, for 45l.—After inquiries concerning Mr. Lancaster’s respectability, his tender was accepted. LUNATIC ASYLUM.—The CHAIRMAN stated, on the subject of the letter from the Vicar of Bodmin, presented at the Easter Sessions, that Mr. Kendall, of the Asylum Committee, had been written to; and had suggested, in consequence of the absence of one or two members of the Committee, that the consideration of the letter be postponed.—On the motion of Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, seconded by Mr. CAREW, it was resolved to postpone the matter till the Michaelmas Sessions. LOOE BRIDGE.—On the motion of the Rev. R. BULLER, seconded by the Rev. T. PASCOE, it was resolved that the Clerk of the Peace be requested to take Counsel’s opinion on the following point.—whether the justices have power to contribute a sum of money, to be paid to the Commissioners under the Looe Harbour Act, towards the expenses of their erecting a new bridge at Looe, and obtaining land for that purpose, by virtue of the powers given them by that act; and in the event of such opinion being clearly satisfactory to the Clerk of the Peace, that he do immediately summon the Committee to meet at Bodmin to consider it. —Capt. HEXT gave notice that at the next sessions he would move that a sum not exceeding 30l. be granted annually in addition to the present salary—40l.—of the Clerk of the Gaol; the visiting justices considering that the present salary was a very inadequate remuneration for important services very satisfactorily performed. —The Clerk of the Peace’s Bill, for 40l. 12s. 11d. for expenses connected with printing the Registration lists, was allowed. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. RALPH LAITY pleaded GUILTY, of stealing, at St. Hilary, on the 18th of April, six pieces of timber, the property of Richard Rooke Michell and others. He appealed to the Rev. T. Pascoe; and that gentleman said the prisoner had always borne a good character. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) MARY ANN PILL, 16, was charged with stealing 4 sovereigns, the property of Amy Hennah, of the parish of Gorran, on the 11th of May.—The prisoner at the time of the felony, had lived about 5 months as a servant with Henry Hennah, a farmer, whose mother, Amy Hennah, lived with him; and the prisoner was accustomed to sleep in the same room with Mrs. Amy Hennah. On the evening of the day named, Mrs. Amy Hennah, on going to bed, counted 66 sovereigns, which she placed in a bag in a handkerchief, under her pillow; and not long afterwards, prisoner came into the room to her bed. The next morning, Mrs. Amy Hennah observed that the handkerchief was removed from where she had placed it to a box in another part of the room, and, asking the prisoner how the handkerchief came to be there, she replied that she found it on the bed. Prisoner then left the room; and Mrs. Amy Hennah, suspecting something was wrong, counted the money and found there were only 62 sovereigns, and that the bag had been untied. Mrs. Amy Hennah, (whose disposition was received in evidence, in consequence of her inablility, through infirmity, to come to the sessions) stated that she generally slept very soundly, and had no doubt the bag had been taken from her by the prisoner during her sleep,—Four sovereigns were, shortly afterwards, found with 14s. in silver, in a bag in prisoner’s possession; it being proved by Mrs. Sybilla Hennah, wife of Mr. Henry Hennah, that previously the prisoner had no gold; she and her box having been searched on a previous suspicion. On being questioned concerning her possession of the 4 sovereigns, the prisoner said she found them, but declined to say where.—On the evidence of Mr. Henry and Mrs. Sybilla Hennah, and the deposition of Mrs. Amy Hennah, she was found GUILTY.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution. (Sentence: six months hard labour.) ELIZA ANN LETCHER, 24, wife of a miner, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 28th of May, at the parish of Falmouth, a blanket, the property of Richard Libby, landlord of the Wodehouse Arms. It appeared that she was on the day in question, a miner’s pay-day, drinking at the house; and was detected in the act of walking off with a blanket she had taken from a bed-room to which she had gone from the sitting-room. Her excuse in court, was that, having been drinking brandy and porter, she knew not what she was about. The chairman, however, observed, as usual, that drunkenness is no extenuation of crime. (Sentence: three months hard labour.) ROBERT EVANS, 18, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 24th of May, at Redruth, from the person of Charles Henry Terrill, a silk handkerchief. This was a street robbery, effected while the prosecutor was, with a crowd of persons, looking at Wombwell’s Menagerie. (Sentence: three months hard labour.) WILLIAM TREGAY, 39, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 9th of April, 7½ lbs of beef, the property of James Toms, railway labourer, at a public-house in the parish of St. Mewan. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) JOHN TREBELL, 54, charged with stealing, on the 5th of June, at St. Agnes, a pig, the property of James Curnow; was found GUILTY, after a protracted trial in which Mr. Hockin conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Darke (for Mr. Shilson) the defence. (Sentence: six months hard labour.) SAMUEL BILLING, was indicted for stealing 12 gallons of wheat, the property of Richard Hawkey, farmer of St. Mabyn, from a barn in Mr. Hawkey’s occupation in the parish of St. Tudy. Mr. Commins conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence. The Jury at the rising of the Court, retired for consultation; and at 8 o’clock returned a verdict of GUILTY, with a recommendation to mercy. The Court then rose. (Sentence: three months hard labour.) SECOND COURT.—TUESDAY, June 28. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) A WARNING TO JURORS.—On the jury being called for the second court, the number could not be made up, on which the bailiffs who had served the summonses on jurors were sworn, and fines were inflicted on absentees without cause, of forty shillings each. Certificates from surgeons, stating illness or infirmity, were delivered in a number of cases, and in some instances the parties had emigrated to Australia. The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lethbridge) remarked that it was extraordinary those persons who laboured under diseases did not go before the magistrates and state their case, and they would not be placed on the list; or any person past sixty years of age might state that fact to the magistrates, and he would not be summoned.—At length the whole list being called over (thirty six having been summoned) the second jury was made up in number. HENRY ENNIS, 36, was found GUILTY of stealing a shilling, in May last, at Par Consols Mine, the property of Joseph Roberts. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) AMOS COLLETT, 28, was charged with stealing six fowls, on the 23rd of April, the property of Benjamin Rundell, miller. Mr. STOKES for the prosecution, and Mr. SHILSON for the prisoner. The trial lasted a considerable time, the evidence against the prisoner being entirely circumstantial, and resting principally on footmarks which were discovered close to the linhay from which the fowls were stolen. The CHAIRMAN said that the comparison of footmarks should always be made by forming, if possible, another print with the shoe of the suspected party, by the side of the original marks, which had not been done in this case.—The prisoner was a navvy working on the Cornwall Railway. The jury did not consider the evidence, as to the footmarks or other circumstances, to be conclusive against him, and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.—The Court then rose. WEDNESDAY, June 29. (Before J. K. Lethbridge, Esq.) EMBEZZLEMENT.—FREDERICK BARRETT, 42, was indicted for embezzling a certain sum of money, on the 9th of April, the property of his employer, William Bickford Smith, of Camborne. A second count charged the prisoner with embezzling another sum of money on the 11th of April. Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Stokes defended the prisoner. It appeared from the evidence that prisoner was employed as a weigher of coals in the yard of Mr. William Bickford Smith, at Camborne. It was his duty to weigh off all coals sent out of the yard; some were sold on credit, and some for ready money. Of the coals sold on credit, some were sent out in Mr. Bickford’s carts, and some in the customers’ carts. When sent out in Mr. Bickford’s carts, an immediate account was rendered of it by the carter to the clerk at the yard, Mr. Pascoe; when fetched by customers, the prisoner would render an account to the clerk in the evening. When coals were sold for cash, the prisoner received the money, and the usual practice was for him to hand it over to the clerk in the evening of each day. Mr. William Smith, an uncle of the prosecutor, manages the gas works at Camborne, and on the 1st of April had ordered two tons of coals for the works. In consequence of suspicion, the coals were weighed when delivered, and found to be only 1 ton 12 cwt. 1 qr. 11 lbs. Inquiries were then made, and on the 9th of April it was determined that Mr. William Smith should go to the office at the coal yard, the window of which overlooked the yard, which he did, and seating himself back so as not to be seen, he watched the prisoner’s proceedings. The prisoner, on some Saturdays, was assisted by another weigher, but on that Saturday he had no assistant. He was seen by Mr. William Smith to sell coals for cash to the amount of £3 5s. 7½ d., at 14d. per cwt., but in the evening he only turned in to the clerk, 2l. 15s. 7½ d. On the following Monday a similar watch was kept, and he was observed to sell coals amounting to 1l. 10s. 4d. for cash, but in the evening he handed in only 1l. 2s. 9d. Also on Saturday, the 9th of April, an order was given for two tons for the gas works, purposely to try the prisoner. Mr. William Smith, from the window, observed him to weigh up only 1 ton 13 cwt., yet in the evening he returned two tons as having been sent to the gas works. It was suggested by Mr. Darke for the prosecution, that what the prisoner omitted to send out on credit, his plan was to sell those quantities for cash, and put the money in his pocket. Prisoner’s own statement before Mr. Magor, the committing magistrate, was that he must have lost some of the money out of the bag, and that he was willing to repay it at so much per month. These were the main features of the case. Mr. STOKES ably addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, suggesting that Mr. Smith was too far from the prisoner (about 20 yards) to observe accurately what he weighed in the yard. It was also urged that some other person might have taken money out of the prisoner’s bag without his knowledge; and that the business was so conducted that there was no check against him by the clerk as to quantities sold. The prisoner was, however, after some consideration, found GUILTY by the jury on both counts. (Sentence: six months hard labour.) WILLIAM MAUNDER, 17, ELIZA SAMBELLS, 24, and ELIZA NORTHEY, 19, were charged with stealing from the person of William Shaw, a purse containing one sovereign and seventeen shillings. Mr. SHILSON conducted the prosecution, and Mr. CHILDS defended the prisoner Sambells; the others were undefended. It appeared that the prosecutor, who lives in , in the parish of Calstock, was at Callington on the 9th of June, between 10 and 11 at night, and was followed into the Wellington Inn, by the prisoners, whom he had previously seen at the Royal Oak. Prosecutor called for gin, and the prisoners drank some of it. Prosecutor swore that the lad Maunder put his hand into his pocket, and stole his purse and money, and made off with it. Mr. CHILDS addressed the jury on behalf of Sambells, who was acquitted, and also Northey, but Maunder was found GUILTY. The two women were strongly cautioned by the court to be careful as to their future conduct. (Sentence: (William MAUNDER) four months hard labour.) SETH KAY, 29, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 9th of June, at Mills, a bushel of flour and a sack, the property of Mr. Johns, miller. (Sentence: six months hard labour.) COUNTY BUSINESS. The Rev. R. BULLER said the sum of £30 having been ordered by the court to be expended in improvements at the back of the county halls, in pursuance of a notice given by Lord Vivian, he now begged to move that the matter be referred to a committee, to consist of Lord Vivian, Mr. Enys, Rev. R. Buller, Rev. John Wallis, and Mr. Everest. MILITIA STORE-ROOM.—Mr. GULLY BENNETT said at the last sessions the sum of 30l. was granted for the rent of a house in Bodmin for the use of the first regiment of Cornwall Rangers, as a store-room, the rent to commence from Lady-day last. But from the previous Michaelmas up to Lady-day last, a debt had been incurred for the occupation of the house then in use, amounting to 17l. 10s. and he now moved for a grant of that amount to meet the contingency stated.—The motion was seconded by the Rev. R. BULLER, and carried unanimously. The Rev. John Bartlett took the oaths on his appointment to St. Blazey. TRIALS RESUMED. JACOB HARRIS, 21, pleaded GUILTY of stealing at Bodmin, on the 13th of April, a gold ring and gold brooch, the property of Elizabeth Sincock. (Sentence: four months hard labour.) HARRIET KNEEBONE, 17, was charged with stealing from the person of Mary Jane Bray, a purse containing 5s. 8d. Whilst prosecutrix was in a field at St. Columb, where Macarte’s circus was exhibiting, the charge was that prisoner stole the money from her pocket.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) A GYPSY TRICK.—ELIZA ADAMS TRAYES, a woman aged fifty-three, and of a very repulsive aspect, was indicted for stealing from Elizabeth Northey, twenty-one sovereigns and two half sovereigns. Mr. COMMINS conducted the prosecution, and Mr. SHILSON the defence. Elizabeth Northey said, I reside near Consols mine in Gwennap; my daughter and son live with me. On the 14th of April the prisoner came to my house; I was ill at the time, having sciatica in my thigh; my daughter-in-law was in the house at the time. As the prisoner came in I rose up, and she said, “I see you are afflicted,” and she said she could do me good. I said I did not think she could do me any good; she said she could, and I should feel the better every day. She came again on the following morning, the 15th; my daughter, Mary Ann Northey, was there at the time. The prisoner asked me if I had any money. I did not tell her that I had. She told me I must pick up all the money I had, and wrap it in a new piece of calico. I thought I would do it, as she said she could not otherwise do me any good. I picked up twenty-one sovereigns and two half sovereigns; my son is gone to California, and he had sent that money home to me. She told me to put the new piece of calico into my pocket, and keep it there, and I did so. The prisoner came again on the following day, 16th of April, and when she came in I was really afraid of her. I went out to clean the cow-house, and she followed me there. I went then to the barn, and she followed me there. The door fell close after her, and it was almost dark. She gave me a bottle of medicine, and told me to bury it under a turf (laughter). She told me she had sent to Exeter for the medicine by coach, and then she asked me if I had my money. I said I had it in my pocket. She looked to see it, and I showed her the parcel which contained the money. After that, she asked to handle it, and to wrap it up in a piece of consecrated paper (laughter). She had it to wrap up, and she gave it to me again. I took it in my right hand; she then snatched it out of my hand, and knelt down, and put the parcel under one of her knees, clasped her hands together, lifted up her eyes, and said something that I could not understand. After two or three minutes she gave me, as I thought, the same parcel again. (The parcel was here produced). This was on Saturday; she told me to keep it in my pocket till Monday, and she would come again on that day with the medicine. I was in the barn not more than ten minutes or a quarter of an hour; she came into the house after me, and asked me for a bit of bread, and I gave it to her. She then said “God bless you,” and went off. About two o’clock that day I felt in my mind I must see what was in the parcel: I opened it, and found fourteen pieces of lead (laughter). The parcel has been in my possession ever since. (Witness here produced the parcel, wrapped up in a green “consecrated” paper, and containing fourteen round pieces of lead about the size of sovereigns). Witness said, I had never seen the prisoner before that day; I thought she was a charmer; had heard of people that go about who can do good (laughter).—Cross-examined.—I did put the medicine under the turf—did not take it.—John Thomas, an inn-keeper residing about a quarter of a mile from Mrs. Northey’s house, said prisoner came to his house on the 14th of April, in the morning. She had a glass of beer and a half a noggin of brandy. She asked me if I knew any one called Northey, a widow; I said I did. She asked if she had not a son called Henry, and whether he had not been married twice. I said I believed he had. She asked whether Henry’s first wife was not residing between that and ; I said I believe she did. She asked if Mrs. Northey had any property. I said she had two horses and two waggons that go on the railroad. She asked if Mrs. Northey had a son abroad and if he sent money to her? I said I could not tell, and asked her why she wanted to know all these particulars? She said Mrs. Northey had sent to her to come to read her fortune. I showed her through the window the way to Mrs. Northey’s house; I have known the prisoner for years; she pretends to tell fortunes.—Mary Ann Northey was then called, and also John Thomas, a constable of St. Gluvias, who apprehended the prisoner at her own dwelling in Lostwithiel. She pretended to know nothing about Gwennap at first, but when taken there she said, it was true she told Mrs. Northey a few words, and she said, “I had her chink, and serve the old devil right.” Mr. Shilson did not address the jury for the prisoner, but merely called as a witness to character the landlord of the house which prisoner rents at Lostwithiel, and who said she always paid him his rent, and he never heard anything against her.—The Chairman having summed up, the jury instantly found the prisoner Guilty. THOMAS PENHORWOOD, 39, was found GUILTY, of stealing a silver spoon, on the 9th of April, the property of Charles Nation Burt, who keeps the White Horse Inn, at Newport by Launceston. (Sentence: three months hard labour.) STEALING CORN.—JOSEPH BRAY, 47, and THOMAS BRAY, 55, were indicted for stealing, in March, twenty-two gallons of wheat, the property of Alfred Fox and others. Mr. CHILDS for the prosecution, and Mr. STOKES for the prisoners. The Messrs. Fox, merchants at Falmouth, have a store-room at Penryn, in a building belonging to George Trenerry. The ground floor is occupied by Mr. Freeman, and the floor above is used for a corn-store room by the Messrs. Fox, to which access is obtained by a moveable ladder. The prisoners are sawyers at Penryn; their saw-pit is outside the store-house, and has a wooden roof which rests against the store-house, one of the windows of which looks into the saw-pit. There are window shutters, but no glass in the windows. In March last, Messrs. Fox had wheat on the floor; in May oats, and in June wheat again. Mr. Peter Rogers is agent for Messrs. Fox at Penryn. On Wednesday the 1st of June he had occasion to leave the loft and go to his house about four o’clock in the afternoon. On his return he observed the corn running, then went to the floor below, and there found the prisoners. A small hole had been cut in the floor of the corn-loft, and in a box in which one of the prisoners was standing, under a bag Mr. Rogers found about 44 lbs. of wheat. A stick was found, which on being inserted into the hole caused the corn to run, but on withdrawing the stick, the corn soon ceased to run. On the 9th of June, some work-premises in the occupation of prisoners, adjoining their saw-pit, were searched, and in barrels and a tool-chest there were found wheat and oats. The prisoners had occasional access to Mr. Freeman’s cellar, the cellar-man giving them keys to go in to prop up the floor of the corn-loft above before a cargo was put there. Samples of the wheat and oats found in prisoners’ possession were produced in court, and it was stated to be similar to that which had been placed in Messrs. Fox’s store-room.—Mr. Stokes made an ingenious defence of the prisoners, but they were both found GUILTY of stealing on the 1st of June. (Sentence (each): eight months hard labour.) PETER WILLIAMS, 21, was found GUILTY of stealing two ducks on the 21st of May, the property of Elisha Williams, of Gwennap. Prisoner said he was in liquor at the time. Prosecutor gave him a good character previous to the present offence, and he was recommended to mercy by the jury. There was another charge against the prisoner of stealing two planks from Nicholas Jory, of Gwennap, but this was not proceeded with. (Sentence: one month hard labour.) —The court then rose. The Grand Jury were discharged about twelve o’clock this day, with the thanks of the county for their services. SECOND COURT.—WEDNESDAY, June 29. (Before SIR COLMAN RASHLEIGH, BART.) JOSEPH BASSETT, 47, pleaded GUILTY of stealing an ash pole, the property of Elizabeth Geake of the parish of St. Germans, widow. (Sentence: one month hard labour.) MARY BORLASE, 30, was found GUILTY of stealing in the month of March, at the parish of , a piece of American deal plank, the property of the proprietors of Wheal Jane Mine. The principal witness for the prosecution recommended the prisoner to merciful consideration, stating that she had previously maintained a good character for honesty; and that she belonged to an honest family; her mother being a poor widow. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) JAMES MARTIN, 23, was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 1st of May, at the parish of St. Gluvias, a duck, the property of Edward Rapson. (Sentence: four months hard labour.) JOHN TONKIN, 27, was indicted for stealing a money order for £23 2s. 6d., the property of Thomas Pollard—Mr. Hingston, of Liskeard, conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—John Toll, miller, living in the parish of Menheniot, deposed:—On the 15th of February prisoner brought to my mills a load of wheat from his master Mr. Pollard, a farmer, who lived about a mile and a half distant. After we had emptied the sacks, I wrote a cheque for £23 2s. 6d., and addressed it to Mr. Pollard, payable at Messrs. Robins, Foster, and Co’s, at Liskeard. (Produced the cheque.) I enclosed the cheque in a letter addressed to Mr. Pollard and desired prisoner to give it to Mr. Pollard as soon as he got home; I told him he must be careful of the letter as it contained a cheque. I next saw the prisoner, on the 21st of April, living in the service of Mr. Pearce, at , where he was apprehended that day by a constable, and on the way from Poundstock he said he was sorry for what he had done. Henry Brendon, a druggist, at Liskeard, stated;—On the 15th of February, prisoner came to my shop about 7 o’clock in the evening; he had been accustomed to call about that hour for drugs and groceries. He asked me to change a cheque for Mr. Pollard. I could not myself change it, but, as he said Mr. Pollard much wanted change, I went out and cashed the cheque, and gave the money, £23 2s. 6d., to the prisoner, who counted it, and then left. The check now produced is the one the prisoner gave me.