1856 Cornwall Quarter Sessions and Assizes

Table of Contents 1. Epiphany Sessions ...... 1 2. Lent Assizes...... 21 3. Easter Sessions ...... 46 4. Midsummer Sessions ...... 55 5. Summer Assizes...... 65 6. Michaelmas Sessions ...... 99

Royal Cornwall Gazette 4th January and 11th January 1856

1. Epiphany Sessions These Sessions were opened at the County Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday the 1st of January, before the following Magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., Chairman. Sir W.L.S. Trelawny, Bart. E. Stephens, Esq. Lord Vivian. F. Martin Williams, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. N. Kendall, jun., Esq. T.J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. S, Borlase, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P. John Borlase, Esq. Gordon W.F. Gregor, Esq. R. Johns, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. J.B. Messenger, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. W.R.C. Potter, Esq. F. Howell, Esq. J.F. Trist, Esq. Augustus Coryton, Esq. J.P. Magor, Esq. C.G.P. Brune, Esq. Thomas Hext, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. Hon. and Rev. J. Townshend Boscawen. W. Williams, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. W. Morshead, Esq. Rev. T. Phillpotts. W. Braddon, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Rev. John Glanville, R. Davey, Esq. Rev. Arthur Tatham. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Rev. – Glencross. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. M.H. Williams, Esq. Rev. J.J. Wilkinson. H. Thomson, Esq. Rev. J. Perry. Rev. R. Buller. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand jury:— Mr. W.P. Keast, Liskeard, foreman; W. Bennett, Bodmin; W. Coppin, Cardynham; Jonathan George, Endellion; Warwick Guy, junr., Endellion; J. Gilbert, Lanreath; J. Harris, Bodmin; John Kendall, Liskeard; Thomas Kendall, Liskeard; T. Lean, Blisland; J. Hawke, Liskeard; E.H. Liddell, Bodmin; T. Langsford, St. Neot; Thomas Martin, Egloshayle; John Martin, St. Teath; Thomas Moon, Liskeard; E. Norway, Egloshayle; R. Nute, St. Teath; J. Parkin, Liskeard; Nicholas Stevens, Bodmin; W. Searle, Lanreath; F. Tamlyn, Lanreath, W. Verran, Lanreath. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:— Mr. R. Willcocks, Egloshayle, and Mr. H. Williams, Lanreath. After the Queen’s Proclamation had been read, the CHAIRMAN delivered his charge to the Grand jury [not transcribed] CORONERS’ BILLS.—The following Bills for the past quarter were allowed. £ s. d. Mr. Carlyon, for 28 Inquests £94 10 5 Mr. Hichens, “ 17 “ 56 18 7 Mr. Hambly, “ 11 “ 39 18 10 Mr. Good, “ 8 “ 27 15 10 Mr. Jago, “ 12 “ 37 10 6 256 14 2 For the corresponding quarter last year, the Coroners’ Bills were as follows:— Mr. Carlyon, (for two divisions of the County) 118 10 10 Mr. Hichens 90 10 5 Mr. Hambly 31 3 4 240 4 7 This quarter, therefore, there was a slight increase on the total of Coroners’ Bills; whereas, last year, there was a considerable decrease—as much as the difference between 378l. and 244l. VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The Visiting Justices of the Gaol and House of Correction reported the continued cleanly state of the prison and the general health of the prisoners. Some daring instances of insubordination among the female prisoners had been brought under the notice of the Visiting Justices, which the Governor’s power was found insufficient to check. Increased power was accordingly given to the Governor and order was restored. GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—The Governor reported that since his last report, continued insubordination among the female prisoners had compelled him to ask the Visiting Justices for increased power, to restrain it; and that had the desired effect. In other respects the prisoners had been orderly; and the hospital continued unoccupied.—The Governor certified, that, as far as practicable, the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been complied with. Several of the airing yards and passages required re-paving; some of the roofs continued in a bad state, and some of the floors and partitions of the dormitories required repair. GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE LAST QUARTER:— £ s. d. Subsistence 319 14 0 Clothing 88 3 8¼ Fuel 55 11 10 Sundries 61 4 10½ Salaries 303 3 0 Pensioned Warder 6 0 0 Paid prisoners on discharge 6 5 0 Expenses of Michaelmas Sessions 18 8 8½ Removal of Convicts 43 10 8½ Paid Surgeon for examination of Catherine Stephens, a criminal lunatic 0 10 6 Burial of a still-born female child 0 2 6 Female singers 1 0 0 Whipping 0 5 0 Incidental expenses 0 14 3 Total 904 14 0¾ Credit cash received for maintenance of 12 military prisoners 7 15 6 896 18 6¾ Repairs 8 6 3 Total 905 4 9¾ Hall expenses, £7 0s. 9d. Expenses on account of the new gaol, 164l. 3s. 3½d. —The CHAIRMAN read a comparative statement of prisoners for trial at these sessions and at the corresponding sessions of 1855. The general result was that in 1855 there were 51 prisoners for trial; and in 1856, there were 24. EASTERN DIVISION OF BRIDGES.—Mr. PEASE, inspector, reported as follows:—Looe Bridge.—The magistrates of the district have examined the new Bridge at Looe, and certified to its completion. The Looe Harbour Commissioners have also certified their approval of the work, and as they have undertaken to relieve the county from all future liability with regard to the approach roads, and repairs of the road over the bridge, as well as any contingencies which may arise from the removal of the old bridge, I only wait the order of the sessions to pay the balance of the 2,500l. guaranteed by the county.—I may mention with regard to the old bridge, that when, about 3 or 4 years ago, I presented a special report on its state, feeble as I thought it, I dared not suppose it was nearly so bad as, on taking it down, it proved to be. The piers consisted of narrow external walls, having the spaces between them filled with rubbish. I think it impossible that the bridge could have stood much longer. Tamerton Bridge.—The Magistrates of the District have certified to work done at Tamerton Bridge by order of the Surveyor for Sanitary purposes, at an expense of £2 9s. Clapper Bridge.—Some large stones require to be fixed to protect the foundations of two of the piers of Clapper Bridge; and some other repairs are required, the expense of which is estimated at £3. Rilla Mill.—A covered drain is much needed in front of the houses at the East end of Rilla Mill Bridge in a sanitary point of view, as well as for the improvement of the road; the cost of which would be about £4. Boyton.—When the river is low, the abutments in the Cornish side of Boyton Bridge should be examined, and the necessary repairs attended to, as I observed that one or more stones are wanting in the lower part of the abutment. Tregorrick.—A good bridge has been built across the St. Austell River at Tregorrick, which bridge I occasionally inspected during its erection; I now certify my approval of it, and see no objection to its being adopted by the County. [This being the last report Mr. Pease had to present to the Sessions as a Surveyor of the County Bridges, he appended to it some statistical and other information concerning the Bridges which had been under his care; and his duties in connection therewith.—We must postpone this document till next week.] —In the course of reading Mr. Pease’s Report, the CHAIRMAN read a letter which he received some time since from the Hon. G.M. Fortescue, on the subject of Lostwithiel Bridge, and, especially, drawing attention to the serious inconvenience that would arise from the Railway crossing the Turnpike road on a level within a few yards of the Bridge, and suggesting for consideration, whether in the projected repairs of the bridge, any thing could be done to remedy that inconvenience.—Mr. Fortescue states that it has occurred to him that if considerable repairs of Lostwithiel Bridge are necessary, and if the County is disposed to undertake them, a plan might be devised, which, with those repairs, might combine an alteration of the eastern approach, which would protect the public from an inconvenience and danger they never ought to have been exposed to on a turnpike road, viz.—a railway-crossing within 50 yards of a long narrow bridge on one side, and a steep winding hill on the other. Towards the cost of carrying out such a plan Mr. Fortescue has little doubt that some of the gentry in the neighbourhood would be willing to contribute. —Mr. E. COODE, jun., gave notice that at the next sessions, he will move that Tregorrick Bridge, the building of which had been inspected and certified by Mr. Pease, the County Surveyor, be adopted as a County Bridge. WESTERN DIVISION OF BRIDGES.—Mr. HICKES reported as follows:—Since the last Sessions I have had the side drains of Carnon Embankment stopped to prevent the water flowing on the road, and two drains made across the road to take off the surface water; the road is now quite dry; and I think the expense of raising the road, as was ordered at the last Sessions, may for the present be saved.—I have had several of the bridge roads not under contract put in good repair, and others are in doing.—There are some repairs wanted to the guard-walls at Perran, which will cost about 10 shillings. The road over this bridge, which does not belong to the County, is in bad repair, and I fear if not repaired this winter, the arch of the bridge will be seriously damaged. I shall require one levy at the next Sessions. WADEBRIDGE.—The CHAIRMAN read a minute from proceedings of the Epiphany Sessions, 1855, by which it was ordered that the interest arising from the Wadebridge Fund should be appropriated, under certain conditions, to the lighting of the Bridge with gas. An order for payment of that money for the past year was now requested We understand it was granted. LOOE BRIDGE.—The CHAIRMAN said, as Mr. Pease had certified that Looe Bridge was finished, he supposed there would be no objection to his being paid the balance of the £2500 guaranteed by the Sessions.—This also we understand is to be assented to. WAGES OF GAOL WARDERS &c.—On the motion of Lord VIVIAN, seconded by Mr. KENDALL, it was resolved nem. con., to increase the wages of the warders and the night watcher of the gaol, pursuant to a recommendation of the Visiting Justices, the increase to commence from Michaelmas 1855. NEW COUNTY GAOL.—THE CHAIRMAN read the following Report:— “The Gaol Building Committee beg to report to the Magistrates, in Quarter Sessions assembled, that they have received tenders for building a New County Gaol, and that the lowest is from Messrs. Goodyear and Son, the amount being 25,650l. To this must be added: - Architect's fees £1,250 Warming and ventilation 1,100 Bells and Locks 600 Water Supply 1,100 Gas 380 Clerk of Works 500 £30,580 From this must be deducted for materials 2,580l., leaving a balance of 28,000. These Tenders have been made on an amended specification, but as it in no way affects the accommodation or the plans, it has received the sanction of the Inspector General of Prisons. A saving has been made by the substitution of stone found on the spot (which is of admirable quality) for granite, and by a more economical mode of ceiling and flooring the cells. The Architect, finding the Tenders on the original specification far above his estimate, took on himself to furnish new specifications and to extend the time for tenders. This is the probable course the committee would have adopted, but they think it right to state it was done without their sanction.—The lowest tender being 3,000l. above the sum granted by the county it is for the magistrates to decide whether it shall be accepted or not. The necessity of a new gaol is becoming every day more obvious, and the committee think that the only point for consideration is whether by fresh plans and tenders a saving may be effected.—The committee at the same time are of opinion that with the present high prices there is little chance of any further reduction. Due consideration must also be had to the expense already incurred in plans, &c.” (Signed) N. KENDALL, Chairman. Mr. KENDALL moved the adoption of the report, concluding some observations in support of his motion, by stating that if in this county they could build an efficient gaol for 30,000l., they would be more economical than any other county had been with like population. He therefore moved the adoption of the report, and that the county expend 30,000l. for the erection of the new gaol. Mr. SAWLE seconded the motion, stating that, according to the Governor’s reports, a new gaol was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the proper discipline. Mr. KENDALL stated that the committee in their arrangements with the architect, had taken care to close with him at a certain sum; and, in answer to Mr. Robartes, said the usual course would be taken by the Committee to obtain proper securities for the contractors’ performance of their contract. The resolution finally submitted, on the motion of Mr. KENDALL, seconded by Mr. SAWLE, was—that the Report now read be adopted, and that the sum of £25,000 already voted for the purpose of building a new gaol be granted.—The motion was agreed to nem. con.; and Mr. KENDALL gave notice that at the next Sessions he will move for a further sum of 3000l. It was also resolved, on the motion of Mr. KENDALL, seconded by Mr. SAWLE—that the Clerk of the Peace be requested to take proper steps for raising the money, by application, in the first place, to the National Loan Office; and that, on the money being raised, the Committee be instructed to close with the Contractors. MILITIA STORES.—The CHAIRMAN said the next subjects on the Agenda were: “The notice of Lord Vivian that he shall move the withdrawal of the 15l. a year granted for the rent of stores for the 2nd Regiment of Royal Cornwall Rangers at Launceston.” AND “Sir William Salisbury Trelawny’s notice that he shall move, as an amendment, an increase to 40l. for Launceston, and at Bodmin to 50l., the increase to commence from the last Sessions.” The CHAIRMAN stated that he had received, from the Mayor of Launceston, to be laid before the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions, a copy of the Resolutions adopted at a meeting of the inhabitants of Launceston on the 14th inst.—The Chairman read these Resolutions, which were advertised in last week’s Cornwall Gazette. Accompanying the resolutions was a note from Mr. Dingley, Mayor of Launceston, expressing his approval of them. Sir. W.L,S. TRELAWNY Bart, said he had heard, within the last few weeks, that there was a rumour in the West of Cornwall, that this 2d Regiment of Militia was a crotchet of his for the sake of advancing his two sons. He treated that with scorn, and he ought to treat it with silent contempt. But inasmuch as without detaining the magistrates two minutes he could show the utter falsehood of the insinuation, he was tempted to say this:—Lieutenants of Counties had always been in the habit of making their sons Field Officers of Militia Regiments. This was done by his respected predecessor, and in the neighbouring County; and he believed that was the universal practice, without any complaint or any fault being found by any body. The gentlemen who were appointed by the late Lieutenant had both resigned; and it was then his (Sir. Williams) privilege to have appointed his two sons as Field Officers in the Rangers. Instead of doing that, he had appointed two other gentlemen in no way connected with him by relationship, and had persuaded his two sons to be content with the humble position of Captains in the other regiment. That was not quite all. When the Magistrates at the last Quarter Sessions came to a resolution that they would not provide stores at Launceston, as Lord Panmure and the war office did not press it, he immediately wrote to the war office, and told them that, if they wished to retrace their steps and amalgamate the two regiments at Bodmin, his sons would not stand in the way, but would retire into private life. Having said this, he begged to propose that the sum of £50 be granted yearly for the stores at Bodmin, and that £40 a year be granted for Launceston until a further arrangement be made with reference to the militia.—When he wrote to the War Office, the answer he received was that the question as to the breaking up the 2nd Regiment, or not, would be entertained at next Training time. Mr. STEPHENS seconded Sir William Trelawny’s amendment. The 2nd Regiment of Militia was still at Launceston; Government had not withdrawn it; and that being the case, he thought it was the duty of the County Magistrates to make provision for the stores of that regiment. Lord VIVIAN, in rising to propose the resolution of which he had given notice, said it was right he should remove the misconception which had given rise to this Memorial from the town of Launceston. That memorial was based on fallacies. It was fallacious to suppose that the magistrates were unwilling to find a competent sum for a store-house. It was fallacious to suppose that the Magistrates had formed any opinion as to whether Launceston was a fit and proper place for the quarters of the 2nd Regiment. On that the Magistrates had nothing to say; and it was fair that it should be known that they had said nothing on that point, one way or the other. It was also right that the rate-payers of the county should understand aright the grounds on which the Magistrates who were appointed a Committee to inquire into the subject, had acted. The first thing that brought the question before this Court—(it had been previously discussed by the Lieutenancy)—was the fact that Sir William Trelawny had called the attention of the County to two letters which he had received from officers of that regiment. A Committee of Magistrates was then formed, of which he (Lord Vivian) was elected Chairman. The steps taken by that Committee were these:— They called before them the Adjutant of the 1st Cornwall Regiment together with non-commissioned officers, in order to get accurate information as to the circumstances and condition of the store-house at Bodmin. They had also before them Sir William Trelawny’s second son, who was Adjutant of the 2nd Regiment; and they inquired of him what was the condition of the Store-house at Launceston; and he told the Committee that it was altogether so unfit for the purpose that he would not be responsible for the safety of the stores; and he further told the Committee that he did not believe there was in the town of Launceston, any eligible building for the purpose of those stores. The Committee were therefore obliged to come to the conclusion that if they did anything at Launceston, they must build a house, at a cost to the county of 2, or 3000l. The Committee thereupon reported to this Court to this effect:—that they found that the proper strength of the 2nd Regiment was 215 rank and file, of which number the largest number that had assembled was 80; that the staff consisted of one adjutant, 4 non-commissioned officers, and 3 buglers; that they did not deem it advisable to recommend the erection of any building; and that they considered the number of the permanent staff was insufficient to protect the arms, &c in the event of any outbreak. That was the opinion of every member of the Committee; nor, when the Report was brought under the consideration of the County, was there a single dissentient voice here. Subsequently, he (Lord Vivian) was requested to bring this matter under the consideration of the Home Office; and the result was a letter from the then Under Secretary—that he did not see any necessity of building any store-house at Launceston. Subsequently, he, (Lord Vivian) being out of the County, Sir William Trelawny, who had put himself in communication with the War Office, to which the militia had been transferred,—Sir William called the attention of the County to Lord Panmure’s letter, and proposed a committee of justices of the district to carry out the necessary accommodation. That letter by Lord Panmure he (Lord Vivian) believed to have been written in ignorance of antecedents; as, indeed, Lord Panmure admitted when the Committee from this County saw him. Lord Panmure was under the impression that this was a regiment formed, and that it behoved him to order that the Act should be carried out; and he (Lord Vivian) believed too that the impression of the magistrates at that time was, that an engineering officer should be sent down for the purpose of erecting a suitable building. He (Lord Vivian) was out of the County at the time. A motion was made by Mr. Kendall, and it was resolved that Lord Vivian and other magistrates should have an interview with Lord Panmure to express the disinclination of this County to incur a large expenditure at Launceston for so small a body of men. He received a letter from the Clerk of the Peace, informing him of what the magistrates had asked him to do. He accordingly waited on the Secretary of War, and Mr. Robartes, and Mr. Kendall went with him; he there recapitulated to the best of his recollection the exact tenor of the different conferences of the magistrates on the subject of the erection of those proposed Militia Stores at Launceston. Lord Panmure coincided in the opinion that it would be an unnecessary expenditure; and immediately after that interview, he (Lord Vivian) wrote the purport of it to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions—that Lord Panmure did not wish that stores should be provided at Launceston, provided the magistrates would undertake to provide sufficient stores at Bodmin for the 2nd Regiment; and to this the committee, on the part of the magistrates generally, expressed their consent, as far as it was in their power to do so.—Lord Vivian went on to say that he had no personal grounds for opposing the constitution of a second Regiment at Launceston; but, as a rate-payer, and acting for rate-payers, he had a right to object to any such expenditure of public money. If any expenditure were to be made, it must be a large expenditure. He did not see how the Lord-Lieutenant could propose a vote of 40l. a year for hiring a house at Launceston, he having been a party to the statement in this court, that there was no proper building in that town. Either there was such a building, or there was not. If there was no such building, then he conceived Sir William Trelawny could not properly ask for a grant of 40l. for the hiring of a building that was not to be found. If there was such a building, then this Court had been misled altogether as to the circumstances of Launceston. For himself he was of opinion, that it was unnenessary (sic) to put the rate- payers to such expenditure as would be necessary in order to carry out the requirements of the Act of Parliament, in Launceston; and therefore he ventured to move, in order that the magistrates here might not stultify themselves,—that they should rescind that grant of 15l a year, or any other grant for the purpose of providing a store-house in the town of Launceston.