—Thomas Pollard, the prosecutor, said:—The prisoner had been in my service nearly 12 months. On the 15th of February, I sent him with a load of wheat to Mr. Toll’s mill. I did not authorize him to take any money. He returned with the wagon and horses. He gave me no money, or cheque, or letter, or any thing of the sort. Between 7 and 8 o’clock in the evening, he said he wanted to go into Liskeard; he left my house, and I never saw him afterwards—John Daw, a constable of Liskeard: - On the 21st of April, in company with Mr. Toll, I found the prisoner in the service of Mr. Pearce of Poundstock. I asked him if his name was John Ealey (a name which he had then gone by). At first, he made no answer; but shortly afterwards said “my name is John Ealey; what of that?” I charged him with stealing a cheque from Mr. Pollard. He said, “you are mistaken in the man.” I asked him if he knew me; he said he did not. He also said that he did not know either Mr. Pollard or Mr. Toll. I took him in custody, and told him I should send for Mr. Toll, who was within a minute’s call. I sent for Mr. Toll, but before he came, the prisoner said, “you have no occasion to send for Mr. Toll; I am the man, and I’ll go with you any where.” I told him the amount of the cheque, told him he had cashed it, and proceeded to search him. I found 1s. 6d. upon him, and said “that’s a small sum out of £23.” He said he had spared £18 to a young man of Truro to keep for him, and that he had spent all the rest except the 1s. 6d.—Verdict, GUILTY.—Two previous convictions were proved against the prisoner; one at the Lent Assizes, 1849, and the other at the Easter Sessions, 1850. (Sentence: transportation for fourteen years.) JAMES CARTER, 25, charged with stealing, on the 7th of May, at the borough of Liskeard, three five- pound notes, five sovereigns, and five shillings, the property of Ann Pellow, widow.—Mr. Hingston conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Ann Pellow the prosecutrix, stated that the prisoner had lodged with her about 10 days previous to Saturday the 7th of May. On the Tuesday previous to that day she had, at his request, bought for him a sixpenny loaf of bread; and, on the Saturday morning, he asked for a three-penny loaf for his breakfast, promising to repay her at dinner- time; she went out and fetched it for him, and paid for it. When she came back and put out his breakfast for him, he said he had not any appetite for breakfast, and drank a cup of tea and left. About three o’clock in the afternoon, she went out to market and locked the door; and, as prisoner had not returned to dinner, she left the key in the door. She took her small keys with her, and was absent about 20 minutes. When she returned, she found the prisoner in the house. He had a little boy lodging in the house with him, and he said he was going to send the boy away by coach. Prisoner was then gathering up his clothes which he had brought downstairs; he paid witness 8s. for a fortnight’s lodging, and then left immediately, saying he would be back again in a few moments. He did not come back. About 7 o’clock in the evening, witness went upstairs to put the 8s. she had received from prisoner, with the other money, and then discovered that someone had been at her box, and that her money was gone. It had been placed in a small lucifer box;—three £5 East Cornwall notes, 5 sovereigns, and 5 shillings. The box had been kept locked, and she found it locked on her return from market; she had kept the key in her pocket. In the morning, when she left to get the loaf of bread, she left her dress, with the key in the pocket, hanging at her bed-room door over the box. The last time she saw her money in the lucifer box was on the previous Thursday. Prisoner knew that she had received 3l. 15s. from a mine, on the death of her husband.—Hugh Hamley, constable of Liskeard, on Saturday the 7th of May, received information that Mrs. Pellow had lost a sum of money; and he went to the coach office, to ascertain if the person she suspected had left by the coach; and found there a box directed “Mr. James Carter, Camborne.” He took possession of the box, and found it contained clothes. Witness obtained a warrant for his apprehension, and on the following Monday, saw the prisoner at the Truro Station of the West Cornwall Railway, in custody of policeman Armitage. Witness charged him with stealing three £5 notes, 5 sovereigns, and 5 shillings; he said he had not got the money. Afterwards he said he changed a £5 note at Liskeard, about 11 o’clock on the Saturday morning, which he said he had received at his mine. Witness produced the box containing wearing apparel.—John Sleep, watchmaker, of Liskeard, proved that about 9 o’clock in the morning of the 7th of May, prisoner came to his shop, and bought a watch, chain, key and ring, amounting to £5 8s. 6d., for which he paid with an East Cornwall £5 note and a sovereign; and received change. —John Abraham, ready-made clothes seller at Liskeard, proved that about 9 o’clock in the morning of the same day, prisoner bought clothes worth £2 6s. 0d. for which he paid with an East Cornwall £5 note. About one o’clock, he made another purchase to the amount of £1 3s. 0d. —Henry Chergwin, miner, living at Liskeard, stated that about 10 o’clock in the morning of the 7th of May, prisoner came to his house with two bundles of new clothes which he said he had bought. Prisoner said he had bought a suit of clothes for the boy, and a watch and clothes for himself; and that he was going to America and that his passage was paid by Colley Williams. Prisoner also turned out his pockets, and showed 9 sovereigns, a half sovereign, 4 half-crowns, and several shillings. Afterwards prisoner came to the house, bringing with him the trunk now produced, and witness, by his request, about 4 o’clock in the afternoon, packed prisoner’s clothes in the box, and put on the direction; and the trunk was taken to the coach office. —Mary Oxenham stated that about 10 o’clock in the morning, she sold to a person who was much like the prisoner, a trunk; but she could not clearly identify either the prisoner or the trunk. He paid two half-crowns for it, throwing down the money hurriedly. —Peter Roskilly, clerk at Wheal Mary Anne, in Menheniot, stated that the 7th of May was pay-day for the month of March. Prisoner had worked there with three men called Collan Williams, Nicholas Richards, and Richard Williams. Soon after one o’clock on the 7th of May, witness paid £14 9s. 11d. for that pair, to Collan Williams. —Richard Williams, one of “the pair”, stated that about three o’clock in the afternoon, they divided their pay, at the Queen’s Head Inn in Liskeard. Prisoner drew £1 less than the other three, because of his having drawn £1 for subsist the month before.—Mr. STOKES addressed the Jury for the defence; and, after summing up by the CHAIRMAN, the jury at once returned a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: eight months hard labour.) JOHN THOMAS, a young man, was charged with having, on the 5th of June, at the parish of Uny Lelant, committed an aggravated assault upon Samuel Edwards, of St. Ives, miner. Mr. Darke conducted the prosecution; Mr. Hockin the defence.—The indictment was brought under the recent statute for the punishment of aggravated assaults. It charged that the prisoner did unlawfully and maliciously assault Samuel Edwards, and wound him behind the left cheek bone, and thereby did inflict grievous bodily harm.—The CHAIRMAN held that under the indictment it would be competent to the jury to convict of a common assault.—According to the case for the prosecution, it appeared that Edwards, who lives in Halse Town, St. Ives, was, on the evening of Sunday the 5th of June, at Moses Callaway’s beer-shop at Balnoon, in Lelant, with a man called William Curnow, whom he had previously in the afternoon fallen in with, at another beer-shop. While they were drinking at Callaway’s, about half-past 8, Edwards, it was stated, suddenly received a severe blow in the face, which struck him to the ground, and caused his face to bleed profusely; and on his looking round on receiving the blow, he saw the prisoner with something in his hand. He fainted and was led home, and attended by Mr. Bevan, surgeon, who sewed up a wound of his cheek, about two thirds of an inch long; and the patient kept his bed about three days. The prosecutor stated that he had had no quarrel with the prisoner, and at the time of the assault could imagine no reason for it; but he had since learned that it was owing to some jealousy of him—(the prosecutor being also a young man)—concerning a daughter of Moses Callaway, with whom it appeared the prisoner had kept company.—The case for the defence was that taunting words occurred between the prosecutor and prisoner on the evening in question, originating with the prosecutor, who, it was added, stripped to fight, and in a scuffle which ensued, Edwards fell, with Thomas on him. In the affray, a jug was knocked off and broken; and it was suggested as probable that the cut in Edwards’s face was made by a piece of the broken earthenware. The surgeon was of the opinion too that the wound was not made with a sharp instrument, and that it might possibly have been made with a sherd of earthenware.—Such were in brief, the main points in the case; but, on these and on more minute particulars, the testimony was of a very conflicting character, and consequently the case occupied the Court many hours.—At about 5 o’clock, the jury retired for a consultation, and in about three quarters of a hour, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. MARY ANN BLIGHT, 25, was charged with having on the 7th 14th, and 21st of May, embezzled certain monies, the property of Nicholas Male Grose, her master.—Mr. Hingston conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Grace Lane Rogers deposed:—I am a governess in the family of Mr. Grose, who lives at Tremardart, in Duloe. I have had charge of his house for some weeks during the absence of Mrs. Grose. On the 7th of May, I sent Mary Ann Blight to Liskeard market, with 14 lbs. of butter, for which she returned 11d. per lb. On the 14th, I sent her with 18 lbs. of butter, for which she returned 11d. per lb.; and some eggs, for which she returned 1s. 1d.—On the 21st , I sent 20 lbs of butter and 22 eggs, for which she returned 1s. per lb. for the butter and 10d. for the eggs. On each of the last two occasions, she made purchases at Liskeard, out of the money she received; and these sums were allowed her. She was allowed 4d. a day for her expenses in going to market.—Jane Saunders, who lives with her father, a grocer, at Liskeard, stated that on the 7th of May, prisoner was paid 11 ½ d. per lb. for 12 lbs. of butter; and on the 14th of May, 1s. per lb. for 14 lb.—John Kendall, grocer, at Liskeard, on the 21st of May, paid the prisoner 1s 0½ d. per lb. for 18 lbs. of butter, and 1s. 4d. for 32 eggs.—John Daw, constable of Liskeard, stated that on his taking the prisoner in custody in Liskeard, on the 23rd May, she begged her master to forgive her, and offered to give up all her wages if he would, but he replied that if she were to give him 50l. he would not be treated in that way by a servant.—The prisoner, in her deposition before the committing magistrates, stated that this was the first time she had had any thing against her, and that she hoped they would forgive her; she had lost the money, but could not tell how.—Being called on now for her defence, she stated that of the 4d. allowed her for expenses of going to Liskeard market, she was obliged to pay a penny for turnpike, a penny market-toll for her basket, and a penny to the ostler; leaving but a penny for her maintenance from morning to evening. She also called as a witness to her good character, Mr. Philip Hore, of Dubwalls, in whose service she lived for about two years, and who deposed that she was then an honest and industrious girl: she left his service for no fault, and, on his leaving home this morning, his wife hoped that Mary Ann (the prisoner) would again come into their service. The CHAIRMAN told the prisoner that if she considered the sum allowed her for market expenses too small, she ought to have complained to her master.—The prisoner said she had complained to the governess.—The jury found a verdict of GUILTY, recommending the prisoner to mercy, on account of her good character. (Sentence: two weeks hard labour.) The Court then rose. IGNORED BILLS—Jonathan Stephens, and Thomas Rowe, charged with stealing, at Tintagel, a mare, the property of Samuel Lobb.—Sampson Lucas, and George Lucas, charged with stealing, at Callington, a quantity of vetches, the property of John Brendon. John Toll, charged with stealing a quantity of copper wire, from South Crenver mine, in Crowan, the property of the adventurers. (Against Henry Faull, indicted with Toll, a true bill was found). THURSDAY, June 20. (Before J. K. Lethbridge, Esq.) PHILIP TREBILCOCK, 15, charged with feloniously removing 1 cwt. of copper ore at the United Mines, was found NOT GUILTY. (Before Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart.) ELIZA BUCKLEY, 25, was found GUILTY of uttering counterfeit coin in the shop of Mr. Furniss, Truro, on the 7th of April last. (Sentence: six months hard labour.) JAMES BLACK, 30, was found GUILTY of attempting to pick the pocket of Mary Ann Simmons, at Charlestown on the 23rd of May, and attempting to pick the pocket of another female on the 24th of May. (Sentence: six months hard labour.) —Mr. John Borlase was among the magistrates present on the first day of the sessions. THURSDAY, June 30. Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq. RECOGNIZANCE ESTREATED.—HENRY FAULL, who had been held to bail, in two sums of £25 each, for trial on a charge of stealing a quantity of copper wire, from South Crenver Mine in Crowan, did not appear when called on his recognizances; and, consequently, the recognizances were estreated. One of the recognizors, an elderly man named Williams, was in court, and pleaded hard for delay in the execution of the levy on his goods; but he was told by the Chairman that the Court had no power to interfere with the Sheriff’s procedure. ESCAPE OF A PRISONER.—In the case of kitting at the United Mines, tried this morning, in which a lad named Philip Trebilcock, was acquitted, the defence was that he was merely working for wages under a man named Stephen Noel, who, it was alleged, was the taker of the pitch; that the barrow of ore which Trebilcock had removed from the pitch worked by the adventurers, in North Hot Lode, to Noel’s pitch in the Old North Lode, had been removed by him under Noel’s orders, and, (Trebilcock affirmed) without his knowing at the time that he was doing wrong. Noel, it appears, was committed for trial, charged with kitting; but he made his escape from the house of Mr. Thomas at Penryn the contractor for the conveyance of prisoners from that place to Truro. It seems that the Crowan constable, not finding Thomas himself at home, delivered Noel into the custody of Thomas’s wife, who did not put irons on her prisoner; although, it was stated, she had irons in the house, and had been accustomed frequently during her husband’s absence, to receive and take charge of prisoners. Mr. Thomas stated that his wife’s reason for not putting irons on this prisoner was that she received from the Crowan constable a statement that they were unnecessary, as he was a very quiet, well-behaved man. THE GYPSY CHEAT.—In passing sentence on Eliza Adams Trayes, the gypsy who had been convicted of stealing a large sum of money from Elizabeth Northey, of Gwennap, under circumstances reported in our last number; the CHAIRMAN said:—Eliza Adams Trayes, the Court has received of you a dreadful character. You have been imprisoned before; and the circumstances under which this plunder was committed were most disgraceful. Under presence of curing a poor woman of a disease with which it had pleased Providence to afflict her;—seeing her in a nervous, delicate state, after making inquiries as to her circumstances and ascertaining that she had received money from her son in California, you acquire her confidence, and plunder her to a considerable extent—probably reducing her to poverty for the remainder of her life. The language you made use of was most shameful; talking of “consecrated papers,” and calling on the Almighty and asking his blessing on an act that you knew must have brought down His curse rather than His blessing; I cannot express my indignation at the crime of which you have been guilty. I feel it is important that this Court should mark its sense of your crime: and I hope all persons who are liable to be the victims of such persons as you are, will see, not only the folly but the wickedness of submitting themselves of the weakness of the poor, credulous victims of disease, and, under pretence of curing them, robbing them to a most serious extent. I hope that the sentence I am about to pass will have a serious effect on you; and that the poor people of this County also will see that the Almighty has not placed in the hands of such as you are, the power of curing their infirmities. (Sentence: nine months hard labour.) BREACHES OF THE PEACE.—ROBERT STEVENS, 52, a shoemaker of Lostwithiel, had been committed on the 3rd instant for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards his wife.—His wife was now appeared against him, and swore that she still continued in fear of her husband. He had been in prison several times before, for misconduct towards her, when he was drunk; and that was very frequently the case. He was out drinking, for 8 weeks, before he was committed this last time; and he not only ill-used her, but said evil things of her that were not true.—According to Mr. Everest’s account, this prisoner had been in prison, on summary commitments, no less than 10 times; three of which were for ill-treatment of his wife.—The COURT ordered his remand until the next Sessions, unless in the meanwhile he can get security of two persons, in 10l. each, for his good behaviour. CHARLES MORNINGTON, 24, was committed on the 3rd of June, for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards Rebecca Easterbrook, of the parish of St. Blazey. The complainant, a young woman, appeared against the prisoner, and swore that, if he were let out of prison, and not bound to keep the peace, she should be afraid to walk day or night for him.—It appears that the two parties had cohabited together; and some wrangling and mutual crimination and recrimination took place between them in court.—The CHAIRMAN said there was no doubt they had been living in a most discreditable way; but still the woman must be protected; and, as no bail for the prisoner’s future good behaviour was forthcoming, he must be remanded till next Sessions, unless meanwhile he could get bail. The Court also raised the amount of each of the two required securities from £10 to £20. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 29 July 1853

5. Summer Assizes On Monday afternoon, about half past 3 o'clock, Mr Baron Martin arrived at Bodmin from Exeter; and was escorted into the town by the High Sheriff, Richard Foster, Esq., and his official retinue. His lordship immediately proceeded to the Crown Court, and opened commission […..] Mr. Justice Talfourd arrived about 10 o'clock on Monday evening. CROWN COURT. At 11 o’clock on Tuesday morning, Mr. Justice Talfourd took his seat in the Crown Court. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— SIR COLMAN RASHLIEGH, BART., foreman; W. H. Pole Carew, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Gordon W. F. Gregor, Esq. S. Davey Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. J. Bryant Messenger, Esq. H. Willyams, Esq. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. R. Graves Polwhele, Esq. T. Graham Graham, Esq. J. Gwatkin, Esq. W. Moorshead, Esq. E. Archer, Esq. H.P. Rawlings, Esq. W. Braddon, Esq. J. Fincher Trist, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. H.J. Molesworth St. Aubyn, Esq. J. Thomas H. Peter, Esq., also answered to his name. The Mayors and Coroners were then called; after which the Queen's Proclamation for the encouragement of virtue was read. The learned Judge then delivered his CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY [not transcribed] TRIALS OF PRISONERS. PASCO BROWN, aged 26, was charged with stealing, on the 9th of July, a ham or leg of pork, the property of Joseph Stephens, innkeeper, at Lostwithiel. It appeared that, in the evening of the day named, the prisoner was drinking at Stephens's public-house, in company with some other labourers; and, about 9 o'clock, one ham out of six hanging up was knocked down by a man named Nicholls; and prisoner took it up and walked off with it. The rest of the party, thinking it was merely a "lark" and that the ham would be brought back, gave no information of what had occurred until the next morning.— Verdict, GUILTY, Two months hard labour. ATTEMPTED OBSTRUCTION OF A RAILWAY TRAIN.— JAMES HART, 10, a rather good-looking and well- spoken Irish boy, was charged with having, on the 5th of July, wilfully and maliciously placed upon the rails of the West Cornwall Railway, in the parish of Gwennap, several stones, with intent to obstruct and overthrow the engine and carriages using the said railway, and to endanger the safety of the persons travelling therein.—Mr. Coleridge conducted the prosecution; and, previous to calling witnesses, said the West Cornwall Railway Company, in prosecuting this case, were not at all desirous of pressing for severe punishment on this prisoner; they were only desirous of protecting the lives and safety of passengers, and, as stones had frequently been placed on the rails, they wished to have it known that such offences were liable to punishment.—Richard Thomas, engine-driver on the West Cornwall Railway, stated that on the morning of Tuesday the 5th of July, he was driving a train from Penzance; and when within about 150 yards of Scorrier station he saw two boys standing by the north rail of the railway. He sounded the steam-whistle, and shut off the steam; and the prisoner then ran away on the south side of the line, and the other boy on the north. Before they ran away, he had seen them placing stones on the rails; and it was not till he came within 100 yards of them that they got up and ran away. The engine was not thrown off the line, but ran on to Scorrier, with the steam off, there being a descent then of 1 in 60. On arriving at the Scorrier Station, he sent back a policeman on the line, and went back himself, and, where he had seen the boys, he found a stone crushed on the line by the leading wheel of the engine. If the stone had not been crushed, it was quite large enough to throw the leading wheel off the line. There is at this part of the line, an embankment about 10 feet high; and if the engine had been thrown off, the train of carriages might have been smashed. At the time he saw the boys, the train was going on the embankment at the rate of 25 to 30 miles an hour. The stone was about as wide as one’s hand, and about two inches thick. The consequences might have been worse with a stone of that size than with a larger one; because the lifeguard before the driving wheel, which would remove a large stone, could not be placed so close to the ground as to remove a small stone; because of the oscillation of the engine.—The policeman, after going back on the line, brought the prisoner to the Scorrier Station, and witness at once identified him. The other boy, who ran away, witness could not distinguish clearly, and he did not know who he was.—William Armitage, superintendent of police on the West Cornwall Railway, was on the up-train referred to by the previous witness. He gave corroborative evidence, and stated that on examination of the place where the boys had been, he found the remains of two stones crushed on the north rail, and of one large stone near the south rail. There were no other stones lying about there; the line is on gravel at that place; and the stones he had mentioned seemed to have been brought up from the bottom of the embankment. Witness took the prisoner in custody to Penzance. On the way, the prisoner cried, and said » If you’ll let me go, I never will do it again.” He also said that he put one stone, and Teddy, another boy, put the other.—The prisoner, when called on for his defence, repeated in exclamation that he had frequently made during the trial, in Irish brogue—"Indeed, sir, I did not think I did any harm, and if I thought it would do any harm, I would not do it.”— The jury found him GUILTY, but recommended him to mercy on account of his youth.— Sentence deferred. MATTHEW RICH, 33, was charged with having, on the 4th day of July, feloniously and burglariously entered the dwelling-house of William Hocking, in the parish of Saint Austell, and stolen therefrom a quantity of meat and potatoes, the property of the said William Hocking.—Mr. Archer conducted the prosecution.—The prosecutor, a labourer at Pentewan, stated that on the 3rd of July, he went to bed about 10 o'clock, having made his door home by putting down the latch; he could not lock the door, having lost the key; and there was no bolt. About half-past 2 o clock in the morning, he was disturbed by a noise below in the kitchen; he went to his window, and, opening it, called to a neighbour, Mathew Rowse, who also opened his window and looked out. Witness then saw prisoner come out of his door, and go away; witness called to him, and he made an answer, but witness could not understand what he said. He then came down stairs, and found the door open, and that some meant and potatoes had been taken away. He then went in pursuit of the prisoner, and at Mevagissey got a constable; on their way back they met the prisoner on the road. Prisoner said he did not go into the house for any harm, but only to get something to eat. The prosecutor’s evidence was corroborated by his neighbour Matthew Rowse.— The jury found a verdict of GUILTY.—Two previous convictions of felony were proved against the prisoner, and he was sentenced to Seven Years’ Transportation.—On receiving sentence, the prisoner—a gloomy-looking, violent man—exclaimed:—“Transported! I’ve done no harm to any body; I’ve done nothing for transportation, and I won’t have it.” WILLIAM THOMAS, 31, (who it appeared had recently been a patient in the County Lunatic Asylum) was ACQUITTED on a charge of stealing a watch, the property of Thomas Carter, engine-man at Tokenbury Mine, in the parish of St. Ive. JOHN CORIN, 36, charged with having, on the 21st day of April, feloniously assaulted William Martin, at the parish of Lelant, yeoman, and with having then and there feloniously and violently stolen, from the person of the said William Martin, one purse, two sovereigns, and three half-crowns, the property of the said William Martin.—Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence. William Martin said:—On the 21st of April I was at Penzance market, and Robert Michell, of , was with me when I was going home. On our way home we went into Fox's public-house, in Market-Jew Street, and sat in the kitchen. There were many people there; among them the prisoner. I had two sovereigns and three half-crowns in my pocket. While I was sitting there, I felt a man's hand in my pocket where my money was removed, and then the prisoner catched back his hand. No other person was nigh me on that side. Michell and I left the house about 11 o'clock; it was moonlight, but there was a little mist. On our way home we went towards Gulval Church Town, over Ponsandane Bridge. About two or three fieIds from the bridge, we met two men, about 10 yards before we came to the stile; one of them came forth and clenched Michell and forced him on to the ground. That man was Corin, the prisoner. I stooped to relieve Michell, and was instantly knocked down and had my jaws broken; bits of bone have since worked out. I fell down senseless, and remained so for some time; Michell helped me up, and I put my hand in my pocket and found that my money was gone. I had felt that my money was safe when we left Fox's public-house, and I stopped at no place afterwards.— On Cross-examination, Mr. Martin admitted that he had been drinking beer and spirits before his going into Fox's house, and that he was the worse for liquor when he left that house to go home. When he felt a man's hand in his pocket at Fox's inn, he did not say a word about it; his reason was that he thought to get away quietly and safely.—Robert Michell, who gave evidence, for the most part corroborative of that given by the prosecutor, stated that he was unable to identify the man who struck him down, because he (Michell) was pushed directly backwards.—On cross-examination, Michell's admission as to his amount of drinking, was that he did not know which was the most in liquor—he or Martin. He did not himself, lose any money, but lost his hat.—Keziah Fox, wife of the landlord of the public-house mentioned, stated that Martin and Michell were in the kitchen drinking on the evening mentioned; and a man named John Thomas was there also.—Cross-examined:—Had known the prisoner from a lad, and never heard anything against his character. The man John Thomas and his two brothers have left the neighbourhood; they left soon after this charge of assaulting and robbing Martin was made; John Thomas's brother was something about the size of prisoner. Mr. COLE, for the defence, strongly urged the want of satisfactory proof of identity of the prisoner; intimating the probability that the assault and robbery were committed by the Thomases, who had left the country, and one of whom was proved to be about the same size as the prisoner, and might have been mistaken for him by Martin, in a misty night, und when he was the worse for liquor, and had his prejudices against the prisoner excited by his belief that the prisoner had put his hand into his pocket at the public-house.—The jury retired for consultation; and after being absent nearly two hours, found a verdict of GUILTY, but recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of his former good character.—The prisoner, on being called to receive sentence, protested that he was not guilty of the crime and knew nothing about it.— He was sentenced to Seven Years Transportation. SARAH SHOLL, 34, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 29th of June, at the borough of Truro, a bed sheet, a shirt, a shift, and a pinafore, the properly of John Rawlings.—Two months hard labour. Bills were ignored against Johanna Williams, and Nathaniel Buckingham, who had been indicted as being concerned in the above felony. JOHN BATH, 36, was charged with having, on the 2nd of July, at the parish of Maker, feloniously stolen four fleeces of wool and a bag, the property of Henry Watts.—Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; the prisoner had no counsel, but displayed considerable shrewdness and judgment in cross-examining witnesses and in his observations on the evidence.—Henry Watts, the prosecutor, said:—I am a farmer living at in the parish of Maker. Prisoner came into my service on the 11th of June as a farm-servant, and lived in my house. In the second week alter he had been there, he sheared for me 19 sheep. I ordered him to bind up the wool and put it in the upstairs room of a cottage in my walled garden, and I saw the fleeces from the 19 sheep there several times afterwards.—On Saturday, the 2nd of July, prisoner asked leave of absence till the evening; I gave him leave, and he never came back again. On the 14th of July, in consequence of something I heard, I went to Plymouth, to the police-station, and there, Mr. Thomas, the police-inspector, showed me a bag and two fleeces; and two other fleeces were shown to me at the Station the same day. I had missed four fleeces out of the 19 left in the cottage.—William Shore:—l live in Stonehouse-lane, Plymouth. In the morning of Friday the 8th July, the prisoner came to me, bringing a bag with some wool in it. I bought the wool and gave him 4s. 6d. for it. He said his name was Bath, and that he had been working at the Millbay Works. I look a lock of the wool to Mr. Tanner's, wool-dealer, and, after seeing Mr. Tanner's clerk, I went back to my house and took all the wool I had bought of prisoner, to Mr. Tanner's and sold it to Mr. Tanner's clerk. On Monday the 11th of July, Mr. Thomas the Inspector of Police, came to me, and, from what he said, I endeavoured to find the prisoner. Between 6 and 7 o'clock the same evening, prisoner came again to my house, and asked me if I would have any more of the stuff. I told him to bring it the next morning. The next morning, I informed the Police Inspector, and he sent a policeman (Davey) to my house. The prisoner came with a second bag of wool, and Davey took him into custody.—Samuel Sims, clerk at Mr. Tanner's, proved that on the 8th of July, he bought of the last witness 16 lbs. of wool, for 13s. 4d., and afterwards delivered it to the Police Inspector.—William Thomas, police-inspector, on the 9th of July went to Mr. Tanner's premises, and received two fleeces of wool from Mr. Sims. After that I saw Shore, who gave me some information, and I caused policeman Davey to go to Shore's house on the morning of the 12th, and Davey afterwards brought to the Police Station two fleeces of wool. After that Mr. Watts came to the Station, saw the wool, and identified the prisoner. When I first charged the prisoner, he gave his name as John Turner.—Robert Davey, policeman, stated that when the prisoner brought the wool to Shore's house on the morning of the 12th of July, he said he got it at .—The prosecutor, recalled, identified the wool and bag produced by the constable. The jury found a verdict of GUILTY.—A previous conviction of felony was proved against the prisoner. —He was sentenced to Seven Years Transportation. WILLIAM BARRETT, 15, charged with having stolen on the night of Thursday the 7th of July, at Tregardock Mine in the parish of St. Teath, a pair of trousers and a pair of drawers, the property of Simon Magor; and also a pair of braces and a pipe, the property of Joseph Tabb.—The prosecutors were, at the time of the felony, miners, working at Tregardock Mine, and their property was stolen from the changing house, while they were at their work underground. The prisoner was found GUILTY, and a previous conviction, on the 30th of July 1852, was proved against him, of stealing a watch and other property.—He was now sentenced to Seven Years Transportation; the learned Judge telling him that he passed this sentence, in order that he may be placed in an establishment where he could have the benefit of reformatory discipline, and an opportunity of gaining a good character. JOHN DOWN, 37, was charged with having, on the 24th of June, feloniously stolen from the dwelling- house of Digory Warne, in the parish of Calstock, a half of a sheep, the property of the said Digory Warne.—Mr. Coleridge conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—The prosecutor is a farmer and butcher. In the afternoon of the 24th of June, the prisoner who had previously dealt with the prosecutor, bought of him some meat, which he called for in the evening. There was at this time, a half of a sheep hanging up in the passage of Mr. Warne's house; and it was charged against the prisoner that he unhooked it and carried it away. The cross-examination of witnesses, however, appeared to throw doubt on the evidence of identity; and the jury found a verdict of ACQUITTAL. JAMES Mc.WILLIAM, 24, was charged with embezzling moneys, the property of his master, John Agnew, draper of St. Austell; viz.: 10s. on the 18th of February, 5s. on the 18th of March, and 5s. on the 1st of April.—Mr. Bevan conducted the prosecution; Mr. Collier the defence—It appeared that the prisoner had been in Mr. Agnew's employ for about 6 months prior to the 11th of June last, as a traveller, taking weekly rounds, and receiving orders and payments. He had two rounds, which he took alternately, weekly. One of these rounds was in the Wadebridge district; and the present charge was that he had received the three several sums named in the indictment, from a person called Thomas Sloggett, at Egloshayle, and had not entered the payments in his book, nor in any way accounted for them to his master.—The prosecutor, in his examination in chief, said:—I employed the prisoner to carry drapery goods to customers, and to take orders and receive money for me; I paid him a salary, and he had regular rounds, each of which lasted 6 days. By my directions he kept an account of moneys and orders received by him; and when he came back each Saturday night, he made up the accounts and balanced them, furnishing the account of his receipts and disbursements up to that Saturday night. A book was here produced, which Mr. Agnew said contained accounts so kept by the prisoner; in it was an entry to "Thomas Sloggett," of Egloshayle Church-town—"March 19th, to a hat, 12 shillings." According to the mode of keeping this book, any payment made by Mr. Sloggett should have been placed beneath this debit entry and deducted. There was no entry, in the book, of any payment by Sloggett; nor was there any other entry of an article sold to Sloggett, besides the hat. The date of Sloggett's debit being March 19th, the account for the week including that date, was gone through on the following Saturday.— The cross-examination of Mr. Agnew was directed to show that, in the extensive business which the prisoner had conducted for him—visiting about 400 customers weekly— irregularities and mistakes might occasionally occur, without any felonious intent.—Thomas Sloggett proved that on the 18th of February he paid Mc.William 10s. for cloth he had sold him; on the 16th of March he paid him 5s. and on the 1st of April, there was paid him another 5s.; and a bill was produced with Mc.Williams's receipt for those three sums.—For the defence, Mr. COLLIER addressed the jury, urging that the evidence was consistent with the prisoner's innocence of any felonious intent, and with the probability that the omissions complained of were merely inaccuracies.—After a careful summing up, the Jury found a verdict of NOT GUILTY. Mr. BEVAN stated that there were other indictments of a similar kind against the prisoner, which it was intended to prosecute; and the Judge appointed them for trial the next day. The Court then rose at nearly 7 o'clock. The Grand Jury were discharged at about 5 o'clock. Besides the ignored Bills mentioned above, there were the following: Jonathan Stevens for larceny; and James Slick, for perjury. NISI PRIUS COURT. TUESDAY, JULY 26. The learned Judge, Mr. BARON MARTIN, took his seat in this court at 10 o'clock. There had been four causes, but three of these were settled, and the only one for trial was that of Meredith v. Hore and others. This was a trial by a special jury, and application was made to the Judge, on the part of the plaintiff, that the jury should view the locus in quo. The names of the special jurymen were therefore called over, but only five were present shortly after ten o'clock, and the court waited until about 11 o'clock for the arrival of more jurymen. The following then answered to their names:— Henry Prynn Andrew, Philip Blarney, Day P. Le Grice, W. Guy Pearse, Francis Parkyn, Elias H. Liddell, Edmund Norway, William H. Tapson, and C. G. Prideaux Brune. Of these nine, six were appointed viewers, namely, Messrs. H. P. Andrew, P. Blarney, Day P. Le Grice, E.H. Liddell, W. G. Pearse, and F. Parkyn. The question in dispute was regarding rights to tin bounds, and the locality (to which the viewers proceeded) was at Molinis, about 7 miles from Bodmin, and adjoining the turnpike road to St. Austell. The hearing of the case Meredith v. Hore and others, was deferred until the following morning (Wednesday), and the Court proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. WILLIAM COOKMAN, 29, was charged with stealing a quantity of leather and pieces of cashmere, the property of his master, James Champion. Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution. On the 18th July, prosecutor, who carries on business as a shoemaker at Penryn, left his home to go to Truro. He returned in the evening, having left his shop in the interim in charge of the prisoner. When he returned he missed a quantity of leather and some cashmere, used in making ladies' shoes; prisoner had then gone away from the shop. It was proved that during prosecutor's absence, prisoner and a man called Barry had been twice up in the cutting room together, and remained for nearly an hour each time. In the evening of the same day, prisoner and Barry were met on the road to Truro by a shoemaker called Tresidder, who saw patent calf leather in prisoner's pocket, and spoke to him about it, on which prisoner said it belonged to John Barry. John Pascoe, an apprentice to prosecutor, said that on the 17th, prisoner asked him if he could not carry away leather without the captain knowing it, and he told him that was best left alone. Prisoner was proved to have sold the leather and cashmere produced in court, to Thomas Crabb, a shoemaker at Truro; his defence was that prosecutor had told him to take leather to repair his wife's boots. Verdict, GUILTY. The Judge said it was a felony of a very bad class, and sentenced the prisoner to Twelve months hard labour. ELIZA JANE OXFORD, 17, was charged with stealing a bundle containing six yards of calico, two and a quarter yards of black cobourg cloth, four and a half yards of brown Irish, a pair of gloves, and a piece of brown braid, the property of John Inch. Mrs. Inch, the wife of John Inch, lives at Mount Charles, and went to St. Austell on the 30th of June, where she purchased the articles named in the indictment, which were made into a parcel, and taken to her son's house, the Stag Inn, and left there with her little daughter, Mary Ann Inch. The little girl put the parcel up stairs in the dining room, and in the evening, when she went for it, found it had been taken away. The prisoner was at the house in the course of the afternoon, and in the evening, about eight o'clock, was seen by a woman employed there, to come down stairs with a bundle under her arm, and this she afterwards took to James Mellow’s, a shoemaker in St. Austell, and asked him to take care of it for her until she returned. When taken into custody by policeman Sambell, she said she was so drunk at the time, she did not know what she was about; and before the magistrate the stated to the same effect, saying she had been drinking with a young man, and was considerably the worse for liquor. Her statement before the committing magistrate also was to the effect, that when she recovered from the effects of the liquor, she went to Mr. Bennallack's, and Mrs. Inch's at the Stag lnn, and inquired if any parcel were missing, and this she did in consequence of finding that she had taken a parcel. It was stated in evidence that she appeared in the evening to be “half and half," and the JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury that if they believed her story, that she did not know what she was about, she could not be considered as guilty of a felonious intention. One of the jurymen asked why Mrs. Inch, of the Star Inn, was not called to say whether prisoner had called there according to her statement before the magistrates. The JUDGE replied that it was for the prosecution, and not for the prisoner to have called Mrs. Inch. —The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended her to mercy. The JUDGE, in passing sentence, said the case was for the jury, but his own impression was that the prisoner should have been acquitted. When a prisoner makes a statement before a justice, which if true shows that she is not guilty, and persons are not called to deny what she states, in his opinion the prosecution had not done what ought to be done. He then sentenced her to three days’ imprisonment; and re-calling policeman Sambell into the box, said,—when the prisoner stated that she went to a person called Bennallack, and afterwards to Mrs. Inch, the daughter-in-law of Mrs. Inch, who purchased the goods, with the view of returning the parcel, those parties should have been brought here. If such should again occur, I shall stop the expenses of the prosecution, and have a great mind to do so now. CHARGE OF STEALING ORE.— WILLIAM ASHTON was indicted for stealing from on board a vessel on the high seas, six tons of copper ore, the property of Mr. Michael Williams and others. In another count, the prisoner was charged with stealing the property of William Henry Meredith. Mr. Cole appeared for the prosecution; and Mr. Coleridge defended the prisoner. Athanasius Prior, copper ore agent at Gwennap for Messrs. Williams, Foster, and Co., copper smelters, stated that in December last he bought a parcel of ore belonging to West Fowey Consols adventurers. It was transferred to Messrs. Williams, and was shipped as 108 tons. (The bill of lading was here put in, from which it appeared that the ore in question was shipped on board the schooner Langerthowe, belonging to the executor of the late Mr. Treffry, and that the prisoner was the captain of the schooner). William Rundle, another witness, saw the ore on the floors at Par, and helped to ship it on board.