—As to the grant for the 1st Regiment, he was prepared to move that that grant be increased; he thought it behoved the magistrates to build some house in which to put the stores of that regiment. Mr. KENDALL could bear out what Lord Vivian had stated as to the interview with Lord Panmure. Lord Panmure acknowledged that it was an error to have had a second regiment, and that the error lay entirely with the Home Office; the Lord-Lieutenant had nothing to do with it. And it was not at all unnatural that the Lord-Lieutenant should appoint those able officers he had appointed. But Lord Panmure was very clear on the point that it would be very unwise to incur an outlay at Launceston.—But he (Mr. Kendall) wished to be informed whether or not, as that 2nd Regiment was out, some small expenditure—15l. or some small sum—was not actually necessary,—whether the regiment must not have some sort of stores. He did not think because the Lord-Lieutenant, and Capt. Trelawny, had said there was not a suitable house in Launceston, that therefore some small outlay might not be required; and as 15l. had been sufficient before, he did not know why that sum should be increased. Mr. ROBARTES, as one of the deputation who waited on Lord Panmure, said Lord Vivian had correctly stated that Lord Panmure said he would not endeavour to compel the magistrates to erect any building at Launceston, provided they would make sufficient accommodation for both regiments at Bodmin. Therefore he (Mr. Robartes) must say that he was opposed to the erection of a building at Launceston. But with regard to the other question, it seemed to him premature to discuss it; because, if the government thought fit to keep that regiment at Launceston, surely some place must be provided for the keeping of their arms and accoutrements. He thought it would be better to postpone the discussion of the question altogether until next Sessions, till they should have seen what would be done by Government with regard to the Militia generally. But he thought, at least, they ought to continue the allowance of 15l.; and in order to effect that continuance, he would propose the previous question. Lord VIVIAN said his only feeling in proposing to rescind the grant of £15 for Launceston was, that the Committee appointed by the magistrates of this County had pledged themselves to Lord Panmure as far as they were able, to provide stores at Bodmin, for the 2nd Regiment. Mr. ROBARTES thought that the Committee hardly expressed themselves so strongly as that to Lord Panmure. His impression was that they said they would mention the subject to the Magistrates. Lord VIVIAN replied that he was at the time so anxious to have the exact words, that he wrote them down immediately. Mr. ROBARTES again expressing his desire to postpone further discussion of the subject till next session, Sir WILLIAM TRELAWNY asked what was to be done meanwhile while the arms and accoutrements.—Mr. ROBARTES thought it might be put off till they received some instruction from Lord Panmure as to what was to be done in regard to the regiments of Militia.—Sir W. TRELAWNY said Lord Panmure had put that off till next training time—next May.—Mr. ROBARTES thought then that in the meantime the County were bound to provide a place for the arms &c.—Lord VIVIAN thought the whole question might be considered next sessions; he was not opposed to a grant if for a useful purpose, but he was totally indisposed to grant a single fraction of the public money for a useless purpose. The Rev. R.B. KINSMAN seconded Mr. Robartes’s motion for the previous question, for the purpose of maintaining the grant of 15l. till next sessions. Mr. FOSTER sugested (sic) that it would be better to put off the whole matter till the Midsummer Sessions, by which time Lord Panmure, after the May Training, would have considered the subject of the Militia regiments. Mr. BRUNE moved, that instead of now resolving on an annual grant, one sum of £40 be now granted for stores at Launceston. Mr. PETER seconded the motion. Lord VIVIAN called attention to the fact that the 1st Regiment,—that at Bodmin—would be disembodied this month; there had been received an order from the War Office to that effect. He thought it probable that the two regiments would not again be embodied together; one or other of them, he had no doubt in his mind, would be permanently disembodied; and if that should prove to be the 2nd Regiment, then the magistrates would have incurred an unnecessary expense in providing stores at Launceston. He thought therefore that it was better to let the matter stand over.—The Magistrates had appointed a committee who fully inquired into, and reported on the matter; the Magistrates accepted their Report, without a dissentient voice, and yet having done all that, would now stultify themselves by making this larger grant. Mr. BRUNE said a letter had been produced from Capt. Trelawny, the Captain Commandant of the 2nd regiment, stating that at present there was no sufficient place for the arms at Launceston. Capt. Trelawny had also stated that the matter would be taken into consideration in the course of a few months and then the suggestion would be finally settled. In the interim he (Mr. Brune) thought the regiment at Launceston ought not to be left without the necessary accommodation for arms and accoutrements. After some considerable desultory discussion, mostly on points of order, the CHAIRMAN put Mr. Brune’s amendment—for a grant of one sum of 40l. for the stores at Launceston; and it was carried by a majority of 13 to 4. ELECTION OF A BRIDGE SURVEYOR.—The CHAIRMAN said the next subject for consideration was the appointment of a Bridge Surveyor for the Eastern Division, in the room of Mr. Pease. The Chairman suggested that a committee of magistrates should retire to another room to consider the various testimonials. In accordance with this suggestion, a committee of 7 magistrates retired; and after on (sic) absence of nearly two hours, they returned into court and reported that there were a great number of candidates, with very satisfactory testimonials, but they had selected the following:— Mr. W. A. Gray. John Hicks, Lanreath. Sylvanus Jenkins, Lanhydrock. Thomas Olver, St. Stephens in Branwell. John Palmer, Morval. Joseph Pascoe, Bodmin. Paul Sharp. Of these candidates, the following only were proposed and seconded:— Mr. Hicks, proposed by Mr. Howell, seconded by Rev. R. Buller. Mr. Olver, proposed by Mr. E. Coode, jun., seconded by Mr. Brune. Mr. Palmer, proposed by Rev. R. Buller, seconded by Mr. Tremayne. Mr. Pascoe, proposed by Lord Vivian, seconded by Mr. Sawle. Mr. Jenkins, proposed by Mr. Morshead, seconded by Rev. R.B. Kinsman. On behalf of Mr. Paul Sharp, it was stated that he had not been aware it was necessary to obtain a proposer and seconder. The following were the results of the several divisions: - Hicks 4 Olver 5 Palmer 7 Pascoe 10 Jenkin 13 2nd, Palmer 10 Pascoe 11 Jenkins 12 3rd, Pascoe 17 Jenkins 16 On this Mr. Robartes, on behalf of Mr. Jenkins, said he was informed that there was a mistake; and he asked the Chairman if he would take the votes again. The CHAIRMAN assented; and, in order to avoid possibility of mistake, requested the supporters of Mr. Pascoe to pass to the right of the chair, and those of Mr. Jenkins on the left. The division being taken in this way, the Chairman counted– For Mr. Jenkins 20 “ Mr. Pascoe 17 Mr. Jenkins was declared elected. The CHAIRMAN next read a notice of motion to be made at the next Sessions—That the Surveyor of Bridges be required to inspect the bridges yearly or half-yearly, and to give 7 days notice to the respective contractors, in order that they may meet him, and also to give notice to the magistrates acting in the several districts. Mr. KENDALL said he had the pleasure of proposing Mr. Pease, who had now quitted office; and he was happy to say, as far as his observation went, that he was not at all mistaken in the man he proposed. Mr. Kendall bore testimony to the accuracy of Mr. Pease’s accounts; and said that on a comparison of the average of twenty years before Mr. Pease was appointed surveyor, with that of the 9 years that he had held that office, it was shown that Mr. Pease had saved the county 150l. a year since he had been in office (hear). He had great pleasure in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Pease. Mr. SAWLE seconded the motion; and adverted to the many arduous duties which Mr. Pease had ably performed since he had been surveyor. The motion was unanimously agreed to; and the CHAIRMAN expressed his high sense of the value of Mr. Pease’s services. Mr. PEASE returned thanks for the honour which had been conferred on him. COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM.—The CHAIRMAN read the Annual Reports from the Visitors, and also that from the Medical Officer. The former embodied the Annual Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy. [We shall give these documents in our next number.] —The following Bills, presented by the Clerk of the Peace, were passed:—134l. 19s for expenses under the Registration Act; 47l. 5s. 4d. for printing Lists of Voters, by contract; and 55l. for drawings. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JOHN ANDREW, 58, PLEADED GUILTY of stealing fowls, the property of Jane Knight, of St. Kew, on the 30th. December.—GUILTY. (Sentence: 4 months h.l.) JOHN BENNY, was indicted for stealing two brass bearings, the property of William Warne, at St. Austle, on the 10th. December.—GUILTY. (Sentence: 4 months h.l.) MARY RUNDLE, 29, widow, was found GUILTY of stealing a silk pocket handkerchief, and some pence, the property of John Clemens, a miner at Polgooth Mine, on the 20th December. A previous conviction was proved against her. In 1851, at the Assizes, she was convicted under the name of Mary Clemow, single woman. (Sentence: 12 months h.l.) WILLIAM STANLEY. 23, fellmonger, and JOHN WILLIAMS, 23, iron moulder, were charged with stealing five pieces of broad cloth, value £30; one pilot cloth jacket value 18s.; and one brown Witney Talma Cape, value 24s. the property of Josiah Rawlings, Truro, on the 5th November.—We gave the particulars of the robbery and of the speedy capture of the thieves, at the time when those events took place; and we need not now repeat them. The case was clearly proved, on the evidence of the prosecutor, a tailor and draper of Church Lane, Truro; of William Collins who lives next door to the prosecutor; and of the police, Mr. Nash, (Inspector) and Woolcock.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—The jury found both prisoners GUILTY. (Sentence: 9 months h.l. each) WEDNESDAY, January 2nd. (Before J. King Lethbridge, Esq.) WILLIAM BENNEY, 18, pleaded GUILTY of entering the house of Jane Giles, at Padstow, on the 18th December, and stealing therefrom a silver watch and a guard, the property of Jane Giles. (Sentence: 6 months h.l.) BENJAMIN LIDDICOAT, 29, and THOMAS STEPHENS, 34, were indicted for stealing one piece of pork, two cheeks of pork, and one piece of beef, the property of the Rev. Osborne John Tancock, D.C.L., at Truro, on the 12th December.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Frost defended the prisoner Stephens; Liddicoat was undefended.—Charity Penna deposed:—I am cook in the service of Dr. Tancock, who lives at Lemon Villas, Truro. On Tuesday evening the 11th December, about 10 o’clock I saw in the safe in the yard, two cheeks of pork, a round of beef and a piece of pork; the beef and pork were both dry-salted. I locked the safe. The next morning I found that the safe had been forced open, and that the yard door was open; all the beef and pork was gone. On the same day, the piece of pork was produced at the Police Station; I identified that pork, by a cut I made part way into the ribs. At the same time there was produced to me a coat; about the pocket there was the fat of beef, and salt from the pork.—On cross-examination, she said the salting was in the usual way, and with ordinary salt. She also stated that the fat which she saw about the pocket was the fat of boiled beef, and that she could swear to the difference between the fat of boiled, and that of roast beef.—William Woolcock, police-constable of Truro. Between 12 and 1 o’clock on the night of Tuesday the 11th December I was on duty in Lemon-street and Charles-street; about 200 yards from Dr. Tancock’s residence, there is a lane, called Lemon Mews, leading from Charles-street to Walsingham-place. When in Charles-street, my attention was attracted by footsteps; I passed into the Mews, and hid myself. Two men came on, and, it being frosty and slippery, one of them fell; the other came on; I stepped out and opened my lamp in his face; that man was the prisoner Liddicoat; he had something very bulky in his pocket, which he was supporting with both hands. As I opened my lamp on Liddicoat, the light also covered Stephens, who was standing in a door-way, having something white with him. I afterwards went into the yard to which the door-way led, and in a privy in that yard I found the prisoner Stephens standing upright. I asked him where that was which I had seen him carrying; he said he had nothing. I said he had brought something into the yard; he said he had not. I looked down at his heels, and there I saw the bundle; I said, there it is; he looked down and said, “there is something there, but I know nothing of it.” I told him he must go to the station and satisfy the magistrates about that. I took up the bundle; it was a white one—a carpenter’s apron containing a piece of salted pork. He said he knew nothing about it, and would not go to the station. I examined his hands and found they were greasy, and that there was salt in the palms. We had a scuffle; I got the handcuffs on him and took him to the station.—I then went, with two other constables, to search for the other prisoner Liddicoat, but could not find him that night. The next morning I went with Mr. Nash to his father’s house and saw his sister, who said he was not in; but we went upstairs and found the prisoner in bed. Mr. Nash being called out of the room by prisoner’s mother, I remained there, and saw him when he got out of bed; I saw him place the bed covering over a velvet coat that was lying on the bed, and throw it into a corner of the room. I waited till he had dressed himself and put on a cloth coat; I then asked him where was the coat he had worn the night before; he said that was the coat he had on; I said no, it was a velvet coat. He said, it was the cloth coat he had on, and that he had no other. I told him I had seen him fold the sheet over the velvet coat, and I took up the sheet and shook the coat out of it. Mr. Nash having come to the room I handed this velvet coat to him; it was the coat he had on the night before. Stephens is a cabinet-maker.—William Joseph Nash, superintendent of police at Truro, corroborated Woolcock’s evidence concerning the search at Liddicoat’s, and stated that on his examining the velvet jacket he found that the lining of the inside had been opened, so as to make a large pocket; on examining the pockets he found bits of fat—apparently beef fat. Mr. Nash produced the velvet jacket, and it was identified in court by Woolcock as the one that Liddicoat was wearing on the Tuesday night. Charity Penna, recalled, identified the piece of pork by means of the cut of which she had previously spoken.—Mr. FROST addressed the Jury in behalf of the prisoner Stephens, asserting that there was no proof of his having been in communication or connection with Liddicoat; that the lane spoken of was a thoroughfare by day, though not at night; that there were dwelling-houses in the yard wherein was the privy, and that the latter was open to the public; and that, under these circumstances, Stephens was not to be held accountable for property found, not on him, but in a place open to the public generally.—The Jury found both GUILTY.—A previous conviction was proved against Liddicoat, and two previous convictions against Stephens. (Sentence: 4 years penal servitude each.) EMBEZZLEMENT.—RICHARD RUNNALLS, 48, was indicted, for that being a servant of Charles Crespigny, Baron Lord Vivian, he did by virtue of such employment, take into his possession a certain bill of exchange for £100, for and on account of his said master, and did fraudulently and feloniously embezzle the same bill of exchange and so did feloniously steal and carry away the same.—In a second count the bill of exchange designated a valuable security; and in a third count, it was charged as money.—The prisoner was also arraigned on a similar charge, and with similar counts, with regard to a bill of exchange for 26l. 7s. 0d. He was now placed on his trial with regard to the first charge—that of embezzling a bill of exchange for 100l. Mr. Shilson and Mr. J. Basset Collins appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Stokes for the defence. Mr. SHILSON, in stating the case to the jury, said he apprehended it would have been quite sufficient to have charged the prisoner with embezzling certain money, in order to make it competent in the prosecutor to prove the embezzlement of any valuable security; but in order to avoid all question on that matter, it had been thought fit to put in the three counts in the indictment. The indictment was laid under a statute which enacts, that if any clerk or servant, shall by virtue of such employment, take into his possession any chattel, money, or valuable security, for or in the name or on account of his master, and shall fraudulently embezzle the same or any part thereof, he shall be guilty of felony. The offence charged against the prisoner was, that he had received this money for and on account of his master, and had embezzled it. The prisoner was a farm bailiff in employ of Lord Vivian, and in that capacity it was his duty to audit the accounts of his lordship’s estate in its several departments; among them, the woods accounts.—All moneys to any considerable amount were received by the prisoner; the woodman received small sums, and it was the practice for the woodman to render to the prisoner an account fortnightly, including large sums received in the first place by the prisoner, and notified by him to the woodman for the purpose of being entered in the woods accounts. The money which the prisoner was charged with embezzling was the produce of a sale of bark, and therefore formed part of the woods account. In the spring of last year, the prisoner sold to Mr. Josiah Croggon, of Grampound, a quantity of bark, of the value of about 200l. There appeared to have been no exact agreement as to time of payment. The bargain took place in May, and it was understood that on completion of the weighing of the bark, a portion of the price was to be paid by Mr. Croggon, and the residue between Michaelmas and December last. It would be found that in the woods account for July, there was a sum of 70l. with which the prisoner debited himself as having received from Mr. Croggon in part payment for the bark. This account was audited by Lord Vivian; in it the prisoner enters the sum of 73l. 1s. 5d. received from woods; that sum including the 70l. which himself had received from Mr. Croggon, and the small sums which had been received by the woodman. That account was audited and signed by Lord Vivian on the 8th of October. The next account audited by Lord Vivian was to the 6th November; and in that account there was no entry of any sum having been received by the prisoner from Mr. Croggon, although on the 3rd of August, the prisoner had applied to Mr. Croggon at St. Austell, and received from him the bill of exchange for 100l. which he was now charged with embezzling. That bill was as follows:—“Grampound. 3rd August—£100—four months after date pay Richard Runnalls or order 100l. for value received. Signed Josiah Croggon; and drawn on Messrs. Tweedy and Co. Cornish Bank, Truro.”—The prisoner at that time gave the following receipt:—“St. Austell, 3rd August, 1855.—Received of Josiah Croggan at sundry times 70l.; also received a draft at four months this day, for 100l., on account of Lord Vivian, for bark.—Signed Richard Runnalls.”—The prisoner having received that payment on the 3rd of August, although he made up his account with Lord Vivian both in October and November, in neither of these accounts did the prisoner render any account to Lord Vivian of this payment received from Mr. Croggon; and it would be proved that he cashed that Bill of Exchange at the East Cornwall Bank, Bodmin, and applied the proceeds to his own use.—In the early part of November, Lord Vivian, being about to leave the County for some time, asked the prisoner for an account of what moneys were due and what had been paid in respect of the different sales of tsmber (sic), bark, and coppice. On that occasion the prisoner handed to Lord Vivian a memorandum purporting to be a statement of the moneys he had so received. That account stated that bark had been sold to Mr. Croggon, to the value of about £200; that cash had been received to the amount of £70; and that £130 remained due, and was payable on the 20th November. Lord Vivian left the County, and did not return till the 11th December. On his return, he sent for the prisoner, who, however was absent, and his lordship did not see him on that day; nor on the following day, though he again sent for him. But on Thursday the 13th December, Lord Vivian saw the prisoner and asked him if Mr. Croggon had paid the money. The prisoner replied “no”; he positively stated to Lord Vivian that Mr. Croggon had not paid the money, and he also stated that he had been away by appointment to meet Mr. Croggon; but that Mr. Croggon had met with an accident, his horse having fallen and broken his knees, and that Mr. Croggon himself was injured; that Mr. Croggon consequently was obliged to return home, but had sent word to him (prisoner) that he would come up to Bodmin on the following Saturday and pay the money into the Bank. The whole of these statements were false; Mr. Croggon made no appointment, met with no accident, and did not appoint to come up to Bodmin to pay the money on the Saturday; on the contrary, he had previously paid it.—These statements were made by the prisoner to Lord Vivian on Thursday the 13th December. On the following Sunday morning, Lord Vivian asked the prisoner if Mr. Croggon had come to Bodmin on the Saturday and paid the money. Prisoner replied no, but Mr. Croggon had sent a message by a carrier that he was still too ill to come up, but that he would certainly come up on the following Monday. This statement, like the previous ones about Mr. Croggon, was also false.—Mr. Shilson said he did not know what the defence would be—whether it might be said that the prisoner received a bill of Exchange and did not receive money; that the Bill of Exchange was of 4 months date, and did not become due till the 3rd of December, and that therefore the prisoner did not account for it. According to prisoner’s own statement to Lord Vivian on the 3rd November, the money was payable on the 20th of that month; and, on the other hand, assuming that the Bill of Exchange was not mature till the 3rd of December, yet on the 13th of that month, prisoner told Lord Vivian that the money had not been paid.