—John Greet, mate on board the Languerthowe (sic), stated that the schooner was registered 82 or 85 tons; she was therefore heavily laden with the 108 tons on board; he had never seen her so deep with copper ore before. The main hatches were battened, the fore and after hatches were not battened, but closed; they could get at the ore through the fore or after hatch without opening the main hatch. On the 9th of February the schooner sailed from Par, and on her voyage put in at Penzance. Witness then heard the captain say, if the Par (another vessel belonging to the same company) was out in the bay they were going to give the Langerthowe a chase. Before they sailed from Penzance, the captain said, if he could not beat the Par any way else he would lighten his vessel by throwing some of the ore overboard. They sailed from Penzance on the 28th of February, and the Par was then in the bay. She was lighter than the Langerthowe, and had been racing with her several times before. Witness did not know that the captain got anything by making his voyage first. When they got outside, the captain ordered them to get the boat on board, and throw some of the ore overboard, from the main hatchway; but this order was countermanded, as he said there were several vessels getting under weigh, and they might see what was doing. Afterwards they got round the Land's End, and were between the and St. Ives Head; the other vessels (the Par and the Gallant) were then getting near to them. The captain came on deck at four o'clock, and said the vessels were catching them, and he gave orders for getting the ore up out of the fore hatchway by means of a tail-block attached to a bucket. Witness said to the crew it would be a bad job if it were found out, but he did not know whether the captain heard him or not. Witness gave orders to the men below, who came on deck, and the captain said to Coon, "bear a hand, Jack, and get some of this overboard, for these vessels are catching us." About four or five tons from the fore hatchway, and about the same quantity from the after hatchway were then got up and thrown overboard. The schooner then sailed faster, and the captain said, "that will do, she is leaving them now." They were then told to clear the deck, and after that they had their tea. The captain told the boy to put the bucket away, and clean it next morning by daylight, that it should not be seen there had been ore in it. Cross-examined—They were two hours pitching the ore out; four were at work about it, and threw out from eight to ten tons, (this was stated by Mr. Cole to be worth about 70l.) Witness further said, the captain had been below, and when he came on deck and told them to clear the deck, there was about a ton and a half there, which was thrown overboard. The Par was about a mile off when they threw the ore overboard. Mr. COLERIDGE—did you not know it was wrong to do it? Witness—l knew it was wrong, but I was bound to obey the captain's orders. Did you mention it at Swansea?—No sir. When did you mention it?—I did not mention it at all; John Coon (one of the seamen) first mentioned it three or four weeks afterwards. Witness admitted that he and the captain had some difference afterwards at Cardiff, (but not a quarrel) about the meat supplied to the crew.—The other witnesses called were John Coon, seaman, and John Rundle, a lad on board the schooner, whose evidence corroborated that of the mate.—Mr. COLE stated that if the ore is shipped in a dry state, and any of it thrown overboard, water may be afterwards put with the remaining quantity so that there would be no check when the ore was delivered, upon the acts of a dishonest captain. the case for the prosecution being concluded, Mr. COLERIDGE, for the defence, submitted that there was no case to go to the jury , as no larceny was involved therein.—Mr. COLE, in reply, contended that the act of the captain was a larceny, and cited in support of his argument Queen v. Wynn, 1st vol. Denison's Crown Cases, p. 365; Queen v. Prixet, same vol. Denison, p. 193; Queen v. Jones, p. 189; and Queen v. Cabbage, Russell and Ryan's Crown Cases, p. 192.—The learned JUDGE, however, said he could see no felonious intention in the act of the captain; he had a ship rather heavily laden, and wishing to run a race with the "Par," for the purpose of lightening his own ship, and for no other purpose, he threw overboard some of the ore. That was not stealing but by that act he rendered himself liable to a civil action, either for breach of contract on his bill of lading, or to an action for tort. He then directed the jury to acquit the prisoner of the charge of felony, but told him he had got himself into a great scrape, and that he had no right to sacrifice his owner's or charterer's property for the sake of beating another vessel.—The prisoner said he was not guilty of doing it; to which the JUDGE replied that he could scarcely conceive that the three witnesses in the case had given false evidence.—ln reply to an application by Mr. COLE, the learned JUDGE said I would raise the question for you in the shape of a special case if I could do it, but I do not see that I have the power.—Mr. COLERIDGE said the captain's employer, Mr. Meredith, was ready to give him a good character. Mr. COLE stated that acts of this sort had been carried on for years, and the case, before it was brought in this form, was submitted to one of the best lawyers on the circuit.—The prisoner was then discharged from custody. WILLIAM BARTLETT, 31, was indicted for assaulting Elizabeth Clatworthy, with intent, &c., and another count charged a common assault. Mr. HUGHES prosecuted, and Mr. COLLIER defended the prisoner. Prosecutrix lives with her father at Tremarton, in the parish of St. Stephens by . She is a young woman, and takes in needlework. Prisoner is a married man, and a shoemaker; and both he and prosecutrix attend the Methodist chapel. On the 6th of July prosecutrix was at the Methodist meeting, and afterwards she went with Mrs. Langdon to Butts; thence to Sarah Kitt's, in Tremarton village, and next to George Barnett’s, in the same place. She left at ten minutes after ten at night to go to her home, and on her way met the prisoner, who, she said, put his arm round my neck and kissed me, and asked me to kiss him. I told him I would not, and some bullocks coming by, I again went on. Bartlett then came after me, put his arm round my neck again, and kissed me, and wanted me to kiss him. I told him I would not, and that I would tell Sarah, his wife, for him.—Witness then described the assault the prisoner committed upon her, and said she next day told it to her neighbour, Elizabeth Deacon.—Cross-examined by Mr. COLLIER—lt was near Menaton Hall that prisoner assaulted me, and other houses were not far off; it was in the public road. It was not the first time he had kissed me. I kissed him once, but it was his fault that I did it; I have not kissed him several times; do not believe that I have sat on his knee in his house. I knocked off his hat when he attacked me; I made a little noise, and told him to let me go, but did not scream.—Elizabeth Deacon stated that prosecrutrix (sic) had complained to her of prisoner's conduct; and Mr. COLLIER then addressed the jury for the defence, stating that there was no doubt a great deal of flirting between the man and the girl, and when men and women get flirting it was difficult to say who was right and who was wrong. He was now charged with attempting to commit a rape, but such was not the fact; it was merely a sort of amorous dalliance, a renewal of the old intimacies between them. Women were curious creatures, it was difficult to get at the bottom of a woman's heart, and nobody could tell what had induced the girl to become suddenly angry with him. He began with a kiss, and ended with a kiss, and picked up her umbrella and gave to her. No doubt his wife had reason to complain of his conduct, but they were not there to try whether Sarah was an injured woman or not.— The learned JUDGE having summed up, the jury found the prisoner guilty of a common assault. Evidence was then tendered of or (sic) his previous good character. The JUDGE said he had no doubt conducted himself in a very indecent and improper manner towards the young woman; and he sentenced him to Six Weeks' Imprisonment. JOHN SLYMAN THOMAS, 60, was indicted for assaulting Sarah Ellen Best, with intent, &c., and a second count charged a common assault. Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the prosecution, and Mr. COLERIDGE for the prisoner. Prosecutrix, a young woman sixteen years of age, was servant in the house of Mr. Elias H. Liddell, at Berry-lane, Bodmin. On Friday the 17th of June, her master had gone to attend a sale, and she was the only person left in the house. The prisoner is occasionally employed in the garden, but had not been working there that day. Between four and five in the afternoon, he came into the kitchen from the garden, and said he would kiss prosecutrix. She ?------described his conduct towards her, and said she ?------get away from him, but could not for some time. She then got into the garden, and he followed her; she got into the house again, locked the door and went up stairs. After remaining there half an hour, not seeing him in the garden, she thought he was gone, and went down to the kitchen again to do her work. He then came in, asked her how the work was going on, went out, and in about ten minutes afterwards returned; and it was his conduct on this last occasion that the learned counsel for the prosecution insisted on as sustaining the first count in the indictment. After the prisoner had thus conducted himself, he asked her to say nothing about it, but she said, "as sure as there is a God in heaven, I'll tell the next person I see;" and she immediately went down to Mrs. Harris's with whom she had previously lived in service, and told her and others of the prisoner's conduct.—Mr. COLERIDGE cross-examined the prosecutrix, with the view of eliciting whether she had given the prisoner any encouragement. Mrs. Jenefer Harris, Elizabeth Bonear, and Mary Wall, to whom prosecutrix had complained of prisoner's conduct towards her, were also examined, and Mr. E.H. Liddell stated that his house stands in a garden, about 40 yards in one direction, and 50 in another, from other houses. Prosecutrix appeared to be much alarmed and flurried, when she told the witnesses what had occurred.—Mr. COLERIDGE ably addressed the jury, endeavouring to show, from the circumstances, that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The JUDGE summed up, and the jury returned the prisoner "GUILTY OF A VIOLENT ASSAULT." The learned Judge said that for a man, sixty years of age, to treat a young woman in the manner the prisoner had treated the prosecutrix, was scandalous in the extreme. He did not say but that she had acted imprudently in not having before gone to Mrs. Harris, and complained of his conduct the first and second time he came into the house. But it could not be expected that a person in her class of life would be so refined and delicate as in a superior grade; still it was not to be supposed that the law would not give her full protection when she was outraged in the manner that had been stated. He then sentenced the prisoner to Twelve Months Imprisonment. The Court then rose. CROWN COURT. WEDNESDAY, July 27. (Before Mr. Justice Talfourd.) JOHN RICKARD, 38, was indicted for feloniously ravishing Hannah Harris, at the parish of Sheviock. Prosecutrix, who is about fifteen years of age, said she had been living as servant with Mr. Rickard, a farmer at Sconnor, in the parish of Sheviock. On the 31st of May, young master (the prisoner) had been riding away, and she was told to stay up to look after his horse. He came home about eleven o'clock at night, and Miss Rickard told prosecutrix to get the lantern, which she did, and went out to the stable. Prisoner went with her and attended to his horse, and she was afterwards told to go down to the orchard to hold the lantern whilst prisoner put the lamb to suck. She went with him, and it was after putting the lamb to suck that the prisoner was stated by the prosecutrix to have committed the offence charged in the indictment. Mr. HOLDSWORTH appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. COLLIER and Mr. BULLER defended the prisoner. The mother of the prosecutrix, Mary Harris, was also called to give evidence. She stated that her daughter complained to her, on the morning after the occurrence, of the prisoner's conduct to her in the orchard. The witness and her daughter also deposed to other circumstances, on which they were very strictly cross-examined by Mr. Collier. The mother, Mary Harris, was also cross-examined with the view of showing that her previous conduct, habits, and character, rendered her unworthy of confidence.—Mr. COLLIER, in addressing the jury for the defence, represented that the charge had been preferred against the prisoner for the purpose of extorting money. He then called Elizabeth Rickard, the sister of prisoner, Richard Phillips, toll collector, Harriet Fittock, William Jasper, coach-builder at Callington, and Henry Bullen, constable at Callington. These witnesses contradicted the prosecutrix and her mother in various points of evidence; after which there were called as witnesses to prisoner's previous good character, Mr. Pole Carew, and a number of yeomen of Sheviock and St. Germans, and persons with whom prisoner had been concerned in business matters. The learned JUDGE having summed up, the jury almost immediately returned the prisoner NOT GUILTY after a trial of four hours. JAMES Mc.WILLIAM, 24, (who had been tried and acquitted on the previous day) was now again charged with embezzling some money belonging to his master, John Agnew, of St. Austell, who carries on business as a Scotch travelling draper. It was charged that he had received at different times sums of 17s. 6d., 8s. 6d., and 6s. 6d., from Mrs. Walkey, of St. Columb, where he had lodged and who had purchased goods of him when on his rounds, and that he had accounted to his master for the receipt of only a small portion of those sums. The jury, however, did not consider the evidence sufficient, and ACQUITTED the prisoner. There were two other indictments of the same description against the prisoner, but on these no evidence was offered. MURDER.—SENTENCE OF DEATH. JANE CHENOWETH, a young woman seventeen years of age, was then placed at the bar, and the CLERK OF ARRAIGNS said,— Jane Chenoweth, you are indicted for the wilful murder of William Beard, on the 14th of June, at the parish of Probus, and in another count it is stated to be a child whose name is unknown,—are you guilty or not guilty? PRISONER—Not guilty, Sir. CLERK OF ARRAIGNS—You are also charged with the same offence on the Coroner's inquisition, are you guilty or not guilty? PRISONER—Not guilty. The prisoner is a full-faced young woman with light hair and ruddy complexion, short in stature and somewhat stout. She manifested considerable indifference during the greater part of her trial. The court was densely crowded throughout the proceedings. Attornies for the prosecution, Messrs. Carlyon and Paull, of Truro. The learned JUDGE asked if any counsel were employed to defend the prisoner, and being answered in the negative, said that perhaps one of the gentlemen present would be so kind as to watch the case on her behalf, and Mr. BEVAN immediately consented to do so. Mr. STOCK then opened the case on the part of the prosecution. May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the jury.—The prisoner at the bar, Jane Chenoweth, stands before you charged with the most serious of all crimes that it is possible for a human being to commit,—the crime is wilful murder,— in this case the murder of a child about five weeks old, the illegitimate offspring of Elizabeth Beard. I need not therefore, at the outset, beseech your most earnest attention and most careful inquiry with regard to all the circumstances of this case; and as the prisoner is unassisted by counsel, except in so for as she is indebted to my learned friend Mr. Bevan, (who has had no previous knowledge of the case,) I shall best discharge my duty by making no comments on the evidence to be laid before you, but shall merely detail the leading features of the case in order to assist you in the inquiry. At the same time I shall ask you to dismiss from your minds any reports or stories you may have heard out of court, and to apply your minds solely to the consideration of the evidence to be laid before you, and which will consist of two material parts,—first, certain facts affecting the prisoner, and also I regret, to say, certain confessions which have been made by her, at different times to different persons.—The learned counsel then gave a lucid detail of the facts of the case as they appear in the evidence, and proceeded to call the following witnesses:— Elizabeth Beard—I live at Probus, and am a single woman. I had a child in the course of the spring; it was born in the Truro Union-house on the 7th of May, and was called William Beard. I remained in the Union five weeks after he was born. I left the Union-house on Friday the 10th of June, and took my child to Probus. where I live. I stopped there till the Monday following, when I went to Truro to a lodging house in Calenick Street, kept by a person named Goodman. I got there about six in the evening and left again at seven o'clock. The prisoner came in whilst I was there. I had seen her in the Union before, we were there together. I had a shawl with me, and left the child wrapped up in it when I went out at seven o'clock; I left the child on Jane Chenoweth's lap, and asked her to take care of it whilst I went out to get some tea and something to eat. I bought a penny loaf, and gave it to a woman to take back to the child. I then went home to Probus and got there a little after nine o'clock. Next morning I left home between five and six, and shortly afterwards policeman Prater took me into custody, and took me to the Truro station-house, where I saw Mr. Nash, the police inspector. I was afterwards discharged and bought some biscuits and beer, and then went towards my home at Probus. Just before I got to Tresillian I met a man, who told me something, and I afterwards saw my child at the Wheel Inn, at Tresillian. I was there taken into custody by constable Penrose, and was at the inquest on Tuesday, and gave evidence before the coroner. It was my child that I saw at the inquest.—Cross-Examined by Mr. Bevan—l was fond of the child and had taken care of it. I had spoken to the prisoner only once before, when she was in the Union House. When I left the child with Jane Chenoweth I thought she would have taken it to the Union. I would not have left it with her if I had thought she would not be kind to the child; the infant was very healthy. It was not until the Monday, before I went into Truro, that I made up my mind to leave my child. I could not keep it at home, because my father, who is a poor man, had another child of mine to maintain; and I did not like to go to the Union, because when I was there I was obliged to go to the hospital to strip the dead, and I could not do it, it did not agree with my health. I thought if I deserted my child, I should be taken the next morning and brought before the gentlemen, and then be sent to Bodmin, or to the Union-house, instead of going to the hospital. It was for that reason I left my child with Jane Chenoweth. William Joseph Nash—I am inspector of police at Truro. Jane Chenoweth came to me on Monday evening the 13th of June at the police station at Truro, and brought an infant with her. She said Elizabeth Beard had left the child with her at a lodging house in Calenick Street, kept by a person of the name of Goodman. She said she knew Elizabeth Beard, and that she was from Probus. I then directed her to take the infant to the Union-house. She said she was in Goodman's lodging house, and the mother of the child asked her to take it for a few minutes whilst she went out to buy some tea, and she did so, and that the mother did not return. She then went to the Union with the child, and returned in about an hour bringing the child with her. She said she had seen one of the officers of the Union, and they would not admit the child unless she had an order from an overseer. I then directed her to go to an overseer and she came back to the station with an order from Mr. Thomas, an overseer of St. Mary's parish. She went to the Union again, and came back between nine and ten o'clock at night, saying she had rung the bell at the Union three times and could not gain admittance. I then gave her a shilling, and told her to go again to the lodging-house, and meet me the next morning at the station at nine o'clock, and I would go to the Union with her. She did not come in the morning. Having heard of the desertion of the child, I directed a policeman to go to Probus to take Elizabeth Beard, and he brought her to the police station at Truro between eight and nine on the Tuesday morning. She was in my custody till between one and two o’clock, when she was discharged by the Mayor, and I went about a mile with her on the road to Probus. Tresillian is between three and four miles from Truro, and Geen Mill is about three quarters of a mile from Tresillian. The New Inn is near to Geen Mill on the Bodmin side of it. Probus is about six miles from Truro.—Cross-Examined—It seemed to be a fine healthy child when brought to the station, and Chenoweth appeared to be taking care of it. (The prisoner here denied that she had received a shilling from Mr. Nash as he had stated; she said she had only two-pence with her, part of which she spent and gave the child some breakfast. Ann Nottle, wife of John Nottle, a labourer, said she lives nearly opposite to Geen Mill, which is nearly a mile from the New Inn, farther on the Bodmin road. On Tuesday the 14th of June, between twelve and one o'clock, I saw a person pass my door. Elisabeth Beard had called at my house with her child the day before. She had then a shawl on, the same as the person that passed my house had on the Tuesday. The baby was wrapped up in the shawl and I thought it was Elizabeth Beard that passed. I sent my little girl Emma, about 12 years old, to call the woman in. The little girl came back, and told me what she had seen. The woman did not come into my house. I heard about an hour and a half afterwards, that a child had been drowned, and I went to a leat at Geen Mill, where I saw a baby. I washed the baby after the constable took it out of the water. It was Elizabeth Beard's baby, and was taken to the Wheel Inn, at Tresillian. (Mr. Nash, police inspector, here produced the shawl which had been referred to by the last witness.)—Ann Nottle, cross-examined by Mr. Bevan said, the leat at Geen Mill is by the side of the road, and quite open; it was narrow, and not then very deep, and was clear running water. Any one passing by the leat must have seen the child lying in it. There is no fence at that place, but a sloping bank down to the water.—Re-Examined—A person passing in the turnpike road could not see the child unless he went over to look into the leat. Emma Nottle, daughter of Ann Nottle—I saw a woman pass by on Tuesday the 14th of June, and was told by my mother to go and call her in. She was then kneeling down drinking at the shoot. She had a child lying across her arms; the child was crying, and she jerked it against her and told it to be quiet: she did so in an angry way. She then got up from her knees and went towards Probus. The woman was not Elizabeth Beard, it was the prisoner at the bar.—Cross-Examined—My mother has told me to keep away from the leat, because it was dangerous. The woman's back was first towards me, but when she rose up from the shoot, I saw her face. Robert May.—l live at Tresillian bridge, and was at the New Inn, on Tuesday the 14th of June, about a quarter of a mile the Bodmin side of Geen Mill. I saw Jane Chenoweth pass the New Inn about one o'clock, going towards Bodmin; she had not any child with her at the time. Cross-examined.—When she passed I said there goes Grace Beard (a sister of Elizabeth Beard). I said that to a man called John Michell, who also thought it was Grace Beard, and went out from the New Inn and called to her. I had never seen Jane Chenoweth before; the next time I saw her was when she was in custody; I then recognized her as the person that I saw pass the New Inn. Re-examined—l saw Michell speak to her, and as she turned I then saw her face; Michell is not here in court. By the JUDGE—l feel quite certain it was not Grace Beard that passed, when she turned round I saw it was not Grace Beard. William Measures.—I am a licensed hawker, and was travelling from Tregony to Truro on the 14th of June, by way of Probus. I had got into the main road from Truro to Bodmin, and got to the mill-leat, about 250 yards from Geen Mill. My wife had stopped behind to show things to some ladies, and whilst waiting for her to come up, I went to the side of the leat to see if there were any trout there. I then saw a baby lying on its right side in the leat; the feet of the child were very close to the bank. A person walking down the high road could not see it, without going over and looking into the leat, which was from six to eight yards from the road. The head of the child was under the water, and lying on a flat stone; there were three or four inches of water above the head, and the body was also under water. The child was quite dead; I called a woman before my wife came up, and remained till the constable came and took the body out of the water. The bottom of the leat was a kind of stiff mud, and where the right arm of the child had been, there was a print made of two or three inches deep in the mud. At the bottom also there was a kind of pool. I fancied the body was pressed down after it had been put in; it appeared so from the marks. The body was produced at the inquest at the Wheel Inn next day. Cross Examined—There was no fence to the leat at that place. I did not see any mark on the child. Re- Examined—There is a waste spot of perhaps eight yards between the leat and the road. John Fugler, constable of Probus—I know Robert May, (one of the former witnesses), and in consequence of information received from him on Tuesday the 14th of June, I went to the road to Bodmin, and overtook Jane Chenoweth at the Victoria Arms, about 18 miles from Truro, and 14 miles from Geen Mill. I took her into custody about nine o'clock in the evening, and brought her back to the New Inn, in Probus parish. I there gave her in charge to constable Hugo, who watched her during the night. Cross-examined.—The Victoria Inn is about 15 miles from Tresillian. John Hugo, constable of Probus—On Wednesday about one o'clock, I was called up by the last witness to watch Jane Chenoweth during the night, at the New Inn. I remained with her all night. Early in the morning Mrs. Maria Cook, the landlady of the Inn, came into the room. She said to Jane Chenoweth, how could you have the heart to put the stone on the child's head? Prisoner replied, I did not. Then Mrs. Cook said, how in the world could you ever have the heart to drown the child?—Prisoner said, the child was very cross, and I was tired, and when I came there, I dabbed the child down in the mud and water, and went away and left it. Cross-examined—I know those were the words; I believe I so stated them before the coroner. I saw no marks of violence about the child. Maria Cook, wife of Mr. James Cook, who keeps the New Inn, said she went and saw the child in the leat. Early on Wednesday morning, I went into the room where John Hugo had the prisoner in custody at the New Inn. I asked her how she came to put the stone on the child's head, and she said, I did not. I then said, how could you have the heart to drown the baby? She said, I was tired and the child was very cross, and I dabbed it in the mud and water, and left it. I don't recollect that she said anything after that. Cross-examined—I carried in two or three pints of beer in the course of the night by the constable's order. I did not hear any conversation passing between them. John Paddon said, I am a Bachelor of Medicine, of the University of London, and have been in practice at Truro thirteen years. I was summoned to attend the inquest held on the body of the child at Tresillian, on a Wednesday, the child having been found in a mill-leat the day previous. I stated my inability to do so without a careful examination of the body, and the inquest was adjourned at my request. I made an examination the same afternoon and evening, which occupied me four and a half hours. It was a well- formed, healthy child, about five or six weeks old. There were no marks of external violence: but there were several indications that death had been caused by suffocation. The blood vessels of the head were very full of blood, with some serum or watery fluid in the cavities of the brain; and there was a large quantity of blood in the veins of the neck, and in the right heart. The left heart was quite empty of blood; the lungs were very full of blood, and the air passages leading to the lungs were partly filled with a watery fluid slightly tinged, as if a small quantity of blood had tinged it with a reddish colour. This was also apparent in the lungs themselves, on pressure; and there was another important sign, in the general state of the blood; it was entirely in a fluid state, so that it was difficult to make even a careful inspection of the neck without the blood flowing out. The stomach was empty of food, but in the lower part there was a small quantity of brownish looking stuff, which on examination with the microscope he found consisted of very minute gravel, like soft muddy stuff or silt, such as would lie at the bottom of a leat. The body had also the appearance of having been immersed during life, but he should not rely on that appearance in a case of this sort. He could not believe that all the signs he had described would have been present unless death were produced by suffocation. The condition of the brain and of the heart, and the fluid state of the blood would all indicate suffocation by whatever mode produced; but the appearances of the air passages and the lungs, he concluded, only had reference to one mode of suffocation, and that was by immersion in water. Cross-examined—How would the sediment be introduced into the stomach? Witness—If the child had been forced down head-foremost, it might have convulsively swallowed a portion of muddy water, and the water being afterwards absorbed, the mud would be left on the lining of the stomach. John Pearce said, l am at present resident in London as a printer. In June last my father was contractor for conveying prisoners from Truro to Bodmin. I assisted him, and was employed to take Jane Chenoweth to Bodmin in a covered car with curtains in front. On approaching the leat, where the child was found, the prisoner frequently looked out, pulling aside the curtain which had been drawn because it was a wet morning. I asked her what she was looking at, and she said she was looking at the place where the child was drowned. I asked her how she knew where the child was drowned, and she made no reply. We went two miles farther before she spoke again; she then said, "I saw your car on Tuesday, did you see me?" I said, I fancy I did, but I am not sure, on which she said, I don't think you did, as I endeavoured to shun your car. I asked, what made you try to shun the car? She said, I thought you might hear something concerning the child, and would put the constables on the track I was going. I said, l am afraid it is a bad case, especially if what people say is true, that you held the child down till it was dead. She said, "that is not true, that is a lie, I threw the child in the leat and went on my way." I asked her, what made her do it, and she said—it got cross, I had been carrying it the whole of the way from Truro, I did not know what to do with it, and I put it in the leat. Having heard her say previously she had thrown it in, I then said, did you throw it in or put it in? She replied, I went to the water's edge, put the child in the leat, and went my way. Cross-examined—She introduced the subject herself; she did not seem in the least nervous or agitated, but seemed to look out of the car from curiosity. This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr. BEVAN addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He said the case presented a tissue of circumstances which were most ambiguous in their import. It was open to doubt whether this was the woman who was seen with a child in her arms on the road, or if she was, whether the child found was that which she was carrying. Such a crime as this was never committed without a motive, and in fact if there was one passion stronger than another implanted in the breast of a woman, it was that of the love of children. There was nothing in the evidence to show that the prisoner was of a cruel disposition; on the contrary the mother of the child considered her to be good-natured and kind, or she would not have left the child with her. It could have been no trouble to the prisoner, because she might immediately have got rid of it by walking to the Truro Union. There was no profit or inducement held out to her by the mother, or any one else, to make away with the child, and there was no property about it for her to appropriate. Could they, the jury think the child was murdered by this young woman, who had been seen treating it with apparent tenderness! The mill leat was in the deepest part about two feet deep, and it was so publicly situated that of the hundreds of travellers passing that way, many of them, just as the man Measures did, would probably on a summer's day, go over to the side of the leat. If the prisoner had intended to murder the child, surely she would have selected a more retired place, of which there are plenty in that neighbourhood favourable for concealment. But he submitted that there were other ways in which the child might have got into the water. The little girl Nottle had seen a woman drinking at the shoot on the same day, and on a hot summer's day, the 14th of June, what was more probable than that the prisoner (supposing it was she who was there with the child) had gone to the leat to drink, and that kneeling down, the child might have slipped from her arms and fallen in; that she was too much frightened to lift the child out, and that it was suffocated in a few moments. Should that have been the case, they would not be justified in finding her guilty of murder. She evidently had no motive to commit murder, excepting it was that she was tired of carrying the child. But to suppose that she would do it because of that, when she might have relieved herself by carrying the child to the union, was to suppose her guilty of the grossest depravity, and that she thought no more of doing such a thing than if it were a mere matter of amusement or of indifference; but there was nothing in the evidence to show that she was a character of that description. The surgeon's evidence, he contended, was altogether consistent with the conclusion that the child fell into the water by accident. Then with regard to the admissions and confessions of the prisoner which had been deposed to, such statements of conversations were to be very jealously regarded, and could not be relied upon. It was an abominable system, that of talking to prisoners about the offences they were accused of; and in this case, though she might have used some expressions, they could not rely that she used the precise expressions that had been stated, unless there was strong corroborative evidence. It was very unsafe to convict a person of a crime like this on evidence of that sort, and with regard to her curiosity in looking out of the van, it was just what an innocent person might be expected to manifest. Considering the whole circumstances of the case, he called upon the jury to come to the conclusion that the death of the child was occasioned by accident or misadventure. The learned JUDGE then summed up the case in a very careful manner, and read over the whole of the evidence. He complimented Mr. Bevan on the ability with which he had conducted the case for the prisoner, and remarking on the absence of motive to commit the crime, he said, if the jury believed she did it, they must conclude that she was a person of a most wilful and wicked disposition, and so little alive to the common instincts of humanity, that to get rid of the annoyance of carrying the child, she gave away to the dreadful temptation to relieve herself in that way from a temporary pressure. For there was no evidence, he remarked, of any collusion between her and the mother of the child, or of any secret understanding that she should please or serve the mother by making away with the child; for it appeared that between the mother and the prisoner there had been only a very slight acquaintance. He then asked the jury, whether they were satisfied that the child found(?) dead in the leat was the child of Elizabeth Beard; and if so, did that child die a violent death? They were also to consider whether the child came there by any accidental means, and on that point he said they had heard the remarks of the learned counsel for the prisoner. They were to consider, if she had been stooping down, whether a child of five weeks old could have then forced itself and sprung out of her arms, and so that she could not have taken it up again. The prisoner was entitled to the benefit of any doubts on their minds, but if they believed she placed the child there to relieve herself from the burden of it, she must have known that it would die, and her crime would be that of murder. They had heard the observations on the slight motive for committing the crime, and should give the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, but if all the facts pointed to one conclusion, they must do their duty, however painful it might be to themselves, or in the consequences dreadful to the prisoner. Again, if they believed her statements as deposed to, that she was tired of carrying the child, and that she put it down in the mud and water, and left it there to perish, the crime would be that charged against her, because she must have known that the death of the child would ensue in the ordinary course of things, when it was placed with three inches of water over its head. They had, however heard the remarks the learned counsel had made with regard to admissions and confessions; and if they thought the death of the child was the result of any accident, which they could reconcile in any way with her conduct and confessions, they should give her the benefit of any doubt they had in their minds on the subject. The jury, after about five minutes deliberation returned their verdict. The Foreman of the jury said, we find the prisoner GUILTY, but we strongly recommend her to the mercy of the Judge. The JUDGE—I will take care that your recommendation be transmitted to the proper quarter; the matter does not rest with me at all at present. The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS then said—Jane Chenoweth, you have been indicted for the wilful murder of William Beard. On your arraignment you pleaded not guilty, and for your trial you put yourself upon your country, and your country have found you guilty. Have you anything to say why the Court should not award judgment against you to die according to the law? Silence was then proclaimed, and the Judge having put on the black cap, in a very affecting manner passed sentence of death as follows:—Jane Chenoweth, you have been found guilty of the murder of a little innocent child, upon evidence as clear, as convincing, as conclusive as ever I heard in any court of justice;—you have been found guilty of the murder of a child that was left in your arms, by its evil- disposed mother, but whose misconduct cannot in any way palliate your guilt. Your soul has been sullied by this crime, and I implore you that you employ the short remaining term of your life in attending to those admonitions which you will receive from those who will endeavour to bring you to a state of repentance—(the prisoner here became greatly excited, and threw up her arms crying loudly and bitterly, and saying that one of the witnesses had sworn falsely against her.) The JUDGE proceeded—l will not add more. You are certainly not now in a state of mind to attend to anything I might say ,but you will have sounder and more valuable advice from those whose duty it is to impart it. I must now pass upon you the dreadful sentence of the law, which is, that for the murder of which you have been found guilty, you be taken from this to the place whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution, and then that you be hanged by the neck till you are dead, and that your body be buried within the precincts of the prison, and may God in his infinite compassion have mercy upon your soul. The prisoner was then with some difficulty removed from the bar, continuing to cry loudly and bitterly, and saying she must speak to the Judge. A great sensation was produced in court by the painful scene. JAMES HART, the little boy who had been found guilty oi placing stones on the West Cornwall Railway, was then placed at the bar to receive sentence. The JUDGE told him he had been guilty of a most wicked act, by which he might have been the means of killing twenty people and injuring a great many more. It had been done from a love of mischief without thinking of the consequences, but it was absolutely necessary for the protection of the public, that such acts should be severely punished. If people had been killed, he would have been liable to be transported for life, or, perhaps, to have been tried for murder. He then sentenced him to Six Months' Imprisonment with hard labour. The jury were then discharged, and the court rose. NISI PRIUS COURT, Wednesday, July 27. (Before Mr. BARON MARTIN), And a Special Jury. MEREDITH v. HORE and OTHERS.—Counsel for plaintiff. Mr. Crowder, Q.C; Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C.; and Mr. Coleridge.—Attorney, Mr. Bishop.—Counsel for defendants:—Mr. Karslake and Mr. Kingdon; attorneys, Messrs. Coode, Sons and Shilson.—The plaintiff in this case was James Henry Meredith, of Fowey, executor and devisee in trust of the late Mr. Treffry; and the defendants were John Hore, John Hore the younger, William Hore, William Hore the younger, Joseph Hore, Benjamin Hore, Joseph Rouse, and Philip Pinch.—The action was one of trespass, and the damages were laid at 500l.—Mr. COLERIDGE having stated the pleadings, which were lengthy, Mr. CROWDER opened the case to the jury. He stated that the late Mr. Treffry died possessed of works of various kinds and also of land, at Molinnes, in the parish of St. Austell, and lying adjoining the turnpike road between that town and Bodmin; and this action was brought to recover compensation or damages for injury caused by the defendants' stream- works and other mining operations, by which the plaintiff’s property had been damaged,—his buildings had been shaken to their foundations, and his railway had been rendered unfit for its purposes. Altogether, the damage already inflicted amounted to between 100 and £200; rendering it necessary for the plaintiff to bring this action, in order to ascertain whether the defendants really had the right they claimed to carry on their mining operations as lessees of bound-owners.—Mr. Crowder here described the locus in quo (which was viewed on Tuesday by six of the Jury), and detailed the injuries alleged to have been done by the defendants; mentioning particularly, that they had removed and carried off soil from the plaintiff's property. After stating some other circumstances of the case, Mr. Crowder intimated what the defence was, namely, that the defendants as lessees of tin-bounders had a right, according to the custom of the Stannaries of Cornwall, to work as they had done. The existence of such a custom, he said, he utterly denied; and even, if such custom should be shown to exist, he would contend that it was invalid. But, if the defendants could show the existence of a valid custom, it would be shown that they had exceeded that custom in removing and carrying off the plaintiff’s soil. Several witnesses were examined, and some documentary evidence put in, in support of the plaintiff's case. Mr. KARSLAKE then addressed the jury for the defence. He stated that the parties for whom he appeared—who were partly mine-adventurers and partly lessees of tin-bounds—had done the acts of which the plaintiff complained, under a valid custom to stream for tin on the land on which they were the lessees of bounds. It was perfectly true that the plaintiff was possessed of the railway in question and of certain works connected with it at the spot in question; but the defendants' answer to the action against them was, that that railway and the works appurtenant, were within the Stannaries of Cornwall and subject to the ancient custom of bounding, by which they as lessees of the bound-owners, had a right to go over the land so "bounded," and stream and search for tin, and carry it away; and it would be shown that that right had been acknowledged, both by Mr. Treffry and the plaintiff.— Mr. Karslake gave an outline of the evidence he intended to adduce; and, in reference to the plaintiff’s allegation, that the defendants had removed soil from his land, Mr. Karslake said that, where bounds had been set out at a time when the whole of the land so bounded was wastrel, the bound-owner or his lessee had a right to remove soil from any part within the bounds to any other part within the bounds; and if a person chose to purchase land within those bounds, that could not alter the prior right of the bound-owner.