—But he, (Mr. Shilson) submitted that it was totally immaterial whether the money was or was not due to Lord Vivian, if he received a Bill of Exchange on account of his master and embezzled it. In support of this opinion, the learned advocate quoted from Archbold, No. 463, and concluded by remarking that the proof he should offer would completely establish the case, according to the proof legally required in such a case; these several means of proof being—that a prisoner charged with embezzling money, had denied the receipt of it; or that he did not account for it to his master as he ought; or, that having accounted for other moneys received by him at or about the same time, he had not accounted for the money alleged to have been embezzled. In the present case all these means of proof would be given. In support of the case for the prosecution, the following witnesses were examined:—Thomas Werry, wood-ranger to Lord Vivian; Josiah Croggon, tanner, of Grampound; Lord Vivian; John Squire, an assistant in the East Cornwall Bank; and Joseph Hallamore, a clerk in Messrs. Tweedy’s Bank at Truro. For the defence, Mr. STOKES addressed the jury at considerable length. He contended that, as the 4 months Bill dated the 3rd of August would not become due till the 6th of December, including the three days grace, the prisoner was not bound to enter that payment until that time; and therefore the jury must discharge from their consideration all circumstances affecting the prisoner on the present charge, prior to that date; and, subsequent to that date there had not been any one of the usual fortnightly audits, so as to give the prisoner an opportunity of bringing Mr. Croggon’s payment into account. Down to the 6th of December the prisoner was not bound to debit himself with the £100 as cash, if account with Lord Vivian; and if he chose to cash the Bill in August, he did it by paying discount out of his own pocket. No doubt it was an improper thing for him to do—to cash that Bill of Exchange on his own account; but, if he did so, it was his own affair; he took the responsibility on himself, and by so doing did not render himself liable to the charge now laid against him. He (Mr. Stokes) could not extenuate the false statements which the prisoner had made respecting Mr. Croggon; but he contended that these statements might be attributed to his feeling that he had done wrong in cashing the Bill, and with the hope of obtaining delay in order to procure from his friends the means of paying his lordship. Those statements, he contended, were no proof of intention to defraud Lord Vivian. The prisoner received an unusually excellent character for honesty and upright conduct from the following respectable witnesses:—Philip Sandoe, butcher and farmer of Lostwithiel; John Stephens, farmer, of Steps, near Bodmin; Robert Nicholls, wool-dealer and farmer of Lostwithiel; William Cole, of Lostwithiel; Charles Colman, farmer, of Bodmin; and John Geach, farmer and auctioneer, of St. Winnow. After a careful summing up by the CHAIRMAN, the jury found the prisoner GUILTY of embezzling a draft for £100; but strongly recommended him to mercy. The second indictment—for embezzlement of a Bill of Exchange for £26 7s., which was also a payment by Mr. Croggon) was not proceeded with. (Sentence: 12 months h.l.) FRANCIS COURTIS, 17, was charged with stealing a quantity of serpentine and other stone, and seven steel chisels, the property of William Pearce, statuary, Lemon-street, Truro.—Mr. Stokes conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—The prosecutor being unable to leave Truro, in consequence of illness, his deposition before the committing magistrates at Truro was read, in accordance with a recent provision of the law.—Evidence was given by police constables Hoskin and Prater; after which, the CHAIRMAN, remarking that the evidence in the case in the absence of opportunity of obtaining information from the prosecutor, by examination, and cross-examination, was of an unsatisfactory nature,— particularly as to proof of property, and of the time it had been missing; directed a verdict of acquittal. WILLIAM HODGE, was found GUILTY of stealing 50 lbs. of wheaten meal, 15 lbs. of wheat, one sack, and one part of a sack, the property of John Reed Rowe, of Budock Mills, on the 3rd of November.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—The prisoner was a carrier, and was in the employ of the prosecutor at the time when he effected the robbery, in which he was detected, almost, it might be said, in the act, by one of Mr. Rowe’s men—Richard Nelson.—Evidence in the case was also given by police constable Jarrett, of Penryn, and another constable named Merrifield; and by the prosecutor. (Sentence: 6 months h.l.) ALEXANDER GRIGG, 37, indicted for feloniously breaking and entering store-houses, and stealing 35 lbs. candles, 12 lbs sheet lead, a part of a hide of leather, and a powder-can, the property of Robert Hart Pike and others, adventurers in East Buller mine, in Gwennap, on the 3d of November. There was a second count, for simple larceny.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution.—The case was clearly proved, (notwithstanding the prisoner’s declaration that he was as innocent as the angels in heaven, by the evidence of Elizabeth Hoskin, who had charge of the Account-house, beneath which was one of the Adventurers’ store-rooms, which had been broken into and plundered; John Goldsworthy, a miner living on the mine; Capt. James Higgins; James Nicholls; and John Veale, constable of Gwennap.—Verdict, Guilty.— Two previous convictions—both in 1843—were proved against the prisoner. (Sentence: 12 months h.l.) THOMAS TRAYS, JOHN WILLIAMS, and DANIEL O’BRIEN, were severally indicted for having on the 31st December, feloniously broken and entered the dwelling-house of Charles Smith, in the parish of St. Germans, and stealing one shirt, three pairs of stockings, one neck-tie, one pair of cuffs, two belts, one jacket, and one turn-over, the property of the said Charles Smith.—Mr. Stokes (for Mr. Frost) conducted the prosecution.—Sarah Smith said—I am the wife of Charles Smith, and keep a linen-draper’s shop at Polbathick. A little before 6 o’clock on Monday evening I was in the kitchen which immediately adjoins the shop; I had left the shop only about 5 minutes when I heard the sound of the bell attached to the lower part of the shop door. I cannot say that the shop door was closed when I went into the kitchen. On hearing the bell I ran to the shop-door; I did not see any person there, but I observed that several things had been taken from the window and some of them were lying in the doorway. Those things had been hanging on a line in the window, which line, she saw, was also gone. There was a candle in the shop. She took the candle and went outside the door; just outside she picked up a pair of laces, which had also been in the shop window; and walking a little way on the road towards Liskeard, she found a worsted turn-over, which had also been in the shop window.—Jane Laycock, an interesting and well-behaved little girl of 12 years of age, stated that she lived within a few doors of Mr. Smith’s shop, and a little before 6 o’clock on Monday evening, she saw three men coming from the shop door. One of them had something white on his arm; and one of them had on a light jacket. (The prisoner Trays wore a light jacket in the dock). She could not say that the three men were the prisoners.—William Clarke, constable of St. Germans, in consequence of information he received on Monday evening, went on the turnpike road as far as Trerule Foot. On the road he got another constable to accompany him. They remained at the Turnpike gate about 2 miles from Polbathick, about 10 minutes; when they saw three men coming on the road in the direction from Polbathick. He went forward to the foremost one and said, “from information we have received, we believe you are the party we are looking for.” The other constable laid hold of another man; and the third was secured by a man whose assistance the constables had obtained. These three men thus taken into custody, were the three prisoners; and on the persons of each of them were found portions of the articles stolen from the prosecutor’s shop. It was about 7 o’clock when they were apprehended at Trerule Foot. This witness produced the articles found on the three prisoners. Mrs. Smith, recalled, gave evidence of her belief that all the articles produced had been stolen from the shop window; and she was enabled to swear positively to the identity of several articles.—Verdict, all GUILTY. A previous conviction in 1851 was proved against Trays. (Sentence: Thomas TRAYS - 6 years penal servitude; John WILLIAMS and Daniel O’BRIEN 9 months h.l. each) IGNORED BILL.—RICHARD SEARLE, stealing a barn door fowl, the property of Henry Gatley, at St. Erme, on the 21st of November. SECOND COURT. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P.) HENRY HIGMAN, 28, was charged with stealing, on the 21st of October last, at St. Stephens by Saltash, one feather bed, two blankets, two sheets, and various other articles, the property of his mother, Elizabeth Higman. The jury returned a verdict of GUILTY; and a previous conviction was proved against the prisoner at the Quarter Sessions in January, 1855, when he assumed the name of John Jackson Harris. (Sentence: 4 years penal servitude.) WILLIAM MAUNDER, 19, and JAMES STRONG, 24 were charged, the former with stealing a silver watch, a steel chain, and a watch key, the property of Thomas Coombe, from his person, on the 21st of November last, at Callington; and the latter with having received the said articles, knowing them to have been stolen. The Jury, after a few minutes deliberation, ACQUITTED Maunder, but against Strong returned a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: 6 months h.l.) FRANCIS WEBBER was ACQUITTED on a charge of stealing, on the 29th of December, at Launceston, two half crowns, five shillings, a sixpenny piece, and seven pence, the property of James Faull. Mr. R.K. FROST conducted the prosecution. JOHN BARRET, 16, JONATHAN BARRET, 21, and DAVID JENKIN, 37, pleaded GUILTY of stealing seventeen fowls, at Merther on the 7th of November last, the property of Robert Vincent White. (Sentence: John and Jonathan BARRET, 4 months h.l. each; David JENKIN, 6 months h.l.) WILLIAM THOMPSON, 45, was indicted for breaking iato (sic) the shop of William Reynolds, at Launceston, on the 21st of November last, and stealing a watch, his property. Verdict GUILTY. (Sentence: 4 years penal servitude) ELIZABETH PAYNTER, 18, was indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling house of William Parsons, at Lawhitton, on the 7th of December last, and stealing a pair of shoes. Mr. R.K. FROST prosecuted. Prosecutor, on the 4th of December attended the agricultural meeting at Launceston, and did not return until the 8th, when he found his house had been broken open and the shoes stolen, together with some money. It was sought to connect the prisoner with the robbery by foot prints, which appeared under the kitchen window, and subsequently the marks were found to correspond with shoes belonging to the prisoner. The Jury returned a verdict of GUILTY of simple larceny only. (Sentence: one month hard labour.) WILLIAM COOKE was indicted for stealing, on the 22th (sic) ult., eight yards of calico, five corded petticoats, and one night dress, the property of Thomas Williams, at St. Clement. Mr. T. COMMINS (for Mr. Stokes) conducted the prosecution. It appeared that the clothes above stated were hung out to dry on a hedge near the prosecutor’s house, at Lambessow. At about half-past eleven on the morning of the 29th ult., the clothes were missed, and about that time the prisoner was seen to go over the hedge, into the high road, having apparently a bundle with him. Foot prints were also observed near the place where the clothes were hung, and subsequently the prisoner’s shoes were examined with the tracks, and appeared to correspond. The prisoner also made use of some expressions when apprehended which tended to show his guilt. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: 6 months h.l.) SHEEP STEALING.—THOMAS MILLS, 45, was charged with stealing two wether sheep, the property of John Kelly, at Duloe, on the 7th of December last. Mr. CHILDS conducted the prosecution, and Mr. FROST defended the prisoner. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution was of a circumstantial character. It appeared that the prosecutor farms an estate called Coombe, in the parish of Duloe, and had a flock of sheep consisting of eleven wether sheep and two ewe sheep, which were seen by him on the evening of the 7th of December safe in his field. On the following morning, on his going to see the sheep, he missed five of them, but on making inquiries found three again. From information subsequently received, it was found that a skin of a sheep was sold to Mr. Morcom, a wool merchant of Liskeard, and also another left at the Queen’s Head Inn, both of which were identified by the prosecutor as the skins of two of his wethers. The prisoner was apprehended at his house on the side of the Cornwall Railway about two miles from Liskeard, and on being charged with the offence said he knew nothing about it. But on his answering several questions put to him relating to his purchasing sheep, there arose circumstances of suspicion, which resulted in taking the prisoner to Liskeard, where he again made several other statements to the constable, Hichens, of which evidence was given. Mr. FROST, in defence, submitted that the case was one of suspicion and doubt, and after the chairman had summed up, the jury deliberated about half- an-hour, and found a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The Court rose at seven o’clock. —Major Carlyon, of Tregrehan, attended the Court this day. THURSDAY, January 3. (Before J. King Lethbridge, Esq.) JOHN HENRY WILLIAMS, 22 was indicted for having on the 23rd October assaulted Elizabeth Mildren, with intent to ravish and carnally know her. There was a second count for common assault.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stokes the defence.—Mr. Shilson having opened the case, called the following witnesses:—Elizabeth Mildren, the prosecutrix, stated:—I am a single woman, and in October last was in the service of Mr. Charles Weare at Treslothan near Camborne. On Tuesday the 23rd October, I was at Praze Fair, in Crowan, with my sister Mary Ann, (younger than the witness), about 6 or 7 in the evening, and saw the defendant Williams there; I had seen him before, but had never spoken to him. Shortly after this, I was in company with my uncle William Williams, and my sister also was with me. The defendant came up as I was talking to uncle, and just said “how dye do?”; I don’t know which he spoke to. I don’t know if Williams knew me before. He asked uncle who we were; and uncle told him we were his sister’s two daughters. Williams then left and went away. A few minutes after that, I and my sister and a young woman called Jane Jewell were together, and again saw Williams. My sister said it was time to go home—it was 5 minutes to 8; Williams was at the time standing near enough to hear that. I and sister and Jane Jewell went up the village, and at the end of the village Jane Jewell left us, and I and my sister went away towards home; Williams was with us and offered me his arm, but I refused. He took my hand and put under his arm and I led on with him for some distance; I and my sister together. I parted with my sister in the road, and I and the defendant continued to walk on together till we came within 5 or 10 minutes walk of my master’s house. There was a by-road—part of Pendarves—leading down to the house; and as the defendant was a stranger I did not like for him to go down there; I wished him “good night,” and at once he laid violent hands on me; he caught hold of me round the waist and threw me on the ground. I rose up and resisted him as well as I could, and screeched murder; he then put his hand on my mouth and caught me by the throat.—(The witness here described, particularly, his attempts to effect his purpose. She succeeded in effectually resisting him, and got up from the ground a second time).—I screeched as well as I could, but he always kept his hand before my mouth when I screeched, and squeezed my throat to that degree that blood rushed out of my nose; my throat was afterwards swollen; and I felt it for a considerable time; my arms were scratched, and my eyes were blood-shot.—The witness produced and exhibited to the Court and Jury, the bonnet and dress she wore at the time; and which she stated were now in the same condition. The bonnet was crushed, and had blood marks on the ribbon, and the dress—a white cotton gown—was torn in all directions.—She went on to state that it was 8 o’clock when she left Praze; it was about a mile from there to her master’s house; it was about 10 minutes past 9 when, after the occurrence she had related, Mr. Bull, the clergyman, came on the road. When Mr. Bull came up, the defendant got up from me, and hid himself in the hedge. I spoke to Mr. Bull and told him what had happened, as well as I could, and he accompanied me to my master’s house. I told my mistress what had happened, and I was put to bed, and was unwell for some time after, from the treatment I had received.—Cross-examined.—I am 18 years old next March. I left my master’s house to go to Praze about 4 o’clock in the afternoon; my father and mother live at Praze, and I met my sister there about half-past 4 and went with her to the fair about 5 o’clock. At first I did not intend to go to the fair at all. It was a new fair—the first time of its being held; it was not a large fair; there was but one show there; I did not go into it, nor into any booth or any other place. I had been there about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes before I saw Williams; he knew my uncle and had been at my uncle’s house. I knew him by sight, but had never spoken to him before. After Williams had spoken to my uncle, my uncle went away to the public-house; Williams also went away, but I don’t know where; there was another young man with him. From the time that Williams left, there was no one at all with me but my sister and Jane Jewell; my father was there part of the time, and then my uncle came again. I remained in the fair till about ten minutes to 8; during the whole time I was there, I spoke to no young man, and no young man spoke to me. I then went back to my mother’s house, with my sister and Jane Jewell. Williams and another young man followed us. Before coming to my mother’s house Williams spoke to me, but I cannot recollect what he said. He went as far as mother’s door, and waited outside. I went in and wished mother “good night,” and mother asked me who was outside. I said it was the young man who was at grandmother’s one Sunday, but I could not tell his name. I had seen him at grandmother’s to dinner, on Sunday, 4 or 5 weeks before. He knew my family very well; my father sat to dinner with him. I was at grandmother’s that Sunday, but not to dinner; I had dined at mother’s before going there, and when there I remained in the kitchen and did not go into the parlour where Williams and the others dined; I did not speak to him all that day.—In the evening of the Fair Day, when I came out of mother’s house, the defendant and the other young man were at the door, and we three girls went on together with these two young men. At the top of the village, Jane Jewell and the other young man went away together; I and my sister and defendant went on the high road between Praze and Camborne. We walked on about a quarter of a mile—he leading me; and as we walked on, a young man called John King came on and walked on with my sister, a little in front of Williams and me, but in sight of us; I and Williams were walking arm in arm; I did not take my arm from his, because he was very comfortable, and did not give me any insult then, and I did not think any harm. At a turn of the road, we lost sight of my sister and King; and then I and Williams came to the dark lane leading to Treslothan; it is a lot nearer to Treslothan by that dark lane than it is around by the main road; the lane is a parish road. I wished the defendant “good night” on the high road, before I got into the lane; and it was on the high road that he assaulted me. No person had passed before Mr. Bull came up; when Mr. Bull was coming up, defendant let me go at an instant. When Mr. Bull came up I was not on the ground; I was picking up my clothes and cape and victorine. I called out, “who are you?” and Mr. Bull answered, roughly: “who are you, then?” I said “I am Mr. Weare’s servant; will you take me home?”—Then Mr. Bull went home with me. On my oath, if Mr. Bull had not come up, I should have told of it, if I had been left to live; but I did not think I should have lived to see any body, and I cried to the Lord to have mercy upon me. The reason I did not keep on with my sister and King was that I did not at that time suspect any harm from the defendant. Re-examined.—I have reason to suppose that he saw Mr. Bull when he got up from me. My hair was all over my face; my eyes were bloodshot; blood was gushing out of my nose, and my face was covered with blood when I went to my master’s house. I never gave him the slightest encouragement to treat me in the way he did. John King: I am a miner and live at Praze. Between 8 and 9 o’clock, I was on my road to my mine and overtook the last witness; her sister and the defendant were with her; she was leading by him. I did not know him. The sister Mary Ann’s home was very near the mine where I was going, and we walked on together, away from the other two. When we got up to the road that leads down to Treslothan, I and the sister did not wait for the other two; but afterwards we waited to see if they were coming on the main road or would turn down the lane, to Treslothan. Whilst we were waiting, I heard a cry—it appeared to me a cry of distress, and coming from the direction we had come from. I did not go back.—Cross-examined.—I was not at the Fair. I did not go back, because I thought the sound was further off; it seemed to be a great way off. I am not positive what the cry was, but am pretty certain I heard the cry of murder. I heard it twice; pretty quick one after the other. This was after I and Mary Ann had waited about 5 minutes to see if they were coming on. I then went on with Mary Ann and left her at Troon Moor, where she lives; and I went on to my mine, and there worked under ground all night.—The defendant did not appear to me to have been drinking.—Re-examined.—Mary Ann told me that when she and her sister went on by themselves, her sister always accompanied her on the road, because she was afraid; but as I was with her, she would go on with me. George Tippet Bull:—I am a clergyman and live at Treslothan. About 9 o’clock in the evening of the 23rd October I was on my way home. Within about a quarter of a mile of Treslothan, as I walked on the road, I heard voices, and I expected to meet some person. But I did not meet any one, and walked on; I had gone a few yards, and at a turn in the road, a few yards before me, I saw some one on the ground. I walked on, and as I came close, I saw a woman on the ground. I walked on, and as I came close, I saw a woman on the ground, and a man leaning against the hedge in the act of pulling up his trousers. I walked on, and may have gone about 20 or 25 yards when I heard footsteps behind me, and a woman saying “who are you?