—After some further statements respecting the evidence proposed to be adduced, Mr. Karslake proceeded to assert the existence and validity of the custom of bounding; and, in support of this view, he referred to the case of Rogers v. Brenton, in which the question was argued at considerable length. The custom attempted to be set up in that case was, that any man might enter on the land of a person entitled to the soil, and might make his bounds and keep them in existence any number of years, without working. After much deliberation, it was held by the Court that that was not a proper custom; the Court intimated that working was necessary for the purpose of making the custom good. The custom sprung up in this way—if the lord of the soil did not choose to work his land, that was no reason why this country and other parts of the world should be kept without tin; and therefore any person was entitled to come in on that land and mine or stream; paying dues to the lord of the manor, if any; or if not, then to the lord of the soil; and dues had also been paid to the original bound-owner. And Lord Denman had held that that custom, under condition of regular working by the bound-owner, was a good and reasonable custom. Mr. Karslake then stated generally the nature of the evidence he should bring forward in proof of regular working, and of renewals of the bounds in question. Some documentary evidence was then put in for the defence; and a witness—John Williams—was examined on the custom of bounding, and the modes of renewal.—After he had been some time under examination, the learned JUDGE strongly objected to the reception of merely oral evidence on this question of custom, when documentary evidence on so important a subject might be adduced; and his Lordship referred particularly to the "Convocations" of the Stannaries and other documents referred to in Rogers v. Brenton. He said it was impossible that this case could be finally decided by the present trial; and added that if application had been made to him that morning for postponement, he would have ordered it, as the case was not ripe for trial.—After some consultation between the counsel and their respective attorneys and clients, it was ultimately arranged and ordered by the Court—that the jury be discharged by consent, the defendants paying the costs of the day; the case to be tried at the next assizes, and the defendants to be at liberty to amend their pleadings at any time before the first day of next Hilary Term. This was the only case at Nisi Prius entered for trial at these Assizes. Mr. Baron Martin then proceeded to the trial of the following criminal case:— THOMAS JACKETTS, 18, and WILLIAM JACKETTS, were charged with having committed a rape on Elizabeth Cundy on Sunday the 19th of Jane, at the parish of Callington. On a second count they were charged with an indecent assault; and in a third count, with a common assault. A Bill against John Carter, who had been also indicted, was ignored by the Grand Jury.—Mr. Carter conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Cole the defence; and, during the trial, no small interest was excited in court by the unusually "close sparring" between those gentlemen.—It appeared that the prosecutrix, a young girl in the service of Mrs. Rice, at Colquite, about a mile from Callington, was sent by her mistress, in the afternoon of Sunday the 19th June, to meet and lead home her little boy who had been sent to a Sunday school at Callington. She had been several times sent by her mistress on similar errands. On this occasion, she appears not to have met with the little boy as usual; and her mistress after waiting until about half-past four, went out into Colquite Lane, and at a distance of about 20 land-yards from the house, she found the prosecutrix lying in the hedge, senseless, and with her clothes in a very disordered state; and marks on her inner garments would lead to the presumption that she had, at least, been very violently treated, if indeed the offence charged in the first count of the indictment had not been committed, while she was in a senseless state. On her coming to her senses, after being found as described, by her mistress, she made a statement criminating the two prisoners, and stating that Carter was with them. Her statement was the same in effect as was afterwards given in her deposition before the committing magistrates, and as her testimony now sworn in Court; but the evidence is not of a publishable character. She was amply corroborated by her mistress, who gave her an excellent character for her general good conduct; and Mr. Buller, a constable of Callington, gave important evidence of admissions by the prisoners. For the defence, two lads named Wm. Gartrell and John Dawe, gave evidence which was utterly irreconcileable (sic) with that given for the prosecution, and which, if true, would clearly have exculpated the prisoners and have convicted the prosecutrix of the loosest of conduct with themselves and other lads on the Sunday afternoon referred to. For the prisoner Thomas Jacketts, Colonel Sir Colman Rashleigh tendered evidence of his very orderly conduct while serving in the Cornwall Miners’ Militia; but Sir Colman added that he knew nothing of him out of the Militia.—The Jury, after about half an hour's consideration, found both prisoners GUILTY OF A COMMON ASSAULT. They were sentenced to Twelve Months Imprisonment each.—ln passing sentence, the learned Judge expressed his firm belief that the two witnesses, Gartrell and Dawe, had been guilty of perjury. This case concluded the business in this Court.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 21 and 28 October 1853

6. Michaelmas Sessions

These Sessions opened on Tuesday last, at Bodmin, before the following magistrates:— J. King LETHBRIDGE, Esq., chairman Sir W. L. S. Trelawney, Bart. W. Morshead, Esq. Lord Lieutenant H. Thomson, Esq. Lord Vivian S. Davey, Esq. The Right Hon. Sir Wm. H. J. M. St. Aubyn, Esq. Molesworth, Bart. M. P. T. Graham Graham, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. E. Stephens, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M. P. E. Coode, jun., Esq. T. J. A. Robartes, Esq., M. P. Day Perry Le Grice, Esq. C. B. G. Sawle, Esq., M. P. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. T. Hext, Esq. J. Gwatkin, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. R. Spry, Esq. E. Archer, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. J. Davies Gilbert, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. F. Rodd, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. W. Carpenter Rowe, Esq. Rev. J. Glencross. T. Thomas H. Peter, Esq. Rev. R. B. Kinsman. J. S. Enys, Esq. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. John Ferris, St. Clement, foreman. Mr. W. Angwin, St. Just. Mr. W. Bryant, Stythians. Mr. T. Barnicoat, Penryn. Mr. J. Davis, St. Keverne. Mr. J. Dodd, Penryn Mr. N. , Probus. Mr. W. Hancock, St. Austell. Mr. J. Hoskin, . Mr. J. Hollow, . Mr. C. Hichens, . Mr. H. Hoskin, St. Erth. Mr. J. Job, Redruth. Mr. W. Michell, Zennor. Mr. J. Mann, Zennor. Mr. J. Martin, . Mr. J. Olver, Budock. Mr. H. O. Olivey, Mylor. Mr. E. Penman, Redruth. Mr. D. Roberts, St. Keverne. Mr. R. Sowell, Penryn. Mr. J. Saundry, St. Just. Mr. J. Trestrail, Redruth. The following gentlemen also answered to their names: Mr. Sampson Woolcock, St. Just; Mr. T. White, St. Just; Mr. W. Wilton, Gwennap. The Queen’s Proclamation for the discouragement of vice was read; after which the CHAIRMAN delivered the following Charge to the Grand Jury [—not transcribed} VISITING JUSTICES REPORT.—The Visiting Justices reported the prison to be in its usual excellent condition, both as to cleanliness and discipline. SURGEON’S REPORT.—The surgeon of the county prison (Mr. Joseph Hamley) reported as follows:—In making my annual report I have great pleasure in stating that the prisoners have been more healthy than for many years past, no case of serious illness having occurred. There have been some cases of diarrhoea within the last month, but they have all yielded to the usual remedies. There has been one death (Richard Brewer), a debtor in the Sheriff’s ward, who was in a feeble state when admitted, and died of old age. The following have been the cases of sickness during the year, ending Oct. 8th, 1853; slight indisposition, 46 males, 6 females, total 52; infirmary cases, 3 males, 3 females, total 6; pardons on medical grounds 1 male; death, 1 male; greatest number of sick at one time, 7 males, 5 females, total 12. I am happy to add that both infirmaries are at present unoccupied. CHAPLAIN’S ANNUAL REPORT. Cornwall County Prison, Bodmin, Oct. 18th, 1853. To the Worshipful the Chairman and other Magistrates assembled at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions of the Peace: Gentlemen, I have the honour of presenting to your notice my eighth annual report, as Chaplain of your County Prison, of the religious and moral information of the prisoners committed there during the year ended October 8th, 1853. In my last report I referred to the great evil arising from association; but as the matter is now under your consideration, I feel it unnecessary at this time to again allude to the subject. The number of Committals for the past year amounts to 518, shewing an increase of 7 over that of the preceding one; but the Re-committals shew a decrease of 19, full particulars of which are found in the tables annexed to this report.—All the regulations required have been closely carried out, as far as the construction of the present prison will allow, and I can continue to report the great improvement and earnest desire of many of the prisoners to obtain knowledge, and of the earnest desire and persevering attention of the master to further their endeavours. Prayers selected from the Liturgy of the Church of England are daily read, and two services on Sundays. The Holy Sacrament has been twice administered during the last year. Every prisoner is exhorted by me on admission and previous to discharge, together with private admonition. I daily visit every one who may be in the Infirmary Wards, or in the Refractory Cells, either under punishment for a violation of the prison rules or by an order of court. I continue to receive every assistance I may require from the Governor and the Subordinate Officers. I am, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, N. KENDALL, Chaplain. [Abstracts from the tables above referred to by the chaplain not transcribed] [CORONER'S BILLS.—not transcribed] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The governor of the county prison reported as follows:—In presenting my annual report, I regret to be unable to show so satisfactory an account of the number of committals during the present year as during that preceding it, as will be seen by the following statement, and also by the “comparative statement of prisoners for trial” now before the court:—

Committals for the year ending Michaelmas, 1851, - 558 Ditto 1852, - 511 Ditto 1853, - 518 Amongst the committals for the present year there has been a considerable proportion of abandoned females, whose conduct has been most insubordinate, but in other respects have, upon the whole, been as orderly as can be expected under association. The usual certificates were attached, that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had be as far as practicable complied with. Also that several of the airing yards and passages require repaving, that some of the roofs continue in a very bad state, and that some of the floors and partitions of the dormitories require repair, but in other respects the prison continues much in the same condition as before reported. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH stated that at the last meeting of the Gaol Committee, the visiting Justices brought under their notice the enormous proportion of expenses that accrued in consequence of commitments and convictions from the Borough of Truro. He found there was an agreement between the County and that Borough, which prevented any alterations being made by the County; but he thought it right the subject should be mentioned. The Justices of Truro could not be aware of the effect. There were at present in the gaol two girls—sisters—from Truro, one of whom had been in gaol 5 years and 9 months out of the last 8 years, and the other 5 years and 5 months out of the same period; and one of them had just been just confined in gaol. These girls on being discharged from prison went back to Truro, and immediately committed some slight breach of the peace for which they knew they were sure to be again committed. He thought the attention of the magistrates should be directed to it, to see if some remedy could not be provided.—Mr. KENDALL said that he understood they were committed to Truro in every way.—The CLERK OF THE PEACE said it was part of the County, and paid to the County Rates.—Mr. KENDALL observed that Truro might break its contract, but the County magistrates could not break theirs. They should be very anxious to get rid of Truro if possible, but he did not see how it could be done; they had no remedy he supposed, but were linked to Truro for life. [GAOL EXPENSES for the past quarter—Not transcribed] COMPARATIVE STATEMENT—The following was the comparative statement of prisoners for trial at the Michaelmas sessions of 1852 and 1853.—At Michaelmas sessions, 1852, for felony in custody, 19; ditto, on bail, 4; misdemeanour in custody, 1; total, 24. At Michaelmas sessions, 1853, for felony in custody, 26; ditto, on bail, 4; misdemeanour in custody, 4; assault, on bail, 2; breach of the peace in custody, 2; on bail, 1; total, 39. BRIDGES. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Moorman reported that the contractors for the repairs of bridges and roads for a term of 7 years from the 1st May, 1853, had all executed their agreements. Pursuant to an order at the last Sessions a contract was entered into for the improvement of Higher Carnon Bridge, and the whole of the work had been executed to the satisfaction of the Surveyor. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. PEASE had great pleasure in reporting that the improvement of Wadebridge was finished, and, he flattered himself in such a manner as could not fail to give entire satisfaction to the public. The Committee had examined the work, and would, he presumed, make a special report on it.— Mr. Pease reported the necessity of some slight repairs at various bridges and obtained an order for the necessary expenditure—not exceeding £8 in all.—He gave notice that he should require two levies at the next Session. WADEBRIDGE.—The Wadebridge committee were happy to report that the important alteration in this bridge has been completed in a most satisfactory manner. In addition to the contract, the committee have thought it right, from certain indications of weakness, to have the old piers newly cased throughout, at an extra expense of about £150, and iron girders have also been laid across the arches; but the committee are glad to say that not only has every charge been met by the sale of the trust lands, but that a balance of £244 18s. will now be handed to the treasurer of the county. —The CHAIRMAN then read the statement of accounts:—To balance of rent in Mr. Symons’s hand, £65 14s. 5d.; proceeds of sale of property, £950; amount of sale of stock, 317l. 0s. 4d.; two and a half years’ dividends, £25 4s. 7d.; total, £1,357 19s. 4d. —By Nicholls and Co., for casing piers, &c., £189 10s.; Chancery charges, £151 2s. 2d.; parliamentary charges £23 12s. 2d.; clerk of the works; £67 10s.; expenses on sale of property, stock, &c., £44 12s. 3d.; Messrs. Coodes’ bill, £15 10s. 4d.; surveyor’s amount, £33 12s.; contractors’ account, £587 12s. 5d; total, £1,113 1s. 4d., which deducted from the total proceeds, as above stated, left a balance in hand of £244 18s. Mr. KENDALL said there was one item in the account—the parliamentary charge, £23 12s. 2d.—which seeing that the committee did not go to Parliament, struck the Treasurer’s eye, as strange, and it was necessary he (Mr. Kendall) should explain it. The lawyers were divided in opinion as to whether the Committee could or could not manage the sale of the Wadebridge Trust property, in Chancery, and therefore the Committee, fearing they might lose the parliamentary session if no preliminary steps were taken, and finding that those preliminary expenses would not exceed £25, took on themselves the responsibility of telling Mr. Symons to take such preliminary steps as might be needful in case they failed in Chancery. Under these circumstances, he thought the county would think the committee did right; but if there was any blame, it was due to the committee, and not to Mr. Symons, who was most anxious to avoid going to parliament. The committee had also to thank Mr. Pease; and also Mr. Enys who had saved 70l. in the work, by avoiding the use of a string-course.—Mr. Kendall added some observations on the necessity of adopting stringent measures to prevent bargemen passing under the bridge, doing injury to the casing by using the stone-work as a fulcrum for their ironspikes (sic) in propelling their barges. Mr. GWATKIN, after some appropriate remarks on the subject, moved—that the thanks of the county are due to the Trustees of the Wadebridge and Lovibond Charity, in their Solicitor, Mr. Symons, and to the committee, for the manner in which the negociation for the County had been carried on, and for its satisfactory termination. The Rev. T. PASCOE seconded the motion, which was agreed to unanimously. Sir W. L. S. TRELAWNY acknowledged the compliment, on behalf of the Trustees; and Mr. KENDALL on behalf of the Wadebridge Committee. AMBLE BRIDGE.—Mr. KENDALL observed that some complaint had been made with respect to the approaches to Amble Bridge.—Mr. PEARSE replied that the contractor was procuring stone for the necessary repairs. A HINT TO ATTORNEYS.—The CHAIRMAN again, as he has done at previous sessions, complained that depositions were not sent in proper time; some had not served(?) at this time; this delay caused great inconvenience to himself and to the Governor of the Gaol. THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF THE GAOL—By request of Mr. Gilbert, the CLERK OF THE PEACE read the Report of the Governor, presented at the last Midsummer Sessions, on the evils resulting from the association of prisoners; and in answer to questions from Mr. Gilbert, the GOVERNOR now confirmed the strong opinions he had expressed. Mr. GILBERT then said he should move that the report made by the Governor at the last Sessions on the imperfect and insufficient condition of the gaol, having been taken into consideration, is well founded. After that report by Mr. Everest, and the statements he had now made, and after all the time he (Mr. Gilbert) had occupied the Court at the Easter Sessions on the subject, he would do no more now than read an extract from the Report on Prisons, published by order of the Government; and which embodied in better words than he could use, his feelings on the subject. It related to the part of prisons occupied by prisoners awaiting trial; and stated—“There is perhaps no body of men among whom are greater shades of difference or varieties of character than among those committed for trial. All those distinctions of character, may however, be well nigh obliterated even before trial if this season of reflection may be made an opportunity of corruption, and the prison, instead of being a place of seclusion from temptation and evil society, not to say a school of discipline and reform, be made a ?--- house of moral plague.” Mr. Gilbert strongly urged the necessity of providing means of classification of the prisoners; and ultimately moved the resolutions which will be found below. Some conversation of a desultory and informal character took place on matters of detail suggested by Mr. Gilbert’s observations, and on the larger subjects of the solitary and the separate systems of confinement, and as the new system for the arrangement of gaols, about, he said, to be introduced by Colonel Jebb, the Inspector of Prisons.—There took part in this conversation, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Robartes, Mr. Gilbert, the Chairman, Mr. Archer, Mr. Rowe, and the Governor, who gave his decided opinion that the enlargement and alterations now proposed would be necessary under Col. Jebb’s proposed new system no less than under the existing system, and Mr. Everest added that he had for 25 years been complaining of the evils resulting from association and contact of prisoners, and he had been all that time trying to get those evils remedied. The following resolutions, severally moved by Mr. GILBERT, and seconded by Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH, were afterwards carried:— 1st—That the Report of the Governor, made at the last Sessions, of the imperfect and insufficient condition of the gaol, having been taken into consideration, is well founded. 2nd—That the Gaol Committee be continued, with directions to complete the purchase of the land required for the improvement of the gaol, to negociate the removal of the roads; to superintend the erection of a wall to enclose the county property; to obtain a plan for a new gaol to be designed in accordance with Government regulations and so arranged as that one section for 40 prisoners may be built without destroying any part of the present gaol and that for these purposes the Committee be authorised to expend a sum not exceeding £1400, out of the £5000(?) granted at the Easter Sessions, 1849.” SOWDEN’S BRIDGE.—On the motion of the Rev. R. BULLER, seconded by Capt. HEXT, a sum not exceeding £40 was granted for improving the western approach in Sowden’s Bridge. LUNATIC ASYLUM.—The next subject on the agenda was—“to receive and consider the Report of the Lunatic Asylum Committee, on a letter addressed to the Court by the Vicar of Bodmin, which was ordered at the Last Sessions to be deferred to the ensuing.”—On this subject, the particulars of which did not transpire further than in a statement that the labours of the Vicar of Bodmin were very considerable in consequence of the Asylum, Mr. KENDALL said the Committee of the Asylum had made a suggestion, to which both the Rev. Mr. Wallis and the Rev. Mr. Grylls acceded; and it was now waiting the Bishop of Exeter’s sanction. THE CLERK AND SCHOOLMASTER OF THE GAOL—MR. KENDALL, on the part of Capt. Hext, moved to increase by 30l. a year, the salary of Mr. W. Peters, the clerk and schoolmaster of the gaol; whose salary had been hitherto 40l. a year with coals and candles. Mr. Kendall said that Mr. Peters had been their servant for 10 years, and he did not hesitate to say that no servant of the County had been so badly paid. He was a most efficient officer in each of his offices; and the salary of 70l. a year now proposed was not equal to what Mr. Peter might, if he chose, get elsewhere; and he (Mr. Kendall) did not think they ought to have an inferior. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH seconded the motion, and spoke warmly in praise of Mr. Peter, as a man of great ability and who at all times paid great attention to his duties both as schoolmaster and clerk. In the latter capacity his work had of late years been greatly increased by the number and nature of the returns required by the Government. Mr. ARCHER willingly accepted all that had been said in praise of Mr. Peter, but objected to so large an increase of salary at once as that now proposed.—Mr. Archer, however, appeared to have understood that Mr. Peter received rations in addition to salary; and, on being informed that this was not the case, Mr. Archer withdrew his objection, and the motion for increase of salary was carried. GAOL OFFICERS—Mr. ARCHER repeated a suggestion he had made some two or three years since, that the turnkeys and other officers of the gaol should be clothed by the County in a suitable uniform. He believed this gaol, which was so admirably ordered in every other respect, was the only one in England of equal size, in which the officers were not so clothed.—Mr. KENDALL said he was very glad the suggestion had come from Mr. Archer.—Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH said the subject had already been brought before the Gaol Committee, and by them, on more than one occasion, reported to the magistrates in Sessions, by whom the proposal was negatived. CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS.—The CHAIRMAN said it had been left to a committee to consider the tenders on conveying prisoners from Camelford to Bodmin, advertised for at the last Sessions; and that committee had reported that John Coombe was a fit and proper person, his tender was the lowest, and he had received a very good character from Mr. Archer who had known him for some time. INSPECTION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—Mr. RODD made an application that the inspector for the Launceston district be directed to take his standard weights and measures to the parish of St. Mellion, in compliance with a request from farmers and others in that district. The application was granted; and a day was named for the inspector’s visit.—Mr. ARCHER complained on behalf of honestly disposed tradesmen, that the inspector was but empowered to examine and adjust their weights and measures on their own application, without waiting for authority from Quarter Sessions. Mr. Archer related an anecdote of an honest tradesman having made such an application; the application was refused by the inspector on the ground that he had no authority from the Quarter Sessions; and within two or three days afterwards the inspector went and informed against the tradesman that he had defective weights and measures. —Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH gave notice that he should apply at the next sessions for a sum not exceeding 50l. for enlarging and fitting up a store room at Truro for the Royal Miners Militia. —Mr. HOWELL gave notice of motion for a sum not exceeding 25l. for improving the approaches of a bridge, the name of which we could not catch. LOOE BRIDGE.—The Rev. R. Buller read the following minute of a meeting of the Looe Bridge Committee:— At a meeting of the Looe Bridge Committee held at the Assize Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday the 26th day of June 1853; the opinion taken by order of Court at the last sessions having been read; it is ordered that, on the Looe Harbour Commissioners giving sufficient undertaking to erect a new bridge and acquiring the lands for the approaches under the powers of their Act of Parliament, an agreement be entered into for contributing a sum of money by the County towards the erection of such new bridge. And the Committee recommends that as regards the future repairs and maintenance of the new bridge, the County shall adopt it as a County Bridge, and take upon themselves the repairs thereof; and that Looe Harbour Committee shall take upon themselves the repair of the road over the bridge, as well as its approaches, and indemnify the County therefrom. It is also ordered that the said new bridge shall be erected under the superintendence, and to the satisfaction of the County Bridge Surveyor, for the time being; and that such Surveyor shall have the appointment of Clerk of the Works. And that a copy of these provisions(?) be forwarded by the Clerk of the Peace to the Looe Harbour Commissioners.— Signed Richard Buller, James Glencross, R. Gully Bennet. Mr. Buller proceeded to say that this minute was communicated by the Clerk of the Peace to the Looe Harbour Commissioners who accepted its terms; but the Looe Bridge Committee of Magistrates had not proceeded with the work, because the Clerk of the Peace was of opinion that there was objection to the title of the land at the western approach. He (Mr. Buller) had no doubt that objection was good in point of law; but he thought if they waited at the present time, to see legal title, they should get no bridge at all. The Looe Harbour Commissioners had accepted the offer made them, and were quite ready to erect the bridge; and as regards the Polvellan portion of the proposed road, Mr. Buller of Morval, whose interest in Polvellan extended to the year 2000, was willing to give up that interest to the County, for the purpose of the proposed improvement, in any way the County might desire; so that as regards Pollvellan, the County might be quite satisfied. Then, as regarded the other portion of the road, over Looe Downs, the Mayor of West Looe was ready to hand over that land to the County, and for that purpose to execute any deed that might be required of him; but he could not execute a legal deed, because it required seven members of the Corporation to do a legal deed; and there were but 4 members living. It was impossible to ask the Mayor of West Looe to execute more formally; but he was willing to do the best he could. Then, the present Mayor was representative of the corporation of West Looe; and what was to become of the land after his death? He (Mr. Buller) believed that the property was acquired by one of his ancestors, who gave it to the Corporation of Looe for the benefit of the poor; and he believed that, after the Corporation was defunct, that property would revert to the representative of the donor; and, if no representative could be found, then the person in possession would have a right to hold against the rest of the world; but the representative of the donor was Mr. John Francis Buller. He trusted the Court would accept the title as sufficient, though they could not make a legal title. As an inducement to immediate action by the Court—saying nothing at present of the inconvenience and accidents constantly occurring—he would observe that in June 1855 the Looe Harbour Committee would expire, and the County would lose the money (£500) which that Commission proposed to give towards the Bridge. (It was subsequently stated that Mr. J. F. Buller had offered another £500, contingent on the gift from the Looe Harbour Commissioners).—At the end of that time too, Mr. Buller said, the Admiralty would see the great injury to the harbour from the existence of the present bridge; and would remove it. He would therefore impress on the Court the necessity of taking immediate steps; and this was the more urgent, as the County was now actually paying interest on the £2500 which it had borrowed for building the bridge, but which sum was now lying dormant. Mr. GILBERT supported Mr. Buller’s application; and on the subject of title, referring to Mr. Buller’s statements, he would undertake to say that if the County took possession of the land, offered partly by Mr. J. F. Buller and partly by the Looe Corporation, and built a bridge and made approaches for the purpose of devoting them to the public, they might defy any person to turn the public out of that land after they should have had possession for 140 years. Mr. Gilbert therefore moved that the Clerk of the Peace be directed to accept the transfer of the land and to inform the Looe Harbour Commissioners that the County was prepared to pay £2500 when the Bridge should have been erected under the superintendence of the County Surveyor. The Rev. R. BULLER seconded the motion. Some considerable discussion ensued, in which Lord Vivian, Mr. Carpenter Rowe, Mr. Sawle, Mr. D. P. Le Grice, Mr. Kendall, Mr. R. Spry, and the gentlemen previously named, took part. The conversation was directed mainly to the question of title to the Corporation Land. But after some time, the Rev. R. BULLER said the approach may be made entirely through Polvellan, without entering at all on the right of the Mayor of West Looe; and he would undertake to say that Mr. J. F. Buller would grant his land, to which, as been observed already, Mr. J. F. Buller had a title of 140 years. On this, the discussion as to the title of the Looe Corporation property dropped; and eventually the following resolution, was carried, on a division, by a majority of 8 to 2, several magistrates not voting:— “That the Clerk of the Peace be instructed to draw a bond to be entered into by John Francis Buller Esq., in the sum of £5000, to indemnify the County against any claim that hereafter be made by any party to any portion of the land to be occupied for the proposed approaches to Looe Bridge; and, immediately on such bond being signed, that the work be commenced.” Tuesday, October 18. (Before J. K. Lethbridge, Esq. TRIALS OF PRISONERS WALTER HICKS, 16, pleaded GUILTY of stealing at the parish of Illogan, a check shirt, the property of James Rowatt. (Sentence: three months h.l.) WILLIAM PAYNTER was charged with stealing barley, the property of Mr. Francis Howell, of Ethy. Mr. Humphry Grylls, for the prosecution, called William(?) Guy, farm bailiff to Mr. Howell, who said the prisoner was a servant on the farm, and had charge of the barley for feeding the pigs. The barley was kept in a granary, of which prisoner had the key. On the evening of Saturday, the 13th of August witness was on the watch in an unoccupied farm-house, which commands a view of the piggeries. This was about 8 o’clock in the evening. He saw prisoner go into the house, and thence to the piggeries; he was there about five minutes, and then left with something in a cart(?). He went out of the yard, and across the moor into the public road, where he was overtaken by witness, who asked him to give him the barley meal he had. He said he had no barley meal; witness said he had something, and took it from his hand, and found it was barley. He had compared it with the samples in the granary, and it corresponded. Prisoner afterwards came to witness, and asked him to look over it, saying it was his first offence. Prisoner’s confession before the magistrate was also read. Mr. SHILSON, in defence, called the constable of the parish who gave the prisoner a good character. He then argued that it was only a very small quantity of barley that prisoner took, worth about a penny, and that he did not intend to commit a felony; it was just like a person walking through an orchard and picking up an apple. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said the defence was ingeniously put, he would leave it to the good sense of the jury as to whether there was no difference between this case and picking up an apple in an orchard. The jury found the prisoner NOT GUILTY. WILLIAM HOSKIN was charged with stealing three pieces of lead, on the 2nd of September, the property of Mr. Edmund Norway, of Wadebridge. Prisoner was employed by prosecutor as a smith, and was directed to cut lead, from a roll of sheet lead on prosecutor’s premises. He was charged with stealing the pieces produced in court, but the Chairman considered the evidence insufficient, and directed the jury to acquit him.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY. JAMES EMMETT, 18, pleaded GUILTY of embezzling on the 7th of September, the sum of 2l. belonging to his master, John James, of St. Agnes, van driver. (Sentence: four months h.l.) JAMES BROAD pleaded GUILTY of stealing a firkin, the property of Thomas and Francis Needall. (Sentence: six weeks h.l.) CATHERINE JONES, pleaded GUILTY of stealing, in the parish of Kenwyn, on the 11th of August, three pairs of worsted stockings, belonging to Mary Treweeke. (Sentence: one month h.l.) JOHN DAVIS, 25, was indicted for stealing two calves, on the 3rd of October, at the parish of Callington, the property of John Herring. Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution. It appears the prosecutor lives at Pillaton, and on the 2nd of October prisoner came to him and said he wished to offer himself for service to prosecutor’s son, who lives in Stokeclimsland. On Monday morning he again came to prosecutor’s house, who then took the opportunity of sending two calves by him to his son at Stokeclimsland. Prisoner went with the calves, but on his way sold them to Mr. Kinsman, an innkeeper and butcher at Callington. His plea was that he was drunk when he sold the calves, and next morning he told the landlord they belonged to Mr. Herring. Verdict, GUILTY, but recommended to mercy. (Sentence: three months h.l.) APPEAL. GRANBOROUGH, WARWICKSHIRE, Appellant. ST. MICHAEL PENKIVELL, respondent This was an appeal against an order for the removal of William Good, his alleged wife Ann Good, and two children; but it turned out that the man had been married before, so that the second marriage was invalid. Under those circumstances, Mr. DARKE for appellant, moved that the order be confirmed as regards William Good, and quashed as against the wife and children.—Mr. HOCKIN , for respondent consented; and the Court ordered accordingly. The Court then rose. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19. (Before J. K. Lethbridge, Esq.) EDWARD JAMES, 33, pleaded GUILTY of stealing on the 30th of August, at the parish of Morval, silver watch and gown piece, the property of Charles Harding. (Sentence: four months h.l.) RICHARD JAMES, 20, was charged with stealing a fustian coat, waistcoat, and silk handkerchief, the property of John Nicholas. Prosecutor is a miner working at South Cargoll, in Newlyn, and on the 5th of October he went underground, leaving his clothes in the boiler house. When he came up in the evening he found his clothes had been taken away. Information was given to the local police, and police constable Woolcock apprehended prisoner at the Exeter Inn, Truro, who was then wearing the stolen articles. Prisoner’s defence was that he had picked the articles up in mistake. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: four months h.l.) SAVAGE ASSAULT.—JAMES HICKS and JOHN HICKS (father and son) were indicted for assaulting James Glanville, and doing him great bodily harm on the 29th of August. Mr. DARKE appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. STOKES for the prisoner. James Glanville stated that he was a miner and had been working at East Pool mine. On the 29th of August, he and his son James Glanville, and four others, were drinking in Wilkins’s beer shop at Pool. They had before that been drinking at a beer-shop in Illogan. They got to Wilkins’s beer-shop at about seven o’clock in the evening, and some play took place amongst the party. The two prisoners and two other men were sitting at the end of the same table. They had been about an hour there when James Hicks offered Retallack (one of Glanville’s party) a glass of beer. He refused to take the beer, on which Hicks used an expression which led Retallack to say he would kick him. Retallack rose up and went towards the Hicks’ party, and said he would fight either man of them. Young James Glanville came in and asked who was putting upon Retallack, saying that he would fight any man who did so. Then John Hicks and James Hicks (the prisoners) prosecutor said, rose up and threw to his son. He then rose up, took his son round the middle, and drew him towards the door leading to the passage; his son’s wife then came, and he gave him up to her, and she took him away. Then John Hicks, the father, prosecutor said, took him with one hand at the back part of his head, and the other hand on the top. He drew prosecutor back, and the young Hicks laid hold of prosecutor by the cheek, and then bit off part of his nose, which was afterwards picked up by a constable. Prosecutor lost a quantity of blood. After this, he said, one of the party “scat” him off his legs, and then they just strangled him on the ground. He was attended by a surgeon for some days, and had not been able to work for seven weeks, having suffered a great deal the first fortnight. On cross-examination, prosecutor said he and his party drank three pints of beer between nine and ten that morning at a beer- house in Illogan. Afterwards they had a quart at Kempthorne’s then two quarts at Wilkins’s, before the row commenced. Prosecutor said he was not sober, but knew all that was done and said.—There were called in support of the above evidence, William Gribble, Abel Angove and William Thomas, miners, who were of the Glanville party at the beer-shop; and constable Martin was also called as a witness. Mr. Stokes then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners, and said he should contradict in material points the evidence for the prosecution. He called as witnesses on the part of prisoners, William Osborne and John Penpraze, miners, working at Carn Brea. Mr. Darke, on cross-examination, elicited that Osborne had been taken in custody of the governor of the gaol. His evidence was, that the expression used by Hicks, which led to the row, did not apply to Retallack; that young Glanville first struck young Hicks; and that his own party were sober and the others drunk. Penpraze’s testimony was of such a nature in some points that the Chairman put it to the jury what credit they would give to it. The CHAIRMAN in summing up, said it seemed probable that old Hicks had only attempted to separate the parties, and not to assist(?) his son in the assault; if the jury were of that opinion they would acquit him. After a long deliberation, the jury found both prisoners GUILTY. (Sentence: James HICKS - two years h.l.; John HICKS - four months h.l.) COUNTY BUSINESS. Sir Henry Onslow, of Hengar, Bart., qualified as a county magistrate. WADEBRIDGE.—The CHAIRMAN said it was proposed that the surplus of 244l., in respect of this bridge should be invested in the names of Sir Colman Rashleigh, the Clerk of the Peace, and himself (the Chairman) in time to apply towards future dividends for the repair of the bridge; and that a tablet should be inserted into the Bridge to record the transaction, on which tablet the origin of Lovibond’s charity should be a prominent feature; the expense of it to be charged to the general fund.—This proposition was agreed to. TRIALS RESUMED. STABBING.—WILLIAM HENRY WILLIAMS was indicted for that, on the 1st of October, he did unlawfully and maliciously cut, stab and wound Thomas Hicks; and a second count charged a common assault. Mr. G. COLLINS for the prosecution, and Mr. SHILSON for the prisoner. On the 1st of October the prosecutor was drinking at an inn at , kept by Mr. Rebous, and the prisoners and others were in the same room. The prisoner got up and committed a disgusting act over prosecutor and a man called Rundle. Hicks told him he was no man to do such a thing, and told him if he would go on the quay they would see which was the best man. Rundle and prisoner afterwards had words, and Rundle took off his coat to fight. Hicks put his arms around Rundle to keep him from fighting, upon which prisoner with a clasped knife made a stab at Rundle, and pierced through one of Hick’s hands, which were round Rundle’s waist. Hicks was obliged to go to Mr. Trevan’s surgery, where he fainted from loss of blood. The knife went in at the back of his hand and pierced through the palm. The surgeon said the thrust must have been of some force; it divided an artery, and there was difficulty in stopping the blood. The wound was now going on favourably, and the man was likely to recover the use of his hand in about a fortnight.—Mr. SHILSON, for the defence, submitted that the prisoner must be acquitted, because the wound was the result of accident, prisoner not intending to strike prosecutor with the knife. He also directed the attention of the jury to the count for common assault. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said the act of cutting, stabbing and wounding was an offence under the statute without any allegation of intent to do injury to any person; if the intent were shown, another statute would be applicable, and the trial could not take place in this court. But the act of maliciously, or with an evil mind, cutting, stabbing, and wounding, without intent being alleged to do harm to any person, was an offence which might be punished by imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for not exceeding three years. No doubt in this case the prisoner did not intend to stab the prosecutor, but to stab Rundle. It was similar to a case of murder, when if a man fires a gun at one person, and kills another, it would be held to be murder.—The prisoner was found GUILTY OF STABBING. (Sentence: eighteen months h.l.) JOHN MAJOR, of St. Ives, was placed at the bar on a charge of felony in the house of John Daniel. The prosecutor, Henry Daniel, one of the witnesses, and Elizabeth Daniel, prosecutor’s wife, failed to appear. Their names were called three times, and their recognizances were ordered to be forfeited. The prisoner was discharged. JOHN HAWKEN and SAMUEL ANGOVE pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 15th of October, in the parish of Lidford, Devon, a check shirt, worsted stockings, trousers and drawers, the property of William Hodge. The prisoners were taken with the property in this county. (Sentence (each): four months h.l.) MARY JANE CHAPPEL, 17 and MARY WILLIAMS, 15, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a shawl on the 23rd of August, at the parish of Camborne, the property of Eliza Rogers. (Sentence (each): one month h.l.) ROBERT COLLINS, 40, was found GUILTY of stealing on the 8th of October, at St. Blazey, a wooden pail and three cabbages, the property of Augustus Coombes Sandoe, innkeeper. (Sentence: three months h.l.) BRIDGET MILES, 52, was found GUILTY of stealing a purse containing 1s. 6d., from the person of John Blatchford, at the parish of , on the 10th of October. A former conviction for felony in 1850 was also proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: Penal Servitude for four years, with hard labour, in such parts of Her Majesty’s dominions as one of Her Majesty’s Secretaries of State from time to time may direct, in pursuance of the statute in that case made and provided) JAMES SHORT, 31, was charged with stealing a pair of boots from the dwelling-house of John Beer, at Gunnislake, in the parish of Calstock. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: two months h.l.) CATHERINE BROWN, 46, was indicted for obtaining from Mary Gluyas the sum of 2s. 7d by falsely pretending that a compound metal ring she sold to her was gold. Mr. CHILDS conducted the prosecution. Mary Gluyas is a servant with Mrs. Mudge, Truro, and said that on Wednesday, last week, prisoner came to the back door of the house and offered to sell her a ring which she said, was gold. She asked for 3s. 6d. for it, but said she was in deep distress, and ultimately sold it for 2s. 7d. The ring was produced in court by police constable Ward, and was stated by Mr. W. B. Shaw, goldsmith of Truro, to be made of compound metal, and that such rings were sold for 8d. or 9d. a dozen. Verdict GUILTY. Another indictment of the same nature was preferred against the prisoner, for obtaining 1s. 9d. from Sibella Dungey, of Truro, by selling her a ring of compound metal which she falsely pretended was gold. Verdict GUILTY.