—I will go with you.” I turned round and said “who are you?” She said, “I am Mr. Weare’s servant; that man have been and just killed me.” I asked her who he was; and she said she did not know; that she knew him by sight, but did not know his name. I asked her if she did not make any alarm; and she said she did scream murder several times. I noticed the state in which she was; her dress was very much torn and trailing on the ground behind her; her hair was flying about her shoulders; she had her bonnet in her hand, and had some part of her dress on her arm. She appeared to be very much alarmed, and I took her to her mistress’s house. Her face appeared to be discoloured, but I did not take particular notice. I did not go into her mistress’s house with her, but left her at the door. Cross-examined:—The voices I heard, as I came on the road were so loud that I expected to meet some person instantly; but I did not meet any one. I could not distinguish if they were voices of alarm or distress; nor if they were male or female voices. When I first heard the voices, I suppose I was about 150 yards from the gate leading to Treslothan, and about 30 or 40 yards from the place where I found the woman on the ground. The lane leading to Treslothan is dark—part of it very dark. Where the woman was lying, was on the parish road—close by the hedge. It was beautiful moonlight. The woman made no sound when I passed her first, as she was on the ground.—I asked her if she had been to Praze Fair; and she said she had been home that afternoon—that her father and mother lived at Praze. I asked her where the young man joined her; and she said, on leaving Praze, and that she and her sister came away from Praze together. I did not go into her mistress’s house; but immediately I got into my own house her mistress came to me and told me what state she was in. The road they were going on is not much of a thoroughfare; it leads to mines.—Re-examined.—I observed that her face was discoloured, but I did not notice that it was blood; but immediately after I got into my own house, her mistress came to me and told me she was covered with blood.—(Afterwards, in the course of Chairman’s summing up, Mr. Bull suggested that it was possible the reason why the young woman did not speak to him as he first passed her, was that she was exhausted). The defendant’s deposition before the Committing Magistrates was put in. In it he said:—I am sorry to say that I accompanied the girl home, and, through liquor, there was a bustle, I know; I know I went too far, and gave her up; I saw a man coming along as I was going to wish her good night; the man spoke to her and they went on together, and I went home. Mr. STOKES addressed the jury for the defence, admitting the common assault, but raising doubts, from the evidence adduced, as to the more serious charge. The CHAIRMAN carefully summed up the evidence. He thought the jury would be justified in finding a verdict of guilty in respect of the common assault; but, as it did not appear to be satisfactorily proved that the defendant’s desisting from his attempt on the young woman was consequent on Mr. Bull’s coming up, or that he had not himself, according to his statement in his deposition, voluntarily desisted, the Chairman held that, according to the law in such cases, he could not be found guilty of the greater offence. Of the testimony of the prosecutrix, and of her conduct on the day in question—both at the fair and subsequently—the Chairman said he could not find in it anything discreditable to her. In the first place, it appeared, both from her own statement, and from the plain dress she wore, that when she went to Praze to see her father and mother she had no intention of going to the fair; and, when at the fair, she did not conduct herself with any lightness or levity whatever. The jury found the defendant GUILTY of a common assault. The defendant was shortly afterwards called up for judgment. In passing sentence, the CHAIRMAN said:—John Henry Williams, you have been indicted for assaulting Elizabeth Mildren with intent to carnally know her. The jury in the exercise of a very kind discretion, have found you guilty of the lesser offence—a common assault. But it is my duty to tell you that your conduct was exceedingly violent and disgraceful. As far as regards the young woman, with the exception of her allowing you to remain with her in the way she did, I cannot see anything in her conduct that was wrong. It is very hard that young women going to a fair, and conducting themselves as she did, very properly, should be exposed to such conduct. I believe the expression you made use of before the magistrates is true—that when you found she was determined to resist, you gave up. It is well you did give up, or you would have been found guilty of a more serious offence. The jury have taken a lenient view of the case, and I hope you will take care to bridle your passions in future. Young women who conduct themselves properly, as this young woman did, are not to be subject to such treatment as that of which you were guilty.—The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned in the House of Correction for six months. APPEAL. SAINT KEVERNE, appellant; Mr. Shilson and Mr. Childs. BUDOCK, respondent; Mr. Stokes and Mr. H.O. Bullmore. This was an appeal against an order for the removal of Judith Hosken Lawrance, the widow of James Lawrance the younger, and her two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, aged respectively 7 and 5 years, from respondent to appellant parish.—Mr. Childs having moved the appeal, Mr. SHILSON proceeded to address the Court. He said it was admitted that the settlement under which the order was made was that of the pauper’s husband’s father, acquired by hiring and service in the appellant parish. Against this alleged settlement, the appellants set up several settlements by renting in the respondent parish; and also an acknowledgment by relief afforded to the deceased husband of the pauper, and to his widow (the pauper) and children while living in Penryn. There were three alleged settlements by renting acquired by the pauper’s husband’s father in the respondent parish; the first of which, in 1803-4, was by renting of Mr. John Jago, of Kegillack, in Budock, for one year, some potato-ground, a cow, and two rooms in the farm- house at Kegillack.—Mr. Shilson said it would be shown that the value of this tenement was upwards of £10 a year; and it was the value, not the amount of rent, which was decisive in a question of the kind; and he cited the case of Rex v. Stoke-upon-Trent, in proof that the renting of a pasture-fed dairy cow constituted a tenement for the purpose of settlement. He then called James Lawrance the elder, who deposed—I am 75 years old. The pauper’s deceased husband was my son. In the year 1803 or 1804, I was a labourer in the employ of Mr. John Jago, of Kegillack, who occupied a large farm—about 300 acres; and I rented of him the milking of a cow, two rooms and 20 lace of potato- ground. The wages I received in money was 9s. a week. I was to pay for the milk of the cow 9l. a year—6l. in money, and the remainder was to be made up by an allowance of 2s. a week wages, to which I was entitled beyond the 9s. For the potato ground I paid 30s. a year—20 lace at 1s. 6d a lace, Mr. Jago manuring the ground. I went the about Christmas. In the following August, we had a dispute in harvest time, and I left Mr. Jago’s service as labourer, but continued to occupy the two rooms, and to rent the cow and potato-ground. While I was in Mr. Jago’s service, he charged me nothing for occupation of the rooms; but afterwards, it was agreed between us that I was to pay him 3l. a year for the rental of them. According to agreement, the cow was to be pastured on High Kegillack.—In cross-examination, the witness stated that at the time referred to, wages of farm-labourers were from 12s. a week upwards; and the rental of cows at 9l. 10s. a year. The bargain was made at about Christmas; and from that time till March the cow was fed, like Mr. Jago’s other cows, in the house. The bargain was that the cow I rented was always to be fed the same as Mr. Jago’s other cows; except in winter she was to run with his other cows, on Higher Kegillack. When in house, in winter, she was fed on the produce of the farm—I suppose on hay, and some turnips. The cow I rented calved in March, and Mr. Jago, who kept on butchering at that time, bought the calf of me. From the time she calved I claimed her produce, till I left in November; I paid 9l. for rent of her altogether, and I consider I paid the full value for her for the year, because by November she had “come little” and I could not expect she would then be worth much till she had calf again.—In answer to questions from the CHAIRMAN, the witness said the bargain was that he was always to have a flush cow; if one cow had gone off her milk, or did not prove a good one for the dairy, he was to have another in place of her. In the winter-time, though the cows were taken into house at night, they were every day turned out into the field for pasture. Mr. SHILSON summed up the evidence, contending that he had shown a rental amounting altogether to £13. 10s.; or, even supposing that the rental of the cow was only £6, (as Mr. Stokes had endeavoured to show on cross-examination) still the total rental would be £10 10s., more than enough to give settlement; and it was quite clear that the witness had occupied the tenement 40 days—the cow and potato ground from Christmas to November; and the two rooms after leaving his master’s service, at a rental of £3 per annum, from August to November. Mr. STOKES admitted that witness had proved an amount of rental beyond £10 a year; but he contended that there was no proof of an express bargain, that the cow was to be pasture-fed; and if that were so, then it was not the kind of agreement that came within the statute. On the authority of several cases, it was absolutely necessary that the agreement that the cow should be pasture-fed, should be expressed, and not implied. Mr. Stokes particularly cited the case of the Queen v. Mendham decided in 1847 in support of this view. Mr. SHILSON asserted that the case cited by Mr. Stokes was decided on the express ground that there was not any contract for feeding the hired cow with the other cattle; whereas in the present case the evidence was that the cow was to be fed with Mr. Jago’s cattle in the same manner, on Higher Kegillack. The Bench, after retiring for consultation, decided that the settlement was made out in Budock. Order quashed; 5l. costs; no maintenance. Mr. Stokes applied for a case; but the Bench refused to grant it, the CHAIRMAN stating that they had decided entirely on facts. [SENTENCES OF PRISONERS—see individual cases above] This concluded the business of the sessions. ______CORNWALL LUNATIC ASYLUM. —The following Annual Reports were read at the General Quarter Sessions for the County of Cornwall, on Tuesday, the 1st instant:— —To Her Majesty s Justices of the Peace for the County of Cornwall in General Quarter Sessions assembled. In compliance with the "Lunatic Asylum Act, 1833," the Committee of Visitors of the County Lunatic Asylum report that the establishment contains at the present time accommodation for 286 patients, and that there are now 238 within its walls, viz., 120 males and 118 females, of whom 20 are private patients. The wards are in good order, and the patients appear comfortable. The visitors have much pleasure in stating that, during the past year, the mortality has been much less than in the previous one ; that there have been only three cases of dysentery, two of which were very slight, and that at least the average number of cures has been effected. The visitors beg to refer to the report of the Medical Officer presented herewith. In July last two of the Commissioners in Lunacy visited the asylum and entered the following report in the visiting book:— CORNWALL COUNTY ASYLUM, JULY 20th, 1855. There are 233 patients in this Asylum, of whom 11 males and 9 females are private patients, and 109 males and 104 females are paupers. About 10 patients are stated to be under medical treatment. No patient is at present under mechanical restraint or in seclusion, but several of the patients (more especially females) appear by the Register to be occasionally restrained or secluded. Since the last visit of the Commissioners on the 17th August last,77 patients have been admitted, 44 have been discharged, and 28 have died from various causes. We did not observe any offensive smells in our progress through the wards. The places adverted to in the last Commissioner's entry, as being objectionable in this respect, are no longer offensive. In reference to the introduction of new furniture into the wards we find that new furniture has been placed in the wards, appropriated to private male patients, and some is about to be placed in the sitting room used by the private female patients. Two rooms also, one on each side, have been prepared, and a piano-forte has been placed in the ladies' room. Gas has not yet been introduced into the Asylum. Baths and Lavatories have not been introduced, but these questions are under consideration by the Committee. Basons (sic) for washing have not yet been introduced. The various wards are to-day clear and free from any unpleasant odour, and the patients, with one or two exceptions, tranquil. The religious exercises are the same as heretofore, and also the amusements, except that bowls have been added to the amusements formerly provided for the male patients. Wooden flooring has been substituted for stone in some of the wards. B. W. PROCTOR,) Commissioners J. R. HUME, ) in Lunacy. The attention of the Visitors has been particularly directed , to the estimates for warming and ventilating the Asylum, and for introducing the other improvements referred to in the report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, as essential to the health and comfort of the patients. As these estimates were large, the Visitors have been most anxious to reduce them, if possible, without any material interference with the efficiency of the proposed improvements; and they are happy to say that they hope to effect all that will be necessary for a long period for the further sum of £2,000. They therefore give notice of their intention to ask for this amount at the next Sessions. The introduction of Gas has been so frequently pressed for by the Commissioners in Lunacy and the Medical Officer, that the Visitors, at their last Meeting, unanimously agreed that such a comfort ought no longer to be withheld from the patients. The estimates therefore are:— For Warming and Ventilating Radiating Building and Private Patients' Wards £1,421 New Wood Floors 200 Bath Rooms, Baths and Hot Water supply for the three Buildings 679 Gas fittings 200 £2,500 of which 500l. has been already received. As the health of the patients would probably have suffered from delay, the visitors have felt justified in proceeding with such parts of the work as were most pressing. The visitors regret to state that owing to the great increase in the price of provisions, and almost every article of consumption, they have been under the necessity of raising the weekly charges for pauper patients to 8s. 9d. from Michaelmas last. This amount however is far below the average cost, in the County Lunatic Asylums throughout England; and whenever there may be a reduction in the general prices, the charge will of course be lowered in proportion. The Committee in conclusion remind the Court that it is their duty to appoint the visitors for the ensuing year, at the present Sessions. N. KENDALL, Chairman. MEDICAL REPORT FOR 1855. To the Visiting Committee. My Lord and Gentlemen,—I respectfully submit for your consideration the Report of the Asylum for the year 1855. During the past twelve months, 77 patients have been admitted, viz., 40 males, and 37 females. Of these, six may be considered to have have (sic) been in an untoward condition when they entered. There remained in the establishment on the 31st Dec. 1855 120 116 — 236 Admitted in 1855 39 38 — 77 Total 159 154 — 313 Discharged 25 23 Died 14 13 — 75 Remaining under care Dec., 1855 120 118 — 238 Of whom 14 males and 11 females were private patients. The re-admissions amount to 9 males and 6 females. The deaths this year amount to little more than half the number of those last year. Of these 27 cases, the apparent cause of death may be considered under the following heads:—one from constitutional debility with disease of brain; nine from affection of the brain; two of these in the form of apoplexy and coma; one from erysipelas with mortification; eight from disease in which the chest was implicated, in four of which pulmonary consumption exhibited itself; two from inanition, and two from dropsy. One from fever, with abscess and affection of chest. One from debility, with atrophy, in which were affection of the brain, spinal cord, and intestines. Two from epilepsy. On the whole, the general health of the patients may be considered to have been freer from serious disorder than during the two previous years.—l have the gratification of being able to inform you, that the disease formerly so frequent, and occasionally so fatal a visitor to this Asylum—dysentery, has, during the whole of the past year, made its appearance in only three recognisable cases, and in two of these in a comparatively mild form and short duration. I have continued with but few exceptions to place all patients admitted for the first time into this asylum in the upper galleries, in order, as I stated in my last report to obviate, the frequency of the recurrence of this disease. Some alteration has likewise been made in the diet. I should state however that all three of the above mentioned cases presented themselves in patients placed in the upper galleries. Permit me, my Lord and Gentlemen, in conclusion, notwithstanding the improvements you are effecting, for the well being and comfort of the patients, in heating and ventilating, and substituting wood for stone flooring, still to draw your attention to a subject mentioned in my two previous reports, as of some importance in my opinion to the benefit of the patients, and to the establishment in general, and to express a hope that you will not ultimately lose sight of the advantages to be derived from the introduction of gas into this Asylum. I am, My Lord and Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, THEODORE S. G. BOISRAGON.

CORNWALL COUNTY BRIDGES.— EASTERN DIVISION. On his retirement from the office of Surveyor of Bridges in the Eastern Division of this County, Mr. Pease appended the following to his Quarterly Report, presented at the Epiphany Sessions, last week:— To the Worshipful the Chairman and other Magistrates assembled at General Quarter Sessions. As this is the last report I shall have the honour of presenting to the Sessions as a Surveyor of the County, I beg to state that those 70 Bridges which, till within the last few months, comprised the Eastern Division, are generally in a good state of repair; I say generally, because some of them are old and feeble, and consequently require much watching and frequent trifling repairs to preserve them. Of the Bridges recently added to the Eastern Division, Lostwithiel Bridge stands in most need of repair; but as I made a special report on the state of that Bridge at the last Sessions, I need not now further allude to it. With regard to Bridge roads, I ventured to suggest some years ago, how desirable it would be if an arrangement could be made with the Turnpike Trustees for them to keep in repair the County Bridge roads, as, under the present system, it is almost impossible to have the roads kept in a satisfactory manner; for whilst the amount paid for the repairs would be ample if done by the Turnpike Trustees and Parishes, it is unremunerative to persons who reside at a considerable distance from the Bridges. The following are some of the present contract prices, viz:— Lot 1 Averages 2 18 10½ per Bridge. “ 2 “ 2 8 7 “ “ 3&4 “ 1 10 0 “ “ 5 “ 2 10 0 “ “ 6 “ 2 2 6 “ “ 7 “ 1 16 0 “ It is quite clear that even the largest of the above sums cannot be remunerative to a person who has to keep in repair for 12 months 200 yards of road, and the parapet walls and coping of a bridge at a distance of 16 miles probably from the place of his abode, by attending to it himself; he has recourse therefore to sub-letting, and thus two persons have to be remunerated. If the Road repairs could be separated from the Bridge work, the duties of the Bridge Surveyor would be much lightened, and a saving would be effected to the County in more ways than one. I have thought it my duty to bring this subject prominently before the Court, as in doing so now when about to retire, I cannot be suspected of being influenced by selfish motives in recommending a course which, whilst it would be of advantage to the surveyor, would also be beneficial to the county. The following statement of facts relative to the Eastern Division will not, I hope, be deemed superfluous. I find that within the period of 20 years preceding my taking office, only 3 new bridges were built by the county, viz.—Polston Bridge, Trecarrel Bridge, and Glynn Bridge; the cost of which (a moiety only of the first being included, the other moiety having been paid by the county of Devon) was £2,835. In January 1847, I was appointed surveyor, and in July of that year 5 bridges, namely, Hick's Mill, Trecarrel, Tresarret, Two Bridges, and Dunmere, were washed down; and three others, viz.: Helland, Trekelland, and Wenford, were much injured. During the 9 years I have been in office I have rebuilt, in addition to the five bridges above-mentioned as having been washed down, Tamerton Bridge and Seaton Bridge; a new bridge has been built at Looe, and Wadebridge has been widened and improved. The total expenditure for the East Division during the last 9 years is about £6,151, which may be classed under the following heads:— Rebuilding 7 new Bridges (Looe not included), in-) £2,830 cluding Temporary Bridges, Engineering, &c ) Improvements to approach roads, &c 279 Ordinary repairs to bridge roads, &c., including ) 3,042 Surveyors’ salaries, incidentals, &c ) ______£6,151 And gives an average annual expenditure under the same head, as follows;— New bridges £314 9 0 Improvements, &c 31 0 0 Ordinary repairs, &c* 338 0 0 Total annual average expenditure 683 9 0 Thanking the magistrates for the confidence which they have reposed in me during the 9 years I have had the honour of filling the office of surveyor, the duties of which I have endeavoured to discharge to the best of my ability and with faithfulness to the county, I remain, gentlemen, Your obedient servant, W. PEASE. *The ordinary expenditure for repairs in the East Division during the 20 years previous to my appointment, viz.—from January 1827 to January 1847, averaged £488 5s. Od.; whilst, during the 9 years I have held office the average has been only £338, making a difference of £150 5s. 0d.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 28th March and 4th April