—A third indictment against the prisoner for selling a similar ring for gold to Eliza Trigonowen, of St. Clement, for 3s. 6d. was on the calendar, but was not proceeded with. (Sentence: four months h.l.) THOMAS SPEED FLOYD, 19, and THOMAS JARVIS, 24, were indicted for stealing two purses and certain monies from the person of Priscilla Hooper. Mr. J. B. COLLINS conducted the prosecution. On the 5th of October, prosecutrix was at Callington market, standing near the stall of a man selling razors, when there were stolen from her pocket two purses, one of which contained fifteen or sixteen shillings.— Henry Bullen, constable at Callington, in consequence of information went out on the Liskeard road, and saw the prisoners; Floyd was handing money to Jarvis. The constable passed them, but kept his eye on them, and subsequently took them into custody after considerable resistance. The constable was assisted by two men called Southey and Crabb. The prisoner Floyd had in his possession a handkerchief containing Priscilla Hooper’s purses, both empty. On Jarvis was found the sum of £1 19s. 9½d. The prisoners were seen by another witness, John Bullen, standing near where the prosecutrix was robbed. Verdict GUILTY. (Sentence (each): Penal Servitude for four years, with hard labour, in such parts of Her Majesty’s dominions as one of Her Majesty’s Secretaries of State from time to time may direct, in pursuance of the statute in that case made and provided) The CHAIRMAN discharged the Grand Jury at about half-past two o’clock this day, with the thanks of the county for their services. WEDNESDAY, October 19 (Before C. B. GRAVES SAWLE, Esq.) JOHN HILL, 49, was charged with having, on the 25th August, at the borough of Liskeard, attempted to commit felony by inflicting on his own person certain and divers wounds, intending to commit suicide. The prisoner pleaded GUILTY.—It appears that the prisoner had been accustomed to walk the country, selling stationery and envelopes; and, on the night of the 24th of August, he was at Williams’s lodging- house in Liskeard; John Briton, a travelling hawker and his wife Mary Briton, were also lodging there. In consequence of something her husband said to her, Mary Briton went to Hill’s bedside, with some breakfast for him. He refused to take any, and said he had made up his mind not to eat or drink any more in this world. She took the breakfast down, and offered to take him where he was going and let him have food for a couple of days and give him a shilling to buy paper with. She had before seen him on the road selling paper, and had tried to cheer him up. When he came to the lodging-house, he said he had nothing to sell but his coat, and that he could not beg, and must starve, for he was tired of his life. A few moments afterwards, he came down stairs, and went to the privy. In consequence of what had occurred, he was watched, and was soon seen holding a kitchen-knife in his hand to his throat. John Briton went and took the knife from him; he said he was not thankful for this being done, and if he did not do it then, he would do it some time else. Mr. Prideaux, sugeon, was immediately sent for, and found on Hill’s throat five or six superficial cuts, such as might be made with the knife taken from him. Mr. Prideaux was of opinion that Hill was perfectly sane, except on the one subject of self-destruction; and did not consider that he was in a fit state to be left at large.—Hill repeated to Mr. Prideaux and the constable, his determination to destroy himself; and, before the committing magistrates, said:- “I was in distress and want, hungry and penniless, and I was driven to do it. I plead guilty. I have no friend or relation, and I am determined to quit this miserable life. I have spent many happy hours in this town. I had it in my mind yesterday; I called on a friend and he doled out one penny to me; I am determined to do it at the first opportunity.” (Sentence: Ordered to be discharged on entering into his own recognizances in £50 to keep the peace towards himself and all other Her Majesty’s subjects for 12 months. He was suitably and affectionately admonished by the Court, to whom he made solemn promise that he would never repeat the attempt to destroy himself.) ROBERT WILLS, 10, pleaded GUILTY of stealing at Liskeard from the person of Mary Ann Bowden, a purse containing a half-crown and two shillings, the property of John Bowden. (Sentence: one week imprisonment, once privately whipped) ANGELINA THOMAS, 13, pleaded GUILTY of having on the 24th of September, at the parish of Illogan, unlawfully obtained, from the shop of Constance Allen, by false pretence, 17½ lbs. of flour, with intent to cheat and defraud the said Constance Allen of the same. (Sentence: one month h.l.) MARY SIMS was indicted for falsely pretending to Jacob Schwerer, at Redruth, that a male friend of hers wished to purchase a gold watch and chain; by which false pretence she obtained a gold watch and chain from the said Jacob Schwerer.—Mr. Hockin conducted the prosecution; Mr. Chilcott the defence.—Jacob Schwerer, the prosecutor, said he was a watch maker and jeweller at Redruth. On the 19th of August, the prisoner came to his shop and paid part of some money she owed for a 30s. clock, and said that a male friend of hers wanted to buy a gold watch and chain, and asked to be allowed to take two or three to her friend to look at. He let her have three gold watches and chains. The next day she brought back two watches and chains, saying that her friend had selected one watch and chain, but would prefer keeping it a day or two to see if it kept time, before paying for it. The value of the watch and chain was 15l. 10s. A few days after that, witness went to her to get the money, and she said she was very sorry, but her friend had his money in the Savings Bank, and must give a fortnight’s notice for it. Witness then waited a fortnight, and went again to her shop, and she then said her friend lived at Camborne, and she was going that day to see him about it. A few days after that, witness found that her shop was closed, and that she had started off on Sunday night. Witness afterwards went with a constable to Guernsey, and there apprehended the prisoner. When first questioned about the watch and chain, she said she had pawned it, but that the pawnbroker did not let her have a ticket. Afterwards she said she had sold it to the pawnbroker for £7.—In cross-examination, Mr. Schwerer said he trusted her for the 30s. clock, because it was such an article as a person in her station might want; she had had it three or four weeks before the 19th of August. He put down the watch in his book, to “Mary Sims’s friend,” and on each occasion that he called on Mary Sims he asked if her friend was coming to pay for the watch; and did not ask her for payment. After waiting three weeks, witness’s partner wrote to her to say that if she did not give him satisfaction for the watch, they should take legal proceedings against her.—Re-examined.—She kept a general shop, and had lived in Redruth about 11 weeks.—William Nicholls, constable of Redruth, corroborated the evidence of prosecutor as to the apprehension of prisoner, and produced the watch and chain which he had obtained of Mr. Martin, the pawnbroker.— Edward Martin, pawnbroker, of Redruth, stated in reply to Mr. Chilcott, that when the prisoner came to him with the watch, she said she wanted to meet a bill.—For the defence, Mr. CHILCOTT submitted to the Court, first, that the prosecution must fail because the alleged false pretence could not have been the moving reason why the prosecutor trusted the prisoner with the watch and chain; and secondly, that the case was clearly nothing but one of simple debt, and not the subject of criminal prosecution; and that the prosecutor had treated the case as one of debt merely, when he threatened her with legal proceedings for the recovery of the money.—Mr. HOCKIN observed that the false pretence was a subject for consideration by the Jury; and as to its being a case of simple debt from the prisoner, that assertion was distinctly negatived by the prosecutor’s evidence.—The COURT declined to stop the case; and Mr. CHILCOTT addressed the Jury, urging them to consider that the prosecutor had trusted Mrs. Sims, whom he had known and trusted before, and not her unknown friend; and that this view of the case was confirmed by the fact that the prosecutor threatened her with legal, and not criminal proceedings. If that view of the case should be taken by the Jury, they could not find the prisoner guilty under this indictment.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY. WILLIAM PERKIN, 22, a buyer of bones and rags, was charged with stealing, on the 8th of August, at , a coat, a pair of trowsers, a waistcoat, a canvass bag, and certain pieces of oil cloth, the property of William White, innkeeper.—Mr. Rowe conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs the defence.—The prisoner was found GUILTY; and a previous conviction of felony, at the Devon Assizes, July 1851, was proved against him. (Sentence: Penal Servitude for four years, with hard labour, in such parts of Her Majesty’s dominions as one of Her Majesty’s Secretaries of State from time to time may direct, in pursuance of the statute in that case made and provided) JOSEPH LONG, 38, was charged with having, on the 5th of July, at Probus Fair, uttered at two different times, two pieces of false and counterfeit coin resembling half-crowns, to Peggy Harris; and also, on the same day, uttering one other counterfeit half crown to Eliza Coom.—Mr. Chilcott conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—It appeared that on the evening of the day named, prisoner went at two several times to Mrs. Harris’s beershop, and on each occasion had a pint of porter for which he paid with a half-crown and received 2s. 4d. change; and on the same evening he went to Coom’s beer- shop and had a pint of beer, and paid with a half-crown, receiving 2s. 4d. change.—The case was one of simple and clear proof; and, although the advocate for the defence endeavoured to raise doubts as to the identity of prisoner, and as guilty knowledge of the counterfeit character of the coins, the Jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: two years h.l.) DANIEL GILLARD, 19, and WILLIAM GILLARD, 10, were charged with breaking and entering the shop of Thomas Bevan, at Stratton, on the 12th of October, and stealing a silver watch—They both pleaded GUILTY. Against Daniel Gillard, there was proved a previous conviction, at the Michaelmas Sessions, 1852, of having, with one John Harvey, broken and entered the dwelling-house of Walter Stephens, in the parish of St. Clements, and stolen therefrom many articles of food and wearing apparel. He was for that offence sentenced to eight calendar months hard labour. (Sentence: Daniel GILLARD - Penal Servitude for four years, with hard labour, in such parts of Her Majesty’s dominions as one of Her Majesty’s Secretaries of State from time to time may direct, in pursuance of the statute in that case made and provided; William GILLARD - one week’s imprisonment) HENRY FIELDER, 17, and CHARLES FIELDER, 15, were charged with having, on the 6th of September, feloniously broken into the dwelling-house of John Heard, a labourer, living at the village of Hursham, in the parish of Launcells, and stolen therefrom 3s. 4d., and some cheese, bread, and bacon. Henry Fielder pleaded GUILTY. Charles, the younger brother, pleaded not guilty.—Mr. Rowe conducted the prosecution.—It appeared that about 8 o’clock in the morning of the 6th of September, the prosecutor left his house, and shortly afterwards his wife also left; the house doors and windows being then secure. On their return about one o’clock, they found that the house had been entered at a window, and robbed of the articles named. In the early part of the forenoon, the two prisoners, who are “tramps”, were seen going towards, and in the neighbourhood of, Prosecutor’s house. The evidence, which was lengthy and tedious, was wholly of a circumstantial character. As affecting the prisoner under trial, the chief points of evidence were, that he had been seen with his brother near the house, and that certain footmarks found near the premises, corresponded with his shoes. In defence, he stated that, quarrelling with his brother, he returned to Stratton on the forenoon in question, without going to Hursham. The jury, however, found him guilty.—There was another indictment against the two prisoners for breaking into the dwelling-house of Ann Brimacombe, also on the 6th of September, and stealing some shoes and a cotton handkerchief. To this Indictment, Henry pleaded guilty; Charles pleaded not guilty, but this indictment of him was not prosecuted. (Sentence (each): six months h.l.) BENJAMIN FOLLY, 61, ELIZABETH FOLLY, 56, and SARAH FOLLY, 30, were charged with stealing, on the 19th of September, at the parish of Jacobstow, five ducks, the property of John Burden, a labourer.— Elizabeth and Sarah Folly were found guilty; and Benjamin was acquitted.—A previous conviction in 1846 was proved against Elizabeth Folly. (Sentence: Elizabeth FOLLY—eight months h.l.; Sarah FOLLY—four months h.l.) BENJAMIN FOLLY and ELIZABETH FOLLY were further indicted for stealing at Jacobstow, a sack, the property of William Spry Spettigue. In this case, it came out that the property was lost as long ago as the end of April or beginning of May; and was found on the prisoner’s premises, not until the end of September, at which time the prisoners were in Bodmin Gaol, awaiting trial on another charge. There being so long a lapse of time between the loss and the discovery of the property, the Court held that the prisoners should not be called on to account for their possession of it; and, therefore, stopped the case and directed an ACQUITTAL. IGNORED BILLS.—MARY INCH, charged with stealing, on the 5th of August, at the parish of St. Austell, a quantity of leaves and fagot wood, in a plantation belonging to Colonel Carlyon.—HENRY ELLIS, aged 13, charged with stealing, at Gulval, on the 18th of September, a horse, the property of John Hosking.— William Thomas, charged with stealing from Richard Thomas, of St. Ive; Jane Peppin, charged with stealing a plough chip from Alfred Rollason, of Mylor; and the bill against Wm. Knuckey, charged with stealing a sledge hammer from Jas. Martin, of Penryn. THURSDAY, Oct.20. The Court this morning, passed sentence on the prisoners THE PUNISHMENT OF PENAL SERVITUDE.—In proceeding to pass sentence on the prisoners, William Perkin, Thomas Speed Floyd, Thomas Jarvis, Bridget Miles and Daniel Gillard, the CHAIRMAN said:—It becomes necessary I should address you collectively. We are about to pass on you a sentence which a recent Act of Parliament enables us to pass. You will not be, what is called, transported; but you will be subjected to a new punishment which will be known in future by the name of Penal Servitude, in which will be combined punishment, education, and reformation—(and I hope and trust that this last may be useful to you)—accompanied with severe labour. A remarkable feature in this new punishment is that very much of its duration and extent will depend on your respective conducts. If you conduct yourselves well, after some punishment with hard labour, it is probable you may have what is called licence of leave, or permission to go about this country and labour in such parts as may be deemed right by the Secretary of State. You may go to different parts of this kingdom, or to the Channel Islands, where you will be employed at such labour as you will have opportunity of getting for yourselves. But remember this licence of leave will be granted, only upon your good conduct; and, if that good conduct be continued, it will be in the power of the Secretary of State to limit and cut short a large period of your confinement. All this will depend on yourselves. This is the first time this Act of Parliament has been carried into execution in this county; it is one that has been very recently passed. I venture to impress on your mind that it is to combine punishment, hard labour, education, and reformation; but the reformation, mind, will greatly depend on yourselves, under God’s blessing. If you conduct yourselves well, you may, after a period which I shall limit to four years, or you may before that period, be discharged and your period of servitude be considerably reduced. Nay more; you will have opportunity of getting labour—of going out on what is called licence of leave, to any part of the or the Channel Islands, and then if you conduct yourselves well it is possible you may hereafter be admitted to that rank of society that you have at present lost. THE ATTEMPTED SUICIDE.—JOHN HILL, being called up for sentence, the CHAIRMAN said:- John Hill, you have pleaded guilty to an attempt to commit suicide. The Court has thought right that I should pass sentence on you alone; because your offence is one of a very wretched and distressing character. I fancy, from what I have heard, that domestic circumstances may have made you unhappy. Hill:—It is true, Sir. The CHAIRMAN.—But you must recollect that in the eye of God, in committing self destruction, you are guilty of murder; and you have no more right to commit murder on yourself than on another. You must know there is a judgement hereafter; and for you to rush by your own act into the presence of your Maker is a very awful and serious consideration; and one that I hope you will well reflect on. I am going to ask you a question before we deal with you:—if we pass on you a light sentence, or if we discharge you, is there the least hope or prospect that you will not repeat this attempt? Hill, (expressing himself with much earnestness and apparent contrition):—I will not; I will make my direct road by to Greenwich Hospital. The CHAIRMAN:—What, are you an inmate of Greenwich Hospital? Hill:—I am a first-class petty officer of the Royal Navy, with 17 years service. I have been in 10 men-of- war; 3 characters very good; 5 good; and 2, drunkenness on duty, and that destroyed my certificate. The CHAIRMAN:—You say you have been in Greenwich Hospital; do you know my name there? Hill:—Yes, Sir Thomas Lethbridge. The CHAIRMAN:—Yes, and Mr. John Lethbridge, the Secretary of the Institution? Hill:—Yes, Sir. The CHAIRMAN:—I will write to him about you. I don’t think yours is like the case of an ordinary prisoner. I am endeavouring to reason with you on the enormity of your offence, in having meditated self-destruction. We propose you should enter into recognizances for your own security, for conducting yourself with propriety and not again attempting this act. Hill:—I will not, Sir. The CHAIRMAN:—You say you purpose returning to Greenwich. I will communicate with my brother the Secretary of that Institution, so that you can be watched and carefully attended to, and any little kindness that can be given you shall be given. Hill:—One of the Lords of the Admiralty was my captain; the Honourable Mr. Berkeley. The CHAIRMAN:—Am I to understand, in the presence of this Court, that you intend to return to Greenwich? Hill:—Yes, Sir. The CHAIRMAN:—And will make no further effort at self-destruction? Hill:—No, I will not; this will stop me. I promise it faithfully. The CHAIRMAN:—I shall inquire about you immediately. I hope you reach Greenwich safely; and that these circumstances may be the means of making you a different character. Hill:—I have written a humble petition to the Lords, stating my offence and that I humbly deplore it. Mr. EVEREST to the Court:—He has written, and we have a letter from the Board stating that he is entitled to become an inmate. The CHAIRMAN to the prisoner:—You will enter into your own recognizences of 50l. to keep the peace towards yourself and all other Her Majesty’s subjects, and, having done so, you will be discharged. I hope you will conduct yourself properly. BREACHES OF THE PEACE.—CAUTION TO BRUTAL HUSBANDS.—Robert Stevens of Lostwithiel, and James Watts, of St. Austell, who had severally been committed for want of sureties in breaches of the peace towards their wives, were admonished and discharged; there being no appearance against them. The CHAIRMAN said:—Husbands and wives should bear in mind that there is now a very stringent act of Parliament by which we are enabled to punish husbands who maltreat their wives; and that to a very serious extent. And the law now enables us to do that, without the wife’s complaint. Formerly it was necessary that the wife should complain; and often she would not complain, or, if she did, would afterwards withdraw her complaint, and the husband was discharged. But now it is in our own power to get other evidence than that of the wife. Therefore, before you are discharged, I wish you to bear in mind that we have much greater powers of interference between man and wife than we formerly had, and that we need not now require the evidence of the wife, but can proceed on other evidence. ALTERATIONS OF ROADS.—Mr. SHILSON moved the court in respect of stopping up a certain useless and unnecessary part of the highway called Arch-lane, in the parish of Stokeclimsland. The necessary steps had been taken by the Surveyors of the highways of that parish, at the insistence of Sir W. Berkeley Call, of Whiteford-house, founded on a unanimous resolution of the inhabitants at a vestry meeting. A certificate of the justices who had viewed the locality (T. J. Phillips and E. Archer, Esqrs.,) according to the act of parliament, was read to the court by the Clerk of the Peace, and the application was granted, and enrolled amongst the records of the Court, pursuant to the 5th and 6th William 4th, c. 60, sec. 85.—Another application was moved by Mr. WHITE, for sanctioning the diversion of a part of the highway in the parish of Lewannick, extending from Trelaske Lodge to Elliott’s Meadow-gate, which road it was proposed to turn and divert into an adjoining field. The necessary notices had been given and the spot viewed by two magistrates, (T. J. Phillips and J. K. Lethbridge, Esqrs.), who certified that the proposed new road will be more commodious for the public, more level, and more easily travelled over, and that it will be shorter than the old road by one chain. The application was granted.—Another alteration applied for, and which also received the sanction of the court, was in the parish of Gulval, extending from to Andewednack, the new highway to be made across certain fields. The magistrates who had viewed the locality, (J. Scobell, Esq., and the Rev. H. E. Graham) certified that the proposed highway would be more commodious than the present road, which is crooked and narrow, and dangerous for carriages. This concluded the public business of the Sessions.

Transcribed and checked by Barbara Wilkinson, Karen Duvall and Claudia Richards