2. Lent Assizes.

Shortly after six o'clock on Saturday evening last, the Judges on Western Circuit—Mr. Justice Crowder and Serjeant Channell—arrived at Bodmin from Exeter. They were escorted into the town by the High Sheriff, Sir William Berkeley Call, Bart., of Whiteford, accompanied by the Under Sheriff, Coplestone Lopes Radcliffe, Esq., and the customary retinue; and at once proceeded to the Crown Court, where they opened commission. It is an unusual circumstance, that the High Sheriff wears at these Assizes, instead of the ordinary Court-dress, the uniform of a Deputy Lieutenant. On Sunday morning, at 11 o'clock, the Judges attended divine service at Bodmin Church, accompanied by the High Sheriff and his retinue, and by the Mayor and other official personages of the borough of Bodmin…… [remainder of paragraph not transcribed] CROWN COURT. Mr. Justice Crowder took his seat in this Court at eleven o'clock. The following magistrates were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Sir HENRY ONSLOW, Bart., Foreman. Sir Joseph Sawle, Bart. E. Coode, jun., Esq. C. B. G. Sawle, Esq., M.P. J. P. Magor, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. S. Borlase, Esq. W. H. Pole Carew, Esq. J. B. Messenger, Esq. John Tremayne, Esq., D. P. Le Grice, Esq. W. Rashleigh, Esq. E. Stephens. Esq. G. W. F. Gregor, Esq. W. Moorshead, Esq. H. Willyams, Esq. F. J. Hext, Esq. A. Coryton, Esq. T. S. Bolitho, Esq. Richard Foster, Esq. John Batten, Esq. Thomas Hext, Esq. Stephen Usticke, Esq. The following magistrates also answered to their names:—W. Raleigh Gilbert, Esq., W. R. C. Potter, Esq., J. W. Peard, Esq., Bridges Willyams, Esq., Rev. J. J. Wilkinson. The following Mayors, answered—The Mayors of Falmouth, Launceston, Liskeard, Lostwithiel, Penryn, Penzance, and Truro. The only county coroner that answered was Mr. Thomas Good. The Royal Proclamation against vice and immorality was then read, and the learned Judge delivered the following [CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY – not transcribed] The learned Judge then requested the Grand Jury to retire for the consideration of the bills before them; but just afterwards he said:—I find the sentences on Mary Ann and Elizabeth Thomas were not from the county magistrates, but from the petty sessions of the borough of Truro. I am very anxious that there should be no mistake, and that such an accusation should not go against the county magistrates. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. MARY GWYN was charged with stealing a victorine, the property of Mr. Ibbott, draper, Truro. Mr. Hushes, for the prosecution, called as witnesses, Jane Rowe, Elizabeth Rook, assistant in the shop, Superintendent Nash, of the Truro police, and Mr. Ibbott. Jane Rowe's statement was that she went into the shop in the afternoon of the 27th of February, to buy gloves, and the prisoner to buy a bonnet. They went up into the show-room, and on coming down she saw the prisoner take a victorine from the door, and put it under her shawl. Prisoner paid for the bonnet when she got to the bottom of the stairs, and went out of the shop. When in the street, witness asked if she was not ashamed of herself for taking the victorine, and she said, "get out, you fool, why didn't you take the calico?" meaning some pieces of calico that were piled up. Witness informed Mr. Nash, who apprehended Gwyn next day at her house at Scorrier Gate. Mr. Nash searched the house, but did not find prosecutor's victorine.—Elizabeth Rook stated that she placed some victorines on the door on the morning of the 27th, and in the evening one of them was missing. Prisoner (who was undefended) asked some questions of Mrs. Rowe, and called as a witness in her behalf, a butcher named Whitford, who lives at Scorrier Gate. This witness stated some circumstances that occurred when Mr. Nash went with Jane Rowe to the prisoner's house at Scorrier Gate; and some of the evidence on this part of the case was conflicting. The Judge asked Mrs. Rowe why she did not tell Mr. Ibbott of the theft immediately when she saw it committed; to which Mrs. Rowe replied that she felt rather confused at the time. The learned Judge, in summing up, told the jury that the whole case rested on the evidence of Jane Rowe ; there was no other testimony to support her. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. HENRY WILCE, 35, labourer, pleaded guilty of stealing hay, straw, and turnips from his master, Samuel Cowling of St. Kew, on the night of the 1st of March. Sentence, THREE MONTHS' HARD LABOUR. HENRY STEPHENS and HENRY NORTHEY were charged with stealing a piece of rope from Mr. Stephen Michell, mine broker, of Truro, on or about the 20th of November. Mr. ARCHER for the prosecution; Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the prisoner Northey, Stephens being undefended. It appeared that the prosecutor had worked a mine called Wheal Michell, but the mine had ceased working, and the rope, which was part of the materials, was left at Mr. Carne’s blacksmith's shop at Higher Town, near Truro. Some time afterwards, when inquiry was made for the rope, it was found that the two prisoners had called at the shop and taken it away; it was given up to them because it was thought they had Mr. Michell’s authority to come for it. The rope was found by policeman Prater at Stephen's (sic) house in Truro. It appeared that Northey sent Stephens to Higher Town, for the rope, because Stephens told him he had a right to it. The Judge, therefore, decided that there was no case against Northey. Stephens's statement was that prosecutor owed him for two days work, and he thought he had a right to take the rope on that account; but prosecutor denied that he said anything to him about this debt until January, whereas the rope was taken away in the previous November. Mr. Stokes and High-bailiff Drew, of the County Court, were called as witnesses to Stephens's good character. The jury returned both prisoners NOT GUILTY. The Judge, addressing Stephens said, if you suppose you have a right on account of any debt, to get hold of property belonging to another you will find it is wholly illegal, and that you run a very great risk in doing so. RUTH THOMAS, 15, was charged with stealing three gold rings from Peter Latora, at Redruth, on the 12th of January. Mr. ARCHER for the prosecution; Mr. COLE for the prisoner. Prosecutor keeps a "general shop" at Redruth; he left the shop about seven in the evening of the 12th of January, and on his return found that the three rings had been stolen. Prisoner was seen by Elizabeth Hockin, who entered the shop, leaning over the counter, and putting her hand into a glass case containing a number of rings; she thought at the time that prisoner belonged to the shop. Mrs. Frances also said she saw prisoner with her hand in the glass case. The rings were afterwards found on the ground, near where the prisoner was standing. The prisoner received a good character from Uren, a constable. The jury were a long time considering the case, but at length found the prisoner GUILTY, strongly recommending her to mercy on account of her character. The Judge sentenced her to Four Months, Hard Labour, ROBERT HODGE, 36, blacksmith, pleaded GUILTY of stealing twelve steel shovels, the property of William Vivian, of Gwinear. (Sentence: 9 months’ h.l.) HENRY THOMAS ELLIS, 17, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of boots, the property of Thomas Roberts, and a pair of stockings, the property of Samuel May, at St. Just in Penwith, on the 11th of January last. (Sentence: 2 months h.l.) JOHN TIPPETT, 14, miner, pleaded GUILTY of stealing 21lbs. of candles, the property of John Waters and Stephen Tucker, at St. Blazey, on the 3rd of January. He also pleaded GUILTY of stealing 1½ lb. of candles, the property of Thomas Williams and John Trethewy, at St. Blazey, on the 3rd of January. (Sentence: 4 months’ hard labour) JOHN PARKER, 25, tallow chandler, pleaded GUILTY of breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Tyacke, at Kea, and stealing a silver watch, shawls, trousers, and other articles. He also pleaded GUILTY of breaking and entering the house of John Eade, at Breage, on the 28th of February, and stealing a cape, coats, trousers, waistcoats, and other things. The prisoner also pleaded GUILTY to a third indictment, for breaking and entering the house of Ann Painter, of Gwennap, on the 2rd (sic) of March, and stealing shawls and dresses. (Sentence: 4 years penal servitude) MARY SIMS, 44 was charged with fraudulently obtaining from James Oliver, at Camborne, on the 19th, of January a pair of boots, by pretending that she was sent by her sister, Mrs. Ann Knuckey. GUILTY. Three Months' Hard Labour WILLIAM FERRERS, alias BAILEY, 43, was charged with stealing two coats, a glove, bag, and whetstone, the property of George Hobbs, at St. Stephens by Saltash, on the 18th of January. Colonel Coryton, in whose service the prisoner had worked for eight years, gave him a good character. Verdict, NOT GUILTY. STABBING.—CHARLES JENKIN, 23, a miner, was indicted for feloniously stabbing and wounding William Ellis, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.—Mr. BEVAN for the prosecution; Mr. COLE for the defence. There was a good deal of evidence given in this case, but the substance of it was as follows. On the night of the 10th of March, the prisoner, with two men called Wallis and Berryman, were drinking at a public house at Newbridge, in the parish of Sancreed. Another man called Samuel Hollow was also of the company present at a later part of the evening. There were several people in the room, and dice were played with for pints of beer. The prisoner and Wallis played and Wallis won, but when the beer was brought he refused to drink it. The prisoner, Jenkin, was drunk, and became excited and angry because Wallis refused to drink the beer. Berryman and Hollow attempted to prevent violence on the part of Jenkin, who drew out his knife, and seized Wallis by the collar, threatening to stab him if he did not drink as he wished him to do. They got prisoner away, upon which he dashed his knife into the table, and cut his own thumb. A number of persons had collected outside, but Wallis, the object of prisoner's anger, was got away from him, and the door was shut. Prisoner said, the very first man that interfered with him, he would run the knife into him. He was swaying the knife round, and threatened to stab people. He got out of the house, and those who had been about him got out of the way; but just at that time the prosecutor, William Ellis, who happened to be in a , shoemaker's shop opposite the public house, hearing a disturbance, came out to see what was the matter, and came within a short distance of the door of the public-house. Jenkin had then come out with the knife in his hand; it was a moonlight night, and Ellis being the first person he saw, he stabbed him in the thigh with his knife. Mr. Searle, surgeon, St. Just, gave evidence that he was called to attend the prosecutor on the night of the 10th of March, and found him suffering from a simple incised wound on the outer part of the right thigh; a wound two inches in length, the same in depth, and made by some sharp instrument. Witness dressed the wound; it was a bad wound, but no vital part was touched: the wound terminated about an inch from the femoral artery. If it had gone an inch deeper, it would have been very dangerous to life; he was still attending the prosecutor.—Mr. Cole, on the part of the prisoner, submitted that the wound was caused by accident; that the prisoner did not deliberately stab Ellis, but struck him with the knife in running against him. The charge was that of stabbing with intent to do grievous bodily harm; he (Mr. Cole), submitted that there was no such intention on the part of the prisoner, who was in that drunken state that he was incapable of forming a deliberate intention to wound or injure anybody. Rushing out of the house on a moonlight night he did not, in fact, see who Ellis was; and he said afterwards, when charged with the stabbing, “I never saw you for the night." In summing up, the learned JUDGE said, if the jury were satisfied the stabbing was the result of accident, there was no charge to be made against the prisoner. But when it was said the prisoner was so drunk he could have had no intention in his mind he (the learned Judge) must tell them that drunkenness was no excuse for violence or crime of any kind. Perhaps, however, the prisoner did not know Ellis when he stabbed him, and it might be a charitable view of the case to consider that he had no deliberate intention of doing that man in particular any great bodily harm. The law allowed a jury, when not satisfied that there was the felonious intent named in the indictment, to find a verdict for unlawfully wounding. The jury then found the prisoner GUILTY OF UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING. The learned JUDGE told the prisoner that the jury had taken a very merciful view of the case against him, in acquitting him of the greater offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He then pointed out the evil of drinking habits in leading men into crime, and concluded by sentencing the prisoner to nine months' hard labour. HIGHWAY ROBBERY.—RICHARD HOLDEN, 23, was indicted for feloniously assaulting, and putting in bodily fear and danger of his life, Joseph Vivian, of St. Germans, on the 15th instant, and stealing from his person 16s. 6d. Mr. KINGDON appeared for the prosecution. Joseph Vivian, a navvy, stated that on the night of the 15th of March, he was drinking at a public house at Polbathick, and the prisoner and others were also there drinking. Between eleven and twelve o'clock, the landlord desired them all to leave the house, and they did so. As prosecutor was going along the road towards his home he was knocked down with great violence, and the man who attacked him ransacked his pockets, and took from him 16s. 6d. He begged him, for God's sake, not to take all his money, but the man said he would have every farthing. Prosecutor afterwards gave some description of the man to Hawkes, a constable, who apprehended Vivian, and prosecutor said he was the man, he had worked with him some time before. Prisoner said he was at home in his bed that night, but on making inquiry at his lodgings, it was found he was not home at the time the robbery was committed. The prosecutor admitted that he had drunk a good deal on the night in question. In reply to one of the jury, he said he must have spent about four shillings in liquor. The jury could not agree and were locked up. The Court then rose. ______N I S I P R I U S C O U R T, MONDAY, March 24. At 10 o'clock, Serjeant Channell took his seat in the Nisi Prius Court. The following was the CAUSE LIST. Plaintiff’s Defendant’s Attorney Plaintiff. Defendant. Attorney. Ex Downing Bristol v. Jennings .. Childs. Q.B. Peter Peters [S.J.] v. Peters Childs. Ex in Person Hambly v. Guy, the younger Commins and Son. Ex Peter Burnard [S. J.] v. Northam & anor Gurney and Cowlard Q.B. Roscorla and Davies Symons v. Mayne Bullmore. Q.B. Glubb & Son Morshead v. Bate Moone. Q.B. Same Morshead v. Coombe Same Ex Paynter Trembath & v. Hosking Millett and wife v. and wife Borlase. Q.B. Bishop Meredith [S.J.] v. Martin. Gill Ex Whiteford & Co. Mulley v. Sharpe & ors. Childs BRISTOL v. JENNINGS.—An undefended action, no particulars of which were given in Court, and a verdict for plaintiff was directed. HAMBLY v. GUY, the younger.—Mr. Coleridge for plaintiff; Mr. Cole for defendant.—The action was brought by Mr. Edmund Hambly, solicitor, of Wadebridge, against Warwick Guy the younger, a farmer of Endellion, for recovery of 50l. on a promissory note, The nature of the case entitling the defendant to open, Mr. Cole proceeded to state the case to the jury. The Bill of Exchange was dated as far back as May 6 1850, for 50l.; and the defence was that defendant had satisfied the plaintiff for the full amount of the Bill. It appeared that the defendant's father had possession of two estates called Trewethick and Burrow Park which, in May, 1842, were mortgaged in 5000l. partly to plaintiff and partly to a client of plaintiff; and at Christmas 1847, plaintiff got into possession of these estates and received the rents. ln March 1850, the defendant's father got into difficulties and was put into prison; he was endeavouring to get out under the Insolvent Act, but it was communicated to him that the plaintiff, who it appeared had some claim against him, threatened to oppose his discharge unless the defendant would give him a Bill of Exchange; some interviews on this subject took place between the defendant and Mr. Hambly; and, eventually, after some refusals, the defendant consented to give him the Bill of Exchange for 50l. In July, 1851, the defendant occupying under the plaintiff some 18 acres of the land that had been his father's, the plaintiff put in a distress for rent in arrear; and negotiations took place between the defendant and plaintiff for the settlement of this claim. Defendant's father went to plaintiff, and it was arranged that all matters should be settled between them, on the following terms viz.—Mr. Hambly was to be paid 25l., and to receive the value of the then growing crops; and the defendant s impression was that this arrangement included the settlement of the 50l. note of hand; and, on the part of the plaintiff it was alleged to be confirmatory of this view,—that no claim for interest was made on the note till May, 1855; and then only on the defendant, as one of the executors of a deceased lady called Billing, making a claim on plaintiff for 140l.; Mr. Hambly having all along retained the note in his possession, and eventually putting it in as a set-off against the claim made on him by the executors of Mrs. Billing. The witnesses examined, in support of this defence were the defendant himself, and his father, Warwick Guy the elder. Mr. COLERIDGE then opened the case for the plaintiff. The property in question having been mortgaged to plaintiff, for 5000l., there became due a considerable arrear of interest in 1849; and an agreement was come to between Hambly and the elder Guy—the defendant being present—that the old man should pay 50l. on account of arrears of interest then due, and that father and son should occupy and cultivate the 18 acres of the mortgaged property, paying from that time forward a rental of 50l. yearly.—ln 1850, the elder Guy being in prison at the suit of some other creditor, the plaintiff gave notice of opposition to his discharge; but consented to withdraw his opposition on the defendants' giving him the note of hand for 50l. The elder Guy then came out of prison; and from that time, the father and son had occupied the 18 acres as joint-tenants of the plaintiff. In August 1851, only 13l. having been paid for rent of the premises from 1849, Mr. Hambly put in distress for £87 10s. 0d. An (sic) this, the elder Guy went to Mr. Hambly, and an arrangement was come to for removal of the distress,—the arrangement being that possession should be given up to Mr. Hambly, the defendant and his father retaining the stock and furniture, and realizing the growing crops for the benefit of plaintiff; besides paying to plaintiff a sum of 20l. in two instalments. All that Mr. Hambly had received out of the £87 10s. 0d., arrear of rent, was 42l.—made up of the money payment of 20l. and 22l, the value of crops sold. But, in this arrangement, there was not included any settlement of the 50l. note of hand. The arrangement had reference solely to the arrear of rent due on the 18 acres, and had no reference whatever to the note of hand. Mr. Hambly, the plaintiff, and a witness called John Clemoes, the occupier of the 18 acres after the defendant and his father went out in 1851, were examined. In summing up, the learned JUDGE directed the jury that the sole question for their consideration was, whether the arrangement made by the elder Guy in August 1851 did, or did not, include a settlement of the note of hand previously made by the younger Guy—the defendant. The only witness on this point, for the defendant, was the elder Guy; and it was for the jury to consider whether the evidence of that witness had or had not sustained the defendant's plea in this respect.—The jury consulted upwards of half an hour in Court, and then were locked up nearly an hour more; after which they returned into Court with a verdict for plaintiff for 50l.—Mr. COLERIDGE said the plaintiff did not ask for interest, but wished for execution.— The learned JUDGE assented. BURNARD v. NORTHAM and BENNETT.—Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Karslake, for plaintiff; Serjeant Kinglake and Mr. Maynard for defendant.—This case had been entered for on special jury; but after arguments on an application by Mr. Collier, it was heard before a common jury, after numerous challenges on both sides. Mr. KARSLAKE said this was an issue to try the question whether certain goods seized by the Sheriff of Cornwall were or not the property of the now defendant. Mr. COLLIER said the plaintiff in this case was a farmer living at Stoke Climsland; and the defendants were two mine-agents, who, some time ago took a mine-sett in a common part of a manor called Trevage, and a question arose with them under the following circumstances. A man called Bowden occupied a farm called Tregune, under Mr. Archer; and at the Cornwall Spring Assizes, 1855, the now defendants—the two mine- agents, Northam and Bennett—obtained a verdict against Bowden for a sum of five shillings; and the costs subsequently taxed, amounted to the sum of 256l. 15s. 6d.—That case was of this nature. It seemed that some question had arisen between Mr. Archer and those mine-agents, or rather their landlord (Mr. Rodd) relative to rights in the manor of Trevage. A writ was issued against Bowden for taking some cart-loads of rubbish which happened to contain tin—for the purpose of trying that question; but Mr. Archer having declined at the time to go into the question of right, Bowden was left to defend the case as he could, and the two mine-agents obtained a verdict against him for five-shillings—it having turned out that among the rubbish removed there was some five-shillings of Tin; and the learned Judge who tried that cause, feeling that in some measure it involved a question of right, thought proper to certify, and the result was that the mine-agents obtained 246l. 15s. 6d, costs against Bowden. In January last, they levied on the goods of Bowden for that sum of 246l. 15s. 6d; and on that occasion they took the three horses, cart and harnesses which were the subject of the present action. The case of the present plaintiff was that they had no right to take those horses, cart, and harness, inasmuch as they were not Bowden’s property. It seemed that in the previous August, Bowden was in arrear to his landlord, Mr. Archer, 1½ years rent—83l. odd; and thereupon Mr. Archer put in a distress on Bowden's goods, which were sold on the 9th August—the proceeds realizing nearly 40l. Among the goods sold at that time, on Mr. Archer's distraint, were the horses, cart, and harness now in question.—Perhaps, with respect to Mr. Archer’s distress, he (Mr. Collier) might be allowed to say this. It was very probable that Mr. Archer—who he believed, was a very kind and indulgent landlord— would not have put in that distress on his tenant, but that he felt that if he did not do so, the tenant would not have benefited, for in point of fact, those mining people would take all the goods. It might be, therefore, that Mr. Archer put in his distress, in some measure for the purpose of defeating the execution by the mine-agents; but whether that were so or not, was not material in the present case; Mr. Archer had a perfect right to put in that distress, and on that occasion a sum of £39 odd was levied, and among the property distrained were the horses, cart and harness, which formed the subject of the present action, and which at the time of Mr. Archer's distress became the property of Burnard, the present plaintiff, under the following circumstances. Burnard was a father-in-law of Bowden, who at that time and now was in circumstances of very great affliction; he had 4 children, and a wife who though still only about 26 years old was totally paralysed in all her limbs. Bowden had got his living by letting out his horses for hire, drawing stones for the roads in the neighbourhood, and letting them out for mine work. Burnard therefore, felt that, if the horses, cart and harness were taken away, Bowden would be entirely ruined; Burnard therefore bought them for the purpose of allowing Bowden to retain them for some time in order that he might, if possible, extricate himself from his difficulties. Bowden consequently continued to use the horses, cart, and harness, in this way, until the distraint in January last; and it seemed to him (Mr. Collier) that the conduct of Burnard in allowing him to do so, was not only justifiable but praiseworthy. The following witnesses were called for the plaintiff:—Mr. Henry Burt, auctioneer, of Launceston; Mr. Thomas Burnard, the plaintiff. Serjeant KINGLAKE then opened the defence, which was substantially, that the proceedings altogether, of the alleged distress and sale were colourable and fraudulent. He spoke of the action out of which these proceedings originated as being in reality, between Mr. Archer and Mr. Rodd, for the purpose of trying a question of right in the manor of Trevage; and avowed that on the present occasion he was representing Mr. Rodd, through the nominal defendants, Northam and Bennett.—The learned Serjeant detailed at much length and with much particularity, the circumstances by which he hoped to substantiate the defence; and afterwards adduced some documentary evidence, consisting of letters from Mr. Coplestone Radcliffe, Mr. Archer's steward, to the auctioneer employed to sell Bowden's stock. The oral testimony on the part the defendants, was given by Richard Barrett Hicks, a grocer living at Alternun Church-town; William Medland, the officer employed to execute the writ of distress on Bowden; William Chapple, surveyor of the Bodmin turnpike-roads; Christopher Davey, a labourer on these roads; and Mr. Charles Gurney, the defendant's attorney. The case occupied the Court some six or seven hours: and on its conclusion at nearly eight o'clock, the jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a verdict for plaintiff. ______CROWN COURT, TUESDAY, March 25. (Before Mr. Justice CROWDER.). [In the case of Richard Holden, (charged with assault and robbery) in which the jury were locked op last night, we find that they returned a verdict of acquittal.] ______[----At the opening of the Court, this morning, the following prisoners, tried yesterday, received sentence:—see individual cases above] CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.—ANN HOYTE, aged 30, a servant, was indicted for unlawfully concealing the birth of a child of which she had been delivered, by placing the dead body in a dung heap.—Mr. Hughes conducted the prosecution: attorney, Mr. J. Basset Collins.—The prisoner was undefended.—Elizabeth Jonas, wife of Thomas Jonas; I work at Bennallack farm, in Probus. The prisoner worked there with me: and I have known her many years. Last summer I thought she was in the family way and spoke to her about it. On the 25th June she left Bennallack, and did not return there for a week. She then said she had stayed away on account of blackheads; that she was better, but was still taking medicine. At this time she appeared to be in the family way and I told her that people were saying so; she said she would not satisfy any one—people must wait, and see. On the 1st July, she called me into her house, and told me she could not go to Bennallack that night, and begged me to go to wash for her, as she was taken unwell. I saw her again on the 15th of the same month, at her own house; she was in bed; she told me that her sister's father-in-law had been here that day, and that her sister had heard that her father and she were both to be put to Bodmin. I said that I had heard that her father had buried the child; and she said her father knew nothing about it.—Thomas Gerrans—l am assistant-overseer of Grampound. On the 3rd of July, I went to the prisoner's house, with Thomas Nancarrow, a constable. I told her we had heard she had been confined of a child, and asked her permission to search. She said she had had no child, but spoke of something else that had come from her. She consented to our searching the premises, and said that what had come from her was thrown on the dung-pile at the back of the premises. We went to the dung-pile, and found there some bones which were afterwards given to the surgeon.—Thomas Nancarrow, constable, confirmed the evidence of Mr. Gerrans, and stated that he delivered the bones to the surgeon.—Joseph Stephens—I am a surgeon, residing at Grampound, and am the parish doctor. On Sunday, the 1st of July, I went to the prisoner's house and saw her. She was very pale, and I asked her what was the matter with her. She said she had had a stoppage for some time, but that it had now ceased. I had seen her before on February. On the 6th of February, she came to me and said she was suffering from a cold; I gave her some expectorant medicine. On the [illegible date] of February, she came to me and complained of symptoms such as would lead one to suspect she was pregnant. I gave her some vegetable tonic, and asked her if she was married, and said if she were I should have suspected she was in the family way. She said, how can you think such a thing? I saw her next on the 1st of July; she was suffering from exhaustion and I advised her to go to bed; I examined her abdomen, and found that there was then no child. I saw her again on the 4th of July, and told her she had not sent to my surgery, as I had desired her. She said she was better, and did not require medicine. She had every appearance of having been recently delivered—within a day or two previously. I am quite sure that on the 1st of July, there was no child, and she must have been delivered on or before that day. On the 4th of July, she objected to my examining her breasts; but I did so on the 7th, and the result was corroborative of her having been recently delivered. On the 11th of July I saw her again, and asked her if she was troubled with the state of her breasts; she said they were uneasy sometimes, but she milked them herself. On the 5th of July, Gerrans brought me some bones—five in number; they were skull bones of a child that had arrived at the full period of uterine life; I cannot say that the child was born alive.—The prisoner, when called on for her defence, merely said there was nothing born alive.—The Jury found a verdict of GUILTY, with a recommendation to mercy.—The learned JUDGE, on proceeding to pass sentence, said he did not think there was the slightest reason to believe that she had destroyed the life of the child, and, remarking that she had already been in prison seven months—a sufficient term of imprisonment for her crime—he would now sentence her to the nominal punishment of Four Days' Imprisonment—which was, in effect, an immediate discharge. JOHN WILLS, 19. husbandman, was indicted for carnally knowing and abusing Elizabeth Runnalls Tenby, a girl under 10 years of age.—Mr. Archer conducted the prosecution. Mr. Saunders for the defence. The prosecutrix was an interesting and intelligent child of about 7 years of age, and lived with her father and mother, very decent people, at Curwen, in the parish of Blisland. The offence charged was alleged to have been committed in the forenoon of Sunday the 24th of June last, [by?] a double hedge of a garden at some distance from the house of the child’s mother, and younger sisters being in-doors, and the father having gone to a Methodist Sunday School. The little girl appeared to have been playing at the time, with the prisoner on the hedge, when he threw her down on her back, and proceeded, according to the child's evidence, to the commission of the crime charged. The witnesses examined, in addition to the little girl, were her mother and father, and Mr. [---] Quiller Couch, surgeon, of Bodmin.—The main part of the evidence in support of the charge was of a character unfit for publication.—The jury found a verdict of Guilty. The prosecutor begged to be allowed to say that up to the time of the transaction, the prisoner had always conducted himself as a very respectable servant, and behaved himself in a very respectable way. He would therefore beg to recommend him to mercy.—In passing sentence, the learned JUDGE said—"John Wills, you have been convicted on very clear evidence, of a most serious offence. You suffered your brutal lust to get the better of you; and there is no doubt that you attempted, and to some extent succeeded in having connection with that child. It is absolutely necessary that little children should be protected, exposed as they are at times to communication with persons like you; and it is therefore necessary that a most serious punishment be [inflicted on?] you. You have had a good character given you by your master and he has said, in his evidence that you conducted yourself in such a way as to obtain his friendship. The [- -?] shame to you that you should have given way to your [passions?] as you did towards his child.— Sentence, Six Years Penal Servitude. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.—CHARLOTTE MASTERS, 20, a servant, pleaded GUILTY of endeavouring to conceal the birth of a female child of which she had been delivered at St. Neot, by throwing it into a privy.—Sentence, two months hard labour—[It was said that the prisoner was one of weak intellect. ILLEGALLY SOLEMNIZING MARRIAGE BY GIVING A FALSE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE.—THOMAS BRYANT 53, schoolmaster, pleaded GUILTY to both the following charges:—For that he, as Register (sic) of Marriages for the Redruth District,—on the 23d June, 1855, did knowingly and wilfully solemnize a certain Marriage, between Samuel Hill and Eliza Eva, at the Wesleyan Chapel at Copper House, in the Parish of Phillack, within twenty-one days after the entry of the notice of such Marriage to the Superintendent Registrar of the district and without the said Superintendant (sic) Registrar’s Certificate having been first given, he the said Thomas Bryant also knowing that such Marriage was null and void, under the Statute of 6th and 7th William IV. cap. 85. And also, for that he the said Thomas Bryant, as such Registrar as aforesaid did wilfully give a certain false Certificate, signed by the said Thomas Bryant in his own hand writing, of the marriage of the said Samuel Hill and Eliza Eva, and did wilfully certify such Certificate to be a copy or extract of the Register Book of Marriages for the District of Redruth knowing the same to be false. Mr. COLERIDGE, who appeared for the prosecution, stated that the prisoner had hitherto borne a good character; and called Mr. John Haye, Superintendent Registrar of the Redruth District, who stated that he had been Superintendent Registrar for 7 years, and had known the prisoner for 15 or 16 years; prisoner had always borne a good character, and as a District Registrar had always, previous to the present charge, conducted himself very properly and efficiently.—ln answer to questions from the Judge, Mr. Haye said the prisoner's district contained a large population, principally Wesleyans.—On passing sentence, the learned Judge said:—Thomas Bryant, you have been placed in a situation of trust, for the performance of important duties with respect to the marriage of Dissenters. No doubt, you were placed in that situation because of the character you had acquired, and because it was believed that trust and confidence could be safely reposed in you; and from the petition now before me, signed by a great number of highly respectable persons, it appears that you maintained that character down to the time of this transaction. I observe further, from this petition that you have lately been in the habit of indulging in the use of opium, in consequence of some misfortune that occurred to you; and, probably that had something to do with this offence. It is an offence of a very serious nature indeed; and an example must be made in any such case brought before a Court and established. It seems, however, that you have already been detained about five months. I take that into consideration in the sentence I am about to pronounce; as I do also the character given you by your Superintendent, and by the numerous persons who have signed this petition; and I shall therefore give you a much less punishment than otherwise would have been inflicted on you.—The learned JUDGE then passed sentence of Six Months' Hard Labour. WILLIAM PRIDEAUX, 63, JOHN PRIDEAUX, 29, THOMASINE FREEMAN, 48, and MARY PRIDEAUX, 19, were charged with stealing a quantity of mutton, the property of William Rickard, at Landulph, on the 19th of January last.—ln a second count the prisoners were charged with feloniously receiving.—Mr. Poulding conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—William Rickard, the prosecutor, stated:—I am a butcher and attend on Saturdays at Cargreen, in Landulph. I was there on the 19th of January, and put up at Bates's public-house, and left my horse and cart in an open stable there, with a quarter of mutton and a leg in the cart, covered with a cloth. I last saw my mutton in the cart between 11 and 12 at night. I then went again into Bates's; and between 2 and 3 in the morning, on coming out into the stable, I missed the mutton from the cart, and went to Barrett, a constable, who went with me to William Prideaux's house, and we there saw William Prideaux and both female prisoners. There was a fire, and a boiler on the fire; the constable went forth to the boiler and found in it a leg of mutton; and in a cupboard, he found a fore-quarter cut up in 12 or 14 pieces. Barrett took it and brought it to Bates's. I had sold the loin to Mrs. Bates, and the leg found by the constable at Prideaux's, matched with the loin sold to Mrs. Bates. The quantity I lost altogether was about 36lbs.—William Barrett, the constable corroborated the preceding evidence of search; and also stated that he afterwards made another search at Prideaux's and found a shoulder of mutton under some dishes in a dresser. I then went out at the back door, and there found John Prideaux and another man standing up against the wall. That was about 5 o'clock in the morning. I afterwards went to the stable and traced footsteps thence to the back part of William Prideaux's house where I had seen the two men. Christopher Davies, a labourer living in Landulph parish was at Prideaux's house from 2 to half-past 3 o'clock on Sunday morning the 20th of January; two of the prisoners were there, and Jacob Foot; When I left the house at half-past 3, there was no fire in the house. The old Prideaux and Mary the daughter were not there at the time; I believe they were in bed. While I was at the house, we had a gallon of beer from Bates's, and drank it.—Jacob Foot, shoemaker; I was at Bates's public-house on the night of the 19th January, in company with John Prideaux and Thomasine Freeman, and Davis. I left the public-house between 12 and one, and went to William Prideaux's house and stayed there about 1½ hour. I had some beer there, which I had taken there from Bates's. When I went in I did not find any person up; but William Prideaux came down stairs, and afterwards Mary, the daughter, also came down. During the time I was there drinking, John Prideaux went out; and before going out, he said he would have a mutton- chop for supper. I went to the back door with him; John left me and was absent about 20 minutes, and then he came back with mutton under his arm. We then went into the house. Davis had then left. A fire was lighted, and Thomasine Freeman put the leg of mutton into the boiler. Just afterwards the constable came in, and I went out at the back-door.—At the close of the case, the learned JUDGE observed that there was no proof, either of stealing or receiving, against the daughter Mary Prideaux.—Verdict.—John Prideaux GUILTY OF STEALING; William Prideaux and Thomasine Freeman, GUILTY OF FELONIOUSLY RECEIVING;— Mary Prideaux, NOT GUILTY.—Sentences:—John Prideaux, 6 months hard labour:—William Prideaux and Thomasine Freeman, each 4 months hard labour JOHN BRAY, 23, and JOHN STUTHRIDGE, 16, tinners, were charged with stealing one cwt. of Tin, value £2, the property of William Bray and Joseph Stoneman, at Luxulyan, on the 19th of January.—Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; Mr. Bevan the defence.—Attornies—for the prosecution Mr. Commins; for the defence, Mr. Preston Wallis.—William Bray deposed:—I am a streamer and tinner living in the parish of Luxulyan; I am in partnership with Joseph Stoneman, in a stream-work called Trescowl Moor. On Saturday the 19th of January, we had there a tin gard—a quantity of tin in the gravel; and I saw it there as late as between 5 and 6 o'clock on the Saturday evening. Between 8 and 9 o'clock on the Sunday morning, we discovered that about a cwt of tin was gone from our gard.—Our heap altogether contained about 3or 4 cwt. In consequence of some suspicions we went to search for the tin; and on Tuesday the 22nd we went to the prisoners' stream-work at Red Tie Common, in Lanivet. about three quarters of a mile from our stream-work; we there found some of the rough sifting of our gard put in the middle of prisoner's heap and covered over. We then left a boy in charge, and went for a constable. The colour of our gard is red; the colour of the prisoners' is white. The constable went to the prisoners' pile with us and took some of the stuff; and after that he went with the constable to the prisoners' house; they live together. The constable asked them where the tin was that they had brought from their stream the previous day; they said it was in the other house in a tray, and that any person might see it; we went into the other house and found there some screened tin, which belongs to me and my partner; the constable took samples of it.—Joseph Stoneman, the other prosecutor, corroborated the evidence of last witness.—Benjamin Stuthridge, father of one of the prisoners:—I have given permission to the two prisoners to work at Red Tie Common Stream- work. Both prisoners live with me. They were working at Red Tie about the 19th of January.—Cross- examined.—I have another work called Little Goodluck about half a mile from Red Tie. The tin at Little Goodluck and at Red Tie is both coloured with iron; but they are not of the same quality. On the Monday before the 17th of January, I told the prisoners they had better get ready their tin for market on the following Friday. On the 17th, Bray said they could not get a tin-dresser, and therefore should not be able to get ready for a week. I then told them they might bring it home in a tray and put it in my kitchen, and they did so.—About the same time we had no water at Little Goodluck, and I ordered that some of the gards at Little Goodluck should be taken to Red Tie, to be washed. The gards at Little Goodluck are like those at Red Tie.—On Sunday the 20th January, just after dinner, Bray and Stoneman, the prosecutors, came to my house, and stayed there some time, smoking, but said nothing about having lost tin.—On Saturday evening the 19th, I left my house about 5 o'clock to go to Bodmin; and passed by the prisoners at their work, between 5 and 6 o'clock; I got back to my home between 10 and 11 o'clock in the evening, and then saw both prisoners in their room; and when I got up next morning, I saw them in their bed; there is no door between their room and mine, and if they had got up in the night I must have known it.—Re- examined:—I did not tell before the committing magistrates, about the gards at Red Tie being like those at little Goodluck.—William Marshall, constable, corroborated the evidence of prosecutors as to the search, and produced a variety of samples taken from the prosecutors' and prisoners' works, and from Little Goodluck; and also the tray of tin found at Sturbridge's house; and Jonathan Cock, a tinner of 21 years experience, gave evidence on the characters of the samples. Mr. BEVAN addressed the jury for the defence. It was mainly, that the red tin gards found in prisoners' heap at Red Tie had been taken there from Little Goodluck, by order of Benjamin Stuthridge, for the purpose of being washed, in consequence of want of water at Little Goodluck; and that the tin stuff found in the tray had been brought there from Red Tie, by orders also of Benjamin Stuthridge, the father of one of the prisoners, for the purpose of being prepared for sale. It would also be proved that, from 6 o'clock on Saturday evening to 8 o'clock the next morning, the prisoners were not out of the father's house.—The witnesses called for the defence were William Roche, a tinner, of Lanivet, Joseph Polsue, also of Lanivet; and Matilda Stuthridge, mother of one of the prisoners and mother-in-law of the other; Mrs. Struthridge (sic) being the witness to prove that the prisoners were not out of her house, (in which they both lived, from about 6 o'clock on Saturday evening to 8 o’clock the next morning—the period during which it was alleged by the prosecutors, that their tin gards had been stolen.—Mrs. Stuthridge admitted that, before this occasion, she had never known tin stuff placed in a tray in the kitchen.—Verdict, BOTH GUILTY.— Sentence:—Each, five months hard labour. THE CHARGE OF MURDER.—HANS HANSEN, aged 34, and described in the Calendar as a stocking weaver, late a soldier in the German Legion, was arraigned on the charge of having wilfully murdered Charles Jacobi, on the 13th March, at Maker; and he was also charged with the same offence on the Coroner's inquisition.—The arraignment was interpreted to the prisoner by a sworn interpreter—a German gentleman; and the prisoner, in German interpreted to the Court, pleaded NOT GUILTY.—The learned JUDGE then desired the interpreter to ask him whether he would be tried by an English jury, or by a jury composed of half English and half foreigners.—To this, the prisoner answered, in English—"All English.—He was then removed.—The object in arraigning him now was to afford time for procuring the attendance of foreigners, if the prisoner had chosen to be tried by a jury de medietate lingua.—The trial is to take place tomorrow (Wednesday). HENRY FAULL, 51, miner, was charged with maliciously and feloniously firing a gun at Cornelius Harford, at Phillack, on the 26th November, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.—Mr. Coleridge for the prosecution; Mr. Cole for the defence.—Cornelius Harford, the prosecutor, deposed:—l am a sailor. About 9 o'clock in the evening of Monday the 26th of November, I was at Floyd's public-house in Hayle, and from thence I went to Phillack Church-town, and left there about 11 o'clock to go to my ship. Passing about 4 or 5 yards from a house, a shot was fired; I felt something strike my head and I dropped directly; I had a thick straw hat and was hit through that. I lost my senses, and when I came to myself I found a doctor with me. I did not see who shot me.—Cross-examined.—l believe I had seen the prisoner once before that time; I never had any quarrel with him. It was a moonlight night, but cloudy. I had gone on past the house, and some person directing me that I was on the wrong road, I turned, and was thus shot.— William Tool, a sailor:—l know the prisoner's house. I was walking near that house on the evening of the 26th November, and saw Harford walking in front of me. When I got near Faull's house, I heard a gun fired through the window, and saw the flash and smoke come out of the window; there was no person outside the house except Harford. I saw Harford fall. I was much frightened, and fainted. This was after 11 o'clock.—Mary Ann Hugh:—I was just outside Faull's house about 11 o'clock on the night in question. I had been in the house at 9 o'clock, and saw no body in the house except Faull. When I went there at 11 o'clock the door was shut home; I knocked at the door and asked Faull if I might come in; he said "no, don't come in yet; there are no girls here; call again." There was no sash window in the house; nothing but boards at the windows.—Cross-examined—He told me that some men had been annoying him that night by throwing stones at the window and had broke in some of the boards; I saw several stones in the room of the house.—Philip Gilbert, constable of Phillack—On the 28th November, I and George Jones saw the prisoner. Prisoner asked me what I was going to do in this case. I said, "I don't know; if you had shot the man with lead instead of pease, we should know what to do with you." He said there was no one in the house but himself. I said, if it had not been for the "trash" or "gang" that was in the house, we should have known nothing about it.—Cross-examined—l have known the prisoner many years; I have never known him to be otherwise than a quiet man.—Mr. Mudge, surgeon at Hayle—About 12 o'clock on the night of the 26th November, I was called to see Harford. I went with the constable, and saw Harford in a house near the prisoner's. I examined Harford, and found several small holes in the forehead, eyelids, temple, cheeks, and tip of the nose. On examining one of these holes, I found a pea about half an inch deep; and then found pease in all the other holes—about 14 or 16 altogether. I found no shot. Harford has lost one eye; but I never considered that his life was in danger.—Cross-examined—The pease were the common unsplit garden pease, such as are used for ordinary culinary purposes. Mr. Tabb, butcher, of Hayle:—l saw Faull near his own house the morning after he shot Harford. I said to him that it was a bad job, and that I had heard the young chap was dead. He then looked about him, and said "don't say anything more to me about it; l am just mad about it already."—Cross-examined. He seemed to be a great deal distressed.—The learned JUDGE, addressing the jury, told them he thought the evidence would not substantiate the charge of felony, for firing with intent to do grievous bodily harm; but by a late Act of Parliament, the jury might find the prisoner guilty of the minor offence—unlawfully wounding.—The jury returned a verdict not guilty of felony, but guilty of unlawfully wounding.—Sentence deferred. JOHN JULIFF, 22 and HENRY JULIFF, 30, labourers, were found guilty of stealing four fowls, the property of James Hotten, farmer, of Ladock, on the 20th of January.—Sentence, Four Months' hard labour each. JOSEPH QUINTRELL, 16, miner, was charged with burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Shakerley, at Camborne, on the 25th of June, 1855, and stealing a chair-covering, the property of the said William Shakerley, and also with cutting and stabbing the said William Shakerley, on the said 25th June, in the said dwelling-house, with intent to do some bodily harm.—Mr. Coleridge conducted the prosecution; Mr. Stock the defence.—William Shakerley deposed:—l am a grocer living at Camborne. Between 1 and 2 o'clock on the morning of the 25th of June last, I was woke up and went down stairs. My wife went down just before me. When I came to the window that looks into the kitchen from the stair- case, I looked into the kitchen and saw a kind of smouldering torch moving forwards and backwards. When I came to the door of the kitchen at the bottom of the stairs, I met some person coming against me with a light in his hand. I laid hold of him by the collar, and had a struggle with him. I told my wife to bring a light. Whilst I was holding him and my wife was gone for a light, he requested me to let him go, but I would not. He got from the kitchen to the front room which leads into the street, and by which he might escape. When we got into that front room, I heard something in his left hand snap like the snapping of a pistol. Shortly after this I caught hold of his left arm till I wrested the instrument out of his hand, and it fell on the floor. I called out a good deal, screamed murder and called for a light. My servant brought a light two or three times, but it was put out as often as it was brought. I told my son to go and fasten the front door. When the door was locked the prisoner was quiet a little. Shortly after that he got some kind of instrument, and I felt myself cut about the face and body. I had nothing but my night-shirt on. I wrested what he had in his hand from him, and got my own hand severely cut in doing it. Then I threw him down on the floor, and sat on him to keep him down. While he was there, he made desperate struggles; he forced his fingers into my mouth, and I held them there with my teeth.—I kept his hands there. Soon afterwards Mr. Gay, the surgeon, came and other persons; and a light was procured. I then found that the prisoner was Quintrall. I asked him what he was come for; and he said he was come for money. I had known him from childhood; he lived at Camborne. After Mr. Gay and other persons came, we searched him and found on him a loaded pistol. Then we found another loaded pistol on the floor and there was also a knife found. Neither the pistols nor knife belonged to me. The pistols were loaded with small shot. We then went to see if we could find any embers of the smouldering torch I had; we found it in the kitchen, and also one of my towels, partly burnt. There was found on the prisoner a chair-covering that belonged to me. He afterwards told us that he got into the house from the front street by means of a ladder placed against the upper window opening into a ware-room; that there was a square of glass broken in that upper window and that he used a piece of wire for opening the window. We found the ladder at the window, and a piece of wire about 15 inches long, bent at each end, and the square of glass broken. I was about a fortnight under the surgeon's care; but fortunately the wounds turned out not of a dangerous character. The prisoner said that when I first came down, he was trying to make his escape at the front door. He asked if we did not find the back door unbarred. We said, yes. He said he had unbarred the back door to effect his escape.—William Arthur Shakerley, son of Prosecutor, merely proved that on the night in question he held the front door by his father's desire—that he saw the prisoner there when the light was brought, and also saw Mr. Gay, and the pistols.—Grace Williams:—I am a servant of Mr. Shakerley. My mistress called me on the night in question, and I went down, and heard a great noise. As I was going down stairs, I heard master scream very loud "murder," and for a light. I got a light as soon as I could and went to the room, and the light was put out in the struggle. That happened three times. The fourth time I got a light I handed it to Master. Then Mr. Gay and other people came, and there was the prisoner. I afterwards saw the walls: there was a great deal of blood about them.—Henry Searle Gay:—I am a surgeon residing at Camborne. I heard a noise at Mr. Shakerley's, and went over and got in at the back of his house through an adjoining house. When I got into the room, I saw some person kneeling on the ground; there was a struggle going on on the ground between Mr. Shakerley and Quintrall. Mr. Shakerley was bleeding a great deal; he had on a shirt, and that was covered with blood. I took hold of the prisoner, and handed him over to the constable.—Mr. Gay corroborated some further points of Shakerley's evidence, and added:—Mr. Shakerley was under my treatment about 10 days or a fortnight. His wounds were merely superficial—only flesh wounds. The knife found was a common blunt kitchen knife.—Henry Viall, policeman of Camborne;—Early in the morning of the 25th June, the prisoner was given into my custody at Mr. Shakerley’s house. I searched him and found on him a chair covering, which I produce, together with the pistols and knife given in charge to me. Both pistols are now loaded; and the one that was found on the floor has the cap exploded. Prisoner escaped from the custody of a constable to whom I gave him in charge, and was not re-taken for 9 weeks afterwards.—Henry Armitage, police-officer on the West Cornwall Railway. On the 1st September I went to a place in Camborne and apprehended prisoner, and handed him over to another constable.—Mr. Hutchinson, surgeon, of Camborne, proved that he was present at Mr. Shakerley’s on the night in question, and took up one of the pistols and gave it to Viall.—The constable Viall produced the knife, and also a pair of slippers found in the room; and it was proved that neither of these articles was the property of Mr. Shakerley, and that the prisoner, at the time of the struggle, had no shoes on. Mr. STOCK, addressing the jury, admitted that the evidence proved beyond power of contradiction, that the offence charged against the prisoner had been committed by him; but the learned gentleman appealed to the jury for a merciful consideration of the case, because of the prisoner's youth and the probability that he had been instigated to the crime by some older person.—The following witnesses gave evidence of the prisoner's good character for honesty and quietness previous to the offence now charged against him:— Richard Trethewy, innkeeper, of Camborne, who had known him for four years; and William Rowe, miner and shopkeeper, who had known him from his childhood. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY of the burglary and robbery, and of the cutting and stabbing with intent to do bodily harm. He was then sentenced to DEATH RECORDED; the learned Judge informing him that he would undoubtedly be transported, and that it would remain with Her Majesty's advisers to determine for what period. There was another indictment against the prisoner, for burglariously entering the shop of William Morley James, at Camborne, on the 13th December, 1854, and stealing a quantity of satin, ribbon, a tortoise-shell box, and between 7 and 8l. in money, the property of the said William Morley James; but, of course, this indictment was not prosecuted. A ROGUE AND HER DUPE.—FRANCES SMITH, 33, hawker, was indicted for stealing from Mary Worth 5 sovereigns, the property of the said Mary Worth; and for obtaining from the said Mary Worth a half- sovereign, by pretending to conjure and tell her fortune.—Mr. Carter conducted the prosecution; Mr. Hughes the defence.—Mary Worth deposed :—I live at Harrowbear in the parish of Calstock. On the 16th of January, about the middle of the day, the prisoner came to my back kitchen door. My servant opened the door, and then I saw the prisoner, who asked me if I wanted any cloam or china mended. I said no. Then she said she wanted to speak a few words to me; and I said I did not want my fortune told. She said, I know you don't want your fortune told; but there is a heavy trouble coming upon you, and I am the one to stop it. Then she wanted a lock of my hair, a bit of my finger-nail, and a half-sovereign to cover them with. I gave her all these, and she put them in a corner of her apron and went away. About 5 o'clock she came back again in a great hurry, and said she wanted to do it as quick as she could. She asked for a glass of cold water and an egg; she then broke the egg into the water, and said she must have 9 sovereigns to put into the glass. I objected; but she declared that I should put them into the glass and she would not touch them. I then went and got the 9 sovereigns and put them into the glass. She then put in her hand and took out some of them. I took out four remaining, and I called my nephew; he came in and charged her with robbing me. She dropped one sovereign on the table, and I took it up; and after a little time she dropped another on the back-kitchen floor. I have never seen the remaining three sovereigns.—Corroborative evidence was given by William Jeffery, nephew of prosecutrix; Samuel Bennett, a miner living near her, and who went to her house on the alarm of the robbery; and John Rogers, constable of Calstock, who added that on his searching the prisoner, he found on her part of a pack of cards and three halfpence; but no sovereigns.— Verdict, GUILTY.—Sentence, Four Months hard labour. JANE ALLEN, 20, a servant, was indicted for stealing, on the 29th of December last, 8 yards of calico, 4 petticoats, and one chemise; and on the 11th of January, 3 bed-sheets, 2 chemises, 3 pair of drawers, 4 pair of sleeves, 3 night caps, 3 collars, and one habit-shirt, the property of her master, Mr. Thomas Williams, at Lambessow Farm, St. Clements.—Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—We have already given the particulars of these robberies, in our Truro Police Reports, at the time of the prisoner's apprehension and committal for trial. The charges against the prisoner were now proved by Charlotte Isaacs, who was at the time of the robberies a fellow-servant at Mr. Williams's; Amelia Williams, a sempstress at Truro; William Joseph Nash, Inspector of Police; and William Woolcock, police- constable.—Mr. Nash stated that the prisoner when apprehended, after the second robbery, acknowledged that she stole the articles on the 29th of December, for which, partly on her evidence, a man called Cook was convicted and sentenced at the Epiphany Sessions. Mr. Nash informed the Court that the man Cook had since been liberated.—At the close of the present case, the prisoner, on being called on for her defence, confessed that she was guilty of stealing all the articles now charged against her, and also of having given evidence against the man Cook.—Verdict, Guilty.—Sentence deferred. ______TUESDAY, MARCH 25. (Before Mr. Serjeant CHANNELL.) SYMONS v. MAYNE.—Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH and Mr. KINGDON; attorneys, Messrs. ROSCORLA and DAVIES.—Counsel for the defendant, Mr. COLERIDGE and Mr. BULLER; attorney, Mr. BULLMORE. Mr. KINGDON opened the pleadings. Plaintiff stated that defendant was indebted to him for money lent, for interest, and on an account stated. Defendant pleaded, first, that he never owed the money; and secondly, that he delivered to plaintiff a cheque on account of the money, that the cheque was dishonored, and that plaintiff failed to present that cheque in due time, or to give defendant due notice of the dishonor of it. Plaintiff replied, that he was induced to take the cheque by fraudulent (sic) representations on the part of defendant. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH stated the case to the jury, and argued that even if the cheque was not presented in strict time, there was afterwards a promise to pay on the part of the defendant, which was evidence of an account stated between the parties. The plaintiff, Mr. William Symons, was then called, and said he was an ironmonger at Camborne, and that defendant is a tin-dresser in the same neighbourhood. In February, 1855, defendant owed him 10s. 8d. Defendant's wife came to witness on the 10th of February, and asked him to change a cheque, saying, if he did so, she would pay his little bill. He asked whose cheque it was. She said, Mr. Conn's; we have sold some arsenic to him; it is all right, we have had many of them before." Plaintiff changed the cheque in consequence of that statement; it was drawn by Mr. Henry Conn, on the Falmouth Bank, (Messrs. Hawkey and Co.,) was endorsed by defendant, and was for £26 12s. Plaintiff deducted the 10s. 8d. defendant owed him, and paid Mrs. Mayne £26 1s 2d. On the 13th of February, plaintiff paid the cheque to the agent of Messrs. Smith, his London merchants, and it was returned to him dishonored on the 2nd of March. Notice of this was sent to defendant, who called on plaintiff the next morning, when plaintiff asked him to pay him the money, but he said he had not got any. Plaintiff told him he had better go to Mr. Conn the drawer of the cheque; defendant said he could not go that day, but on the following Monday he called again on plaintiff, and asked him to write a note to Mr. Conn on the subject. Plaintiff did so as follows:—"Sir, your dishonoured cheque, value £26 12s. is in the hands of a London house. I wrote them on receiving yours of the 5th instant, giving your reply. They will not wait any longer, and unless the money is paid at once, you may expect they will commence proceedings for the recovery. Yours, respectfully, William Symons." That note plaintiff gave to defendant open, and the latter carried it to Falmouth to Mr. Conn, who wrote on the back of the same note as follows:—"Mr. Symons, Sir,—Mr. Mayne has just called on me; I have every reason to believe I shall be able to make it all right in about a fortnight, if you will be so good as to wait till then. Henry Conn." Plaintiff said, when defendant brought back this answer, he asked him to wait the fortnight, and he consented to do so. After the fortnight was expired, defendant again called on plaintiff, who asked for payment, but defendant said he had not got the money. Plaintiff asked what Mr. Conn said to him when he gave him the cheque? Defendant replied, that Mr. Conn desired him to hold the cheque a few days, because he had no money in the bank. Plaintiff told him he had not acted honourably in not telling him that before, and said he must pay him the money. Defendant replied that he would if he lived and breathed. About six weeks after plaintiff again saw him, and asked for payment of the cheque; to which defendant replied that he should return some tin about Midsummer and would then pay him. About Midsummer he said he would pay as soon as he could, principal and interest; since then, plaintiff had not received any part of the money.—Plaintiff was cross-examined as to the day on which defendant was informed that the note was dishonoured. On this point plaintiff's son, William Cock Symons, stated that Messrs. Smiths' letter was dated the 1st of March, that it was received in Camborne on the 2nd, and that witness wrote to defendant on the subject on the same day. He also corroborated some other points of his father's evidence. On the part of defendant, Mr. COLERIDGE proceeded to argue that the cheque had not been presented in due time, but upon the learned JUDGE observing that he considered the evidence showed there was an unconditional promise to pay, on the part of defendant, after he had received notice that the cheque was dishonoured, the case was brought to a close, and the JUDGE directed a verdict for plaintiff for £28, which included the amount of the cheque with interest. Mr. COLERIDGE, for defendant, said his client had had a great deal of business with Mr. Conn, and had often taken his cheques, and that when he had paid his cheque to plaintiff he had no doubt at the time but that there would be money paid into the bank to meet it when it was presented. MORSHEAD v. BATE.—Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Maynard for the plaintiff; attornies, Messrs. Glubb and Son. Mr. Collier and Mr. Buller for the defendant ; attorney, Mr. Moone. This was an action to recover damages for sheep, which it was alleged, defendant had sold to plaintiff under a warrant, and which turned out to be unsound. Defendant pleaded, first, that he did not warrant the sheep; and secondly, that the sheep were sound when sold by him. The damages sought to be recovered were of small amount, such as would have come under the jurisdiction of the County Court; but the plaintiff, in the course of his evidence, expressed his dissatisfaction with county court decisions in one or two cases he had brought therein, and said he would not go to that court again, if he could take a case anywhere else. Plaintiff was Mr. William Morshead, a farmer of the parish of Southill; and defendant was Mr. Digory Bate, a farmer of Linkinhorne. In September, 1854, plaintiff met defendant at Northill fair, and made an appointment to call and see his ewes, for which purpose he went to Mr. Bate's farm, and after some bargaining agreed to give him 28s. 6d. each for eight ewes, and 1l. each for five wether lambs. Plaintiff said, when he first saw Mr. Bate's sheep, he declined to have anything to do with them, as he thought they had some disease, but as he was going away he met Mr. Bate, who pressed him to return and look at them, saying he never had a " coaded" sheep in his life, and after that they concluded the bargain. Plaintiff also said he bought thirteen ewes of another person shortly before he bought these of defendant. The two lots of sheep were kept together; the thirteen got on exceedingly well, but those he bought of Mr. Bate soon showed that there was something the matter with them, and it further appeared from plaintiff's evidence that those sheep were eventually found to be so affected with the "coad," or rot, that they were obliged to be killed. They were reduced, as plaintiff said, to "bags of bones," and when killed, there appeared thousands of “flukes" in their livers. At the lambing time, the eight ewes bought of Mr. Bates yeaned only five lambs; three of the lambs died, and the other two, plaintiff said, were "miserable screeching things." Seven of the ewes, plaintiff sold to the butcher for £7 1s. 6d., besides the wool. The two surviving lambs might be worth ten shillings each. The thirteen ewes which plaintiff bought elsewhere, (and which had been kept with those he purchased of Mr. Bate) plaintiff said he sold for 35s. 6d. each. The witnesses for plaintiff were, besides himself, George Warning, a workman for Mr. Morshead; John Rowe, a butcher; Abiezer Harvey, farmer; John Veal, farmer; David Scopham, a private in the South Devon militia, who formerly worked for Mr. Bate; and William Ridgman, a veterinary surgeon of Liskeard.—On the part of defendant the witnesses were, Mr. Bate, himself; John Stephens, who worked for him; William Dawe, a travelling draper of Torpoint; Stephen Spettigue, butcher of Calstock; Thomas Skinner, hind for Mr. Brimacombe, of Stoke Climsland; and John Nicholls, a farmer of Linkinhorne. The main question for decision was, whether defendant warranted the sheep sound when he sold them to plaintiff. Plaintiff's evidence on this point was, that defendant said he would warrant them perfectly sound; that he was so satisfied of their soundness, that if his father was living he should not have them a penny under; and that he wished plaintiff “good luck" a dozen times. On the other hand defendant swore that he gave no warranty or guarantee of soundness, when he sold the sheep, and that no guarantee was asked for. He also said he never saw any of his sheep "coaded." The two witnesses, Stephens and Dawe, were called to support defendant's evidence that there was no warranty given by him. On the part of plaintiff it was stated by witnesses that there was marshy ground on Wickslade, the farm from which the sheep were sold by defendant, and that such ground tended to produce the "coad."' Mr. Harvey, whose father and uncle formerly occupied Wickslade, said he knew they had many sheep die there, but he did not know the cause of it. On the other side, for defendant, Mr. Spettigue, a butcher of Calstock, stated that he and his father had bought sheep of defendant for the last forty years down to 1852, and had never found any of them coaded.—Mr. Thomas Skinner, hind of Mr. Brimacombe, of Stokeclimsland, stated that in September, 1853, he bought a score of ewes of Mr. Bate, which had 14 lambs the first year, and there was no disease in them; they kept them the second year because they liked them so well. He picked those ewes out of Mr. Bate's whole flock, and saw no symptoms of rot at the time; he also handed in the weights of five of them when they were killed.—Mr. John Nicholls, a farmer of Linkinhorne, had had sheep of Mr. Bate and fed them; they did exceedingly well, and he never had any complaint of any rot or coad in them.—On other points there was conflicting testimony, viz., as to the age of the ewes when sold, and the price given for them, plaintiff stating that he gave 28s. 6d. each, and defendant stating the price at 27s. 6d. As to the condition of the sheep when killed, it was stated by Mr. John Veal, farmer, and by Mr. Ridgman, of Liskeard, veterinary surgeon, that they must have been affected more than two years by the disease before they were killed.—The learned JUDGE, in summing up the case, said there were two questions for the jury to consider, first, whether the defendant warranted these sheep on the sale of them; and secondly, whether in their judgment, that was a true warranty or not. Their verdict, he apprehended, would depend principally, or entirely, on the view they took of the first question, because there did seem to be much difference of evidence with regard to the sheep in question being diseased, so that, if a warranty was given, it could not have been true in fact. Warranties were of two kinds; if a man warranted sheep as sound at the time of sale, it was perfectly immaterial whether he knew them to be sound or not at that time. If they turned out to be unsound, though he was ignorant of it at the time of sale, and perfectly innocent of any misrepresentation on the subject, he must stand to the consequence of his declaration that they were sound. That was the case of an absolute warranty, but there might be a warranty of a more qualified character, when a man says, “they are sound as far as I know,—l know nothing to the contrary;” with such a warranty as that, it would be necessary to show that the seller knew they were unsound when he sold them. The warranty, however, set up by the plaintiff in this case was of an absolute description, namely, that the defendant warranted the sheep to be sound. There were two witnesses on the part of plaintiff, who spoke with regard to warranty, himself and the witness Rowe; whilst, on the part of defendant, there were three witnesses who, more or less, spoke to a denial of the warranty, namely, the defendant himself; Stephens, and Dawe; and their evidence would have to be contrasted with the evidence for plaintiff. After remarking on the statements of these witnesses at considerable length, the learned Judge shortly noticed the evidence which showed the diseased state of the sheep after they were in plaintiff's possession; and next he passed on to the question of damages, which the jury would have to consider, supposing they found for the plaintiff. Good sheep, it had been stated, would have fetched 32s. or 33s. each, but the plaintiff made only £7 1s. 6d. of those he bought of the defendant. There was also the loss of wool, in consequence of the disease, to be considered; and some amount to be reckoned for lambs, all having died but two, and those two being worth only £1. The jury, after considering the case about twenty minutes, returned a verdict for the defendant. The JUDGE asked upon what issues they had decided. The FOREMAN said, they were not satisfied that there was a warranty; they had not discussed the other point, as to whether the sheep were sound at the time of sale. The JUDGE said they must also consider the other issue; the first point they had decided as to the warranty would give the defendant the verdict; but upon the second issue would depend the question of costs. The jury then, after further consideration, found that the sheep were partially diseased at the time of sale. Verdict for the defendant on the first and third issue; for the plaintiff on the second. The case lasted between six and seven hours. MORSHEAD v. COOMBE.—In this case the record was withdrawn. TREMBATH and WIFE v. HOSKING and WIFE.—Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. M. SMITH and Mr. COLERIDGE: attorney, Mr. PAYNTER. For the defendant Mr. COLE; attorneys, Messrs. MILLETT and BORLASE. This was an action for defamation of character, to which the defendants pleaded not guilty. Mr. M. SMITH said the plaintiffs were William Trembath and his wife Mary Trembath, who lived at Trevilley in the parish of Sennen, near the Land's End; William Trembath renting an estate of about £100 a-year belonging to a relation of his, besides having a small farm of his own. The defendants were John Hosking, a farmer living near plaintiff, and Barbara his wife. The two wives are first cousins and it was to recover damages for slanderous expressions used by Mrs Hosking against Mrs. Trembath, that the present action was brought. On the part of plaintiff, it was represented that a few years ago Mrs. Hosking was summoned before the magistrates and fined 2s. 6d. and expenses for trespassing on Mr. Trembath’s farm, and taking heath for a broom; and that the statements which had now been circulated by Mrs. Hosking in reference to Mrs. Trembath, were put forward with a malicious intention, and in revenge for her having been summoned before the magistrates. The occasion on which the statements alluded t4o were circulated by Mrs. Hosking was the following:—that on the 2th of January last, Mrs. Trembath had her pocket picked, in the Penzance market, of 23s. of which she gave information to the police. On the same evening, Mrs. Hosking was riding home from Penzance in a market-cart with Mrs. Hicks, who lives in St. Just, when she asked Mrs. Hicks if she had heard anything about Mrs. Trembath. On Mrs. Hicks replying that she had not, Mrs. Hosking said she saw Mrs. Trembath going through the Green Market at Penzance, between two policemen; that she went with the policemen from Mr. Cornish's to Mr. Dennis's shop, when the door was shut, and one of the shopmen came out and said to those outside, there was no entrance for people for a short time. She also told Mrs. Hicks that she heard Mrs. Trembath was accused of stealing a coat. William Oats, a miner, and Thomas Oats, also gave evidence of what Mrs. Hosking had said in their hearing about Mrs. Trembath. Thomas Oats I said he saw her on the 28th of January, at Mr. Letham's house, when Mrs. Hosking said to him there are thieves here, and thieves at Penzance. Oats asked her what she meant, and she said William Trembath's wife had stolen a little coat from Mr. Dennis's at Penzance. Oats said, if that were so, she would have been laid hold of in Penzance. Mrs. Hosking then said, money would clear her from this just as it had before. At another time, at Letham's house, Oats said he heard Mrs. Hosking say Mrs. Trembath had stolen feathers seven years ago, and it cost her father £50 to clear her from it. Ann Nicholas gave evidence of what Mrs. Hosking said to Mrs. Trembath, when charged with circulating reports about her. Policeman Wallis, of Penzance, stated that Mrs. Trembath did not walk through the market with the police, and that he never heard of any charge against her. Mrs. Trembath said the same, and that there was no truth in any one of Mrs. Hosking's statements about her. Mr. COLE addressed the jury for the defence, submitting that the reports of which Mrs. Trembath complained, were only some women's gossip at Penzance; that there was no malicious feeling on the part of Mrs. Hosking; that she only repeated what she had heard others say; and that it was an attorney's action for costs. He also called Alexander Letham, who stated that Mrs. Hosking never said anything at his brother's house about Mrs. Trembath having stolen feathers seven years ago, and that it cost her father £50 to clear her. He thus contradicted the witness Thomas Oates (sic); and Barbara Hosking, in her evidence, said she never uttered such words as Thomas Oates had stated. She asserted, however, on cross-examination, that she did see Mrs. Trembath walk through the green market between two policeman, with Ann Nicholas behind her, though in this she was contradicted by three witnesses. She said she heard a report at Penzance that Mrs Trembath had stolen something, but when she mentioned it to others she did not believe it; she could not say from whom she had heard the report. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH, in replying on the part of plaintiff, said vindictive damages were not sought, and that if Mrs. Hosking had made an apology, and contradicted the report she had circulated, this case would not have been brought into court. The learned JUDGE summed up, and told the jury, if they thought the plaintiff was entitled to damages, it was not, in his opinion, a case for considerable damages, but for a moderate amount. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £1. The Court rose about nine o'clock. CROWN COURT. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26. (Before Mr. Justice Crowder.) JANE ALLEN, who was found GUILTY yesterday of stealing various articles the property of Thomas Williams, of St. Clement, was sentenced this morning to Twelve Months Hard Labour. HENRY FAULL, convicted of unlawfully wounding Cornelius Harford, at Phillack, by firing a gun at him, was sentenced to Nine Months' Hard Labour. WILFUL MURDER, AND SENTENCE OF DEATH. HANS HANSEN, late a soldier in the German Legion, was indicted for the wilful murder of Charles Jacobi, a soldier in the same Legion. The prisoner is thirty-four years of age, and was stated on the calendar to be by trade a stocking-weaver. When placed at the bar, and indeed throughout the day, he did not appear to exhibit anything like nervous feeling, though on some occasions, when the witnesses were giving evidence, he seemed to display more than usual anxiety. Being a Dane, and not understanding the English language, but having a knowledge of German, an interpreter was sworn to truly interpret and explain the evidence. The interpreter was Captain Carstenstein, of the 3rd Jager (Rifle) Regiment, to which the prisoner belonged. The Counsel for the prosecution were Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Younge; attorney, Mr. Hamley. The Counsel for the prisoner (assigned to defend him by the learned Judge) was Mr. Stock. The following were the jury sworn in the case:—William Teague, foreman, Peter Knuckey, William Rapson, George Stenlake, William Midlyn, Richard Rich, Elijah Ede, Thomas Morcom, Thomas Treliving, William Wadge Davey, Burgess Oliver, and Charles Emanuel Pearse. The prisoner having been asked, in German, by the Interpreter, whether he objected to the jury, or any one of them, said he did not. Mr. COLERIDGE then addressed the jury on the part of the prosecution. He said he had to place before them a case undoubtedly of some difficulty, and a case of great importance, inasmuch as the life of a fellow-creature depended upon its issue; it would therefore demand their most careful and anxious consideration. The prisoner was a soldier in the German Legion, which had been raised to assist the English army in their contest with the Russian armies; and the deceased man was a soldier of the same regiment, which was quartered in the neighbourhood of Maker, near Plymouth.—The learned Counsel then shortly stated the circumstances of the case, which he said was one of circumstantial evidence, and after offering some remarks on the nature of evidence of that class, he called upon the jury to discharge their duty consistently with the oath they had taken, and with the obligations they owed to society. He then called the following witnesses, five of whom gave their evidence in German, which was translated into English by the Interpreter. In the case of the other witnesses, who gave their evidence in English, it was translated into German by the Interpreter, that the prisoner might understand it as the trial proceeded. The learned Judge appeared to have a good understanding of the German language, and several times assisted the Interpreter in translating the more difficult phrases. The first witness called was John Lied who said,—l am a private in the 3rd German Jager Regiment. On Thursday, the 13th March, I was going with Schmeidl, another private, from Kingsand to the barracks, and overtook Hans Hansen. He was with Jacobi; they were not sober. Hansen had a stone, and threatened to strike me with it. They went in the direction of the hospital; Maker is near the hospital. The prisoner had the stone when he left me; it was nearly a foot long, I cannot say the breadth of it. Cross-examined by Mr. Stock.—Hansen took up the stone and came towards me, and said he would throw it at me. I had not said anything to provoke him; in my opinion he was very drunk. As far as I saw, Jacobi and Hansen went away in a friendly manner together. John Hoff.—l was sentinel at the Hospital on the 13th of March; went on duty at six in the evening, and about a quarter to eight, Hansen and Jacobi passed me. Hansen asked me the way to the Fort; I told him to follow the road, and he would meet some one who would show him. Prisoner had a stone under his arm, and was not sober. He said, "I fear no one, it any one comes to me, I will break his head in two." Jacobi proposed to Hansen to go home, and they went away round the road behind the hospital; that was not the way witness had pointed out. Cross-examined—The road they went leads to several places, also to the fort. The nearest village is Kingsand, about a quarter of a mile from where I saw them. Jacobi was not so very drunk as the prisoner. Jacobi went a few steps ahead, and then Hansen rejoined him; they seemed friendly when they went away together. John Geisselbrecht, a corporal in the 2rd Jager Regiment said, I was in Picklecombe Fort on Thursday night the 13th of March, the fort where the prisoner was stationed. I was called on something after twelve o'clock to open the gate, to let in the prisoner; his clothes were smeared a little with sand and earth, and he came without a cap; his hair was over his face, and he looked confused. I asked him where Jacobi was, because he had been reported absent. He said he did not know, he had left Jacobi in front of the village, because Jacobi went back to buy some bread. When he said "the village," he meant Kingsand, as there is no other near. I took him to the guard-room, and he asked what time it was. He also said, if any one came near him, he would beat them and kill them. When he got to the guard-room, he threw himself before the fire and lay down. I saw him the next morning about eight o’clock, when I delivered him over to be taken to head-quarters; I then took his belt from him, and observed there was blood upon it; I did not examine his clothes. CROSS-EXAMINED—Hansen and Jacobi had both been reported absent; it was my duty to put Hansen under arrest when he came in, and I did so. I saw he was still somewhat drunk when he came in. Hansen fell asleep before the fire in the guard-room, in about a quarter of an hour. The blood on his belt seemed as if it was blood wiped over, and the belt was dirty. I gave him over in the morning to the company commanded by Capt. Carstenstein. Leopold Meyer (a German Jew, was sworn in the Old Testament). He said, I am a private in the 3rd Jager Regiment. When the prisoner was brought into the guard-room, on the night of the 13th of March, I asked him where Jacobi was. He said he did not know; that Jacobi went out of the village with him but went back immediately to buy some bread. I asked Hansen where his cap was; he said he did not know, he had lost his way in the woods, and had lost his cap there; he said he was obliged to creep through the bushes, and had scratched his hands with thorns. I did not observe whether he had scratches on his hands. I made no observation to him about the blood before he said his hands were scratched. His clothes were besmeared in several places; I did not notice that they were torn. His conduct was quite different from what it usually is when he is drunk; he scarcely spoke, and when I spoke of Jacobi, he looked on the ground. The following morning he did not drink or eat.—Cross-examined—l only saw Hansen when he was under arrest; he was drunk when he came in. I was there when he lay down before the fire and went asleep; it might have been ten minutes or a quarter of an hour before he went to sleep, that he spoke of having been in the wood. I first heard of Jacobi having been found dead about five minutes after the outmarch of the company, about eight o’clock. William Gregory, a labourer in the employ of the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe, said on Friday morning, the 14th of March, I was going from Kingsand to Maker, about ten minutes or a quarter before seven, and when on the high road my attention was called to something in a field, about 130 or 140 yards distance. I did not see what it was at the time, but went on to Maker, and about 5 minutes afterwards returned to the field, when I saw it was a dead man, dressed like the German regiment. I went to the sergeant, and returned with him to the field, and examined the body a few minutes after seven. The corpse was lying on its back, with the hands up above the shoulders, and the head covered with blood. I saw a wound behind the man's left ear; his clothes did not appear soiled, but there was a large footmark on the left breast. Donald Gillies, quartermaster's sergeant in the 3rd Jagers, said I went with the last witness to the field, and saw the dead body of Jacobi there. His head was covered with blood, and there was a footmark on his breast, but no other mark of dirt on his clothes. I saw a military cap about two feet from the body; I could not tell whose it was. About fourteen feet from the body there was a hedge covered with mud and grass; there was a belt on the hedge; it belonged to the regiment, and was marked No. 5, letter A, the number showing that it belonged to deceased, and the letter his company. There was a stone covered with grass, upon which there was blood and hair. I found the shoulder-strap of deceased's coat lying by his side. Cross- examined—l examined deceased's pockets, in which I found 3s. 4d., a tobacco box, a broken pipe, and a cigar. The cap was the same as Jacobi had worn. Robert Bennetts, a constable of Maker, produced the stone which was found in the field. (It was a large stone, nearly a foot long, weight about 16lbs.) A jacket, cap, and two belts were also produced by the constable, which he received at the coroner’s inquest, but who brought them there he could not tell. (From inquiry made of Serjeant Gillies, the former witness, it appeared that the body, with the articles in question, had been left in the field in charge of Serjeant Collins. The JUDGE asked why Serjeant Collins was not present at the trial; and in consequence of his absence said he could not admit the jacket as evidence.) Frederick Asschenfeldt, surgeon of the 3rd Jager Regiment, said—l made a post mortem examination of Jacobi's body. The head was covered with blood. I had the blood washed off, and then found 3 wounds, one 2 inches long, above and on the side of the left ear; the second wound about half an inch long, below the left ear; and the third one inch long, on the left lower jaw. The scalp of the skull, about the left ear, was separated from the skull to the extent of about 2 square inches. There was no fracture of the upper part of the skull. I then opened the skull, and found the brain full of blood, and a considerable quantity of extravasated blood in the sinus of the brain. With the exception of this, the brain was in a sound condition. After removing the brain I found on the base of the skull, on the left side, close to the part which contains the inner ear, a fracture, owing to which a considerable flow of blood had issued from the ear. The left cheek bone was entirely forced out of the socket; the lower part of the left jaw-bone broken; and several considerable contusions on the right side of the head and cheek, but no fracture. I am of opinion that death had been caused in a violent manner, by some heavy instrument. I attribute death to the injuries I perceived. Only a blunt instrument would produce such wounds. There is blood and hair upon the stone; it is human hair; I know the colour of Jacobi's hair; that on the stone is, at least, very much like it. I examined the hands of the prisoner on the morning of the 14th, by order of the commanding officer; there were no wounds or scratches on them. The belt now produced was the same as I saw at the Coroner's inquest.— Cross-examined—When I first saw the stone there were many hairs on it, now there is only one; it had every appearance of being human hair. I know it is very difficult to distinguish human from other hair; I have not used any scientific tests to distinguish whether this was human hair or not. When the stone was first shown to me, the blood upon it was quite fresh ; this was at the coroner's inquest on the 15th. The blood was then dry; there was a thick layer of it on the stone; I did not remove any of it to test whether it was blood or not; that was plain enough. A common hammer would not produce the wounds on Jacobi's head; the broad end of a large hammer would have produced them. It is not very probable that a large heavy stick would make such wounds; to do so, it must be of a peculiar shape and very heavy. Neither of the wounds were mortal, but the violence of the blow which broke the cheek-bone caused a fracture on the base of the skull, and produced death.—Re-examined.—The wounds were made by a rough instrument. Captain Ignace Ziemetski, of the 3rd Jagers, said—l went to Kingsand on Thursday, the 13th of March, between seven and eight o'clock. Jacobi and Hansen were coming out of the village as I was entering it; they were walking together. They were somewhat drunk, but quiet. The next morning I heard Jacobi had been killed. I received an order from the Colonel to arrest Hansen on suspicion of having murdered Jacobi, and I went towards the fort for that purpose. I met Hansen in charge of an escort. I did not tell him the order I had from the Colonel. There was blood upon him at the time, and I said to him, "this is blood, Hansen." He drew back, and said, "I did not kill the man." He said he fell down and his nose bled, which accounted for the blood on his hands and coat. Cross-examined—When I met him it was perhaps half-past eight. I met him about a quarter of a mile from the fort where he had been confined for the night. John Lied was recalled, and the stone shown to him. He was asked if it was such as he saw in Hansen's hand on the evening of the 13th. He replied—l cannot say it was this same stone, but it was such a stone as that. This concluded the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Stock proceeded to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He said it was at the desire of his lordship that he appeared for the prisoner, who was a poor, friendless foreigner, charged with the greatest crime that is known within the compass of our laws. He hoped to satisfy the jury that the charge was nothing more than a case of suspicion against the prisoner. Some of them, perhaps, might have been present yesterday, when he was asked whether he would be tried by a jury of Englishmen, or by a jury to which he was entitled, of half Englishmen and half foreigners speaking his own language, and who might be supposed to have some feeling in his favour. He chose to be tried by a jury of Englishmen, and from that choice, , he (the learned counsel) thought the prisoner would not suffer.—Mr. Stock then remarked upon the circumstances of the case, telling the jury they must dismiss from their minds any consideration of belts, jacket, and cap, which had been produced, but the connection of which with the case had not been established by evidence. As to the stone, the jury would take it into their hands; it was 16 lbs. weight, and could it be believed that the prisoner had been carrying that stone about for hours, on the evening the man was killed. The witness Lied said, he would not say it was the same stone he saw in the prisoner's hand, but it was similar. It appeared the stone produced in court was found about fourteen feet from the body, and it was alleged, that upon it there was blood and human hair? The surgeon of the regiment believed it to be human hair because it was the colour of Jacobi's; but he had not examined it with the microscope, or applied any tests, such as are laid down in scientific books, to distinguish whether it was human or animal hair. Taking the fact of the hair singly, it would never do in a court of justice to come to a conclusion on such evidence as had been given upon it. Then as to the blood, there were many things which might be mistaken for it, but no test had been applied to distinguish whether it was really blood on the stone, or if it was, whether it was animal's or human blood. They were, therefore, not entitled to draw the conclusion that it was human blood, much less that it was the blood of Jacobi. The stone in question was found on the hedge amongst the grass, about fourteen feet from the body; but though the surgeon considered it might produce such wounds as were found on Jacobi's head, he yet admitted that such wounds might be produced by the blunt end of a large hammer, or by a heavy stick. Something was said of the wounds being caused by a rough instrument; he (the learned Counsel) submitted that they might have been produced by a broad end of a hammer, or the rough end of a heavy stick, as well as by a stone. If such a heavy stone as was produced were only let fall upon the head of a man, it must have produced a much more extensive wound than was found on the head of Jacobi. How much more so if used with all the violence of a man when intending to destroy life; instead of producing three such wounds as were found on the head of the deceased, one two inches, the other half an inch, and the third an inch long, with the fracture of the cheek bone; it would have crushed in the man's whole head, would have smashed the skull, and destroyed almost the semblance of a human head. It was hardly possible, he submitted, to realise the idea, that wounds so small in extent could have been produced by such a stone. But even if they were, it was perfectly immaterial to the prisoner, unless it was shown that he was the man who used it. Evidence was given that he was seen carrying a stone; that he was walking about with the deceased that evening, and was on perfectly good terms with him, never threatening or having the slightest dispute with him, although he used threatening language to one or two others, as drunken men sometimes do. After that, he arrived at the fort, and was put under arrest because he was not there in proper time. One witness said he had no cap, his hair was over his eyes, and he looked wild. Was there anything extraordinary in his losing his cap, and looking as he did, considering that he had been very drunk that evening, and was still drunk when became to the fort at midnight. Another witness said his conduct was different from what it usually was when he was drunk; but that he (the learned Counsel) submitted was drawing rather a nice distinction; and because it was further said that the prisoner looked on the ground, were they to infer from that, that he was the murderer of Jacobi? Again, it was stated that he fell asleep before the fire in about ten minutes; and was that like the the (sic) confusion and agitation of a man who had just committed a dreadful crime? Something was said about his not eating his food, and surely a man when placed under arrest, might be sufficiently anxious to mar his appetite. It appeared that when he came to the fort he had blood on his hands. Now when blood has stained a man's clothes there might be a difficulty in getting rid of it; but there was no such difficulty with regard to a man's hand. The prisoner might have gone to the first ditch and have washed off the blood; could it then be believed, if he had committed murder, that he would have gone to the fort with blood on his hands, to be observed by the soldier who placed him under arrest, to be observed in the guard room, and to be observed on the next morning. It might be thought a strong fact, that the prisoner accounted for the blood on his hands by saying he had lost himself in a wood and scratched them, when in truth they were not scratched; and that on the next morning he accounted for it by saying his nose had bled. If the prisoner had been as sober in the night when he came to the fort, as he was next morning, more might be thought of these varying statements. He (the learned Counsel) submitted, however, that this was only cause for some slight suspicion against the prisoner, and could not be treated as more than that. Captain Ziemetski had said that he was told by his commanding officer to take Hansen into custody on suspicion of the murder; that he met him about a quarter of a mile from the fort, under escort, at about half-past eight; that he said to him, there was blood upon him, upon which he drew back, and said " I did not kill the man." This might be a suspicious fact, if they could come to a positive conclusion that no communication had been made to the prisoner before Captain Ziemetski saw him; but he (the learned Counsel) had no doubt it was known at the fort that the body was found, before the prisoner left the fort under escort; and that was the reason of his answer to the captain. Lastly, Mr. Stock proceeded to argue that no motive for committing the crime existed on the part of the prisoner. He and Jacobi were friendly up to the last moment, and there was no evidence of the prisoner having plundered his property, the sum of 3s. 4d. having been found in the dead man’s pocket, which considering the habits of common soldiers was quite as much as they might generally be expected to have. Supposing, however, the evidence showed that the prisoner killed Jacobi, the conclusion would be irresistible that he killed him through some sudden quarrel; that they had some dispute, perhaps a fight, and that he destroyed him when under the influence of passion at the moment. If that were so, it would reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter. But he (the learned counsel) did not put it on that ground; he submitted, with confidence, that the evidence did not bring home to their minds, as reasonable men, the proof that the prisoner had committed either the crime of murder or that of manslaughter. He believed that on full consideration on the facts of the case, it could not be considered more than a case of doubt and suspicion; and if that were so, the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of any such reasonable doubts, by giving him a verdict of acquittal. The learned JUDGE summed up the case at considerable length, and with great care and minuteness. He said he had requested the learned counsel (Mr. Stock) to defend the prisoner, and he need hardly say, after the address they had heard, that the prisoner had been most ably defended. Though a foreigner, he had therefore had most efficient assistance in defending himself against the present most grave and serious charge against him. The learned Judge then read over the evidence, and remarked thereon. He said it appeared that the deceased must have been killed by somebody with whom he had not any particular struggle; there was no part of his dress soiled, nothing appearing upon him except the footmark on his breast; it therefore appeared that he must have been murdered. If the evidence was such as to lead the jury to the conclusion that the stone found was that which caused the injury and the death of deceased, and that that stone was seen in the hands of the prisoner at the time he was with Jacobi; and if they came to a satisfactory conclusion that the prisoner had blood upon his hands, and upon his dress, which was not accounted for by the statements he made, and undoubtedly they were different statements; more especially if they arrived at the conclusion, that before he knew of the death of Jacobi, he said to Captain Ziemetski, he did not kill the man,—the whole of that would be a strong body of evidence indeed, on which it was the province of the jury to say whether or not they were satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner. They must arrive at their conclusion with a strong and reasonable certainty. Absolute certainty in the case was unfortunately impossible, but they must have that species of reasonable conviction in their minds which leaves no reasonable doubt. If they arrived at a conclusion without a reasonable doubt, they would say he was guilty; if they could not arrive at that conclusion without a reasonable doubt, they would say he was not guilty. Before the jury retired from the box, they requested that the surgeon should be re-called. In reply to the jury, the surgeon stated that when he saw the body, it had been dead some hours; what number of hours he could not tell. From the injuries sustained, death must have been instantaneous. The jury retired from the court at a quarter past two, and were locked up till twenty minutes to four, when they returned into court to ask a few questions. The Foreman asked—"Before the prisoner met Captain Ziemetski on the road, had the murder of Jacobi been reported at the guard-room or barracks, so as to be known by the prisoner?" The JUDGE said there was no precise evidence on that point, but, at the request of the jury, he re-called the witnesses Geisselbrecht and Meyer. The former said, as far as I remember, the news of Jacobi's death was heard of at the fort after Hansen had left under escort. He could not have been very far when the men from the ration fatigue came back and told of the death of Jacobi. Prisoner here said (in German) that Sergeant Camper brought the news to the fort. Geisselbrecht was then asked by the Judge, if he knew of Sergeant Camper coming to the fort to mention the death of Jacobi? He replied that he did not remember any such thing. The Jury then asked if any one else had access to the guard-room between the time that Jacobi was found dead, and the time that the prisoner left the fort under escort? To this Captain Carstenstein replied, that he commanded at the fort, that he took the prisoner out of the guard-room himself, and put him under escort of a sergeant and two privates, and that before prisoner left, he (the captain) had heard nothing of Jacobi's death. Soldiers had access to the guard-room. Neither of the escort were now in court. Leopold Meyer said he did not know that Jacobi was dead before the prisoner left the fort. He was in the guard-room that morning from five till eight with the prisoner (the body having been discovered about seven). Five soldiers were also in the guard-room, and a great many of the soldiers of the fort came in to see what had become of Jacobi. The JUDGE—Amongst those men, was there any rumour or report of Jacobi's death. Meyer—l did not hear any one bring in such a report, but it was supposed Jacobi had fallen down and killed himself, or fallen into the water. The JUDGE—Was it said he was dead? Meyer— We did not know where he was. The jury then again retired from the court, and at a quarter past five returned, having been three hours considering their verdict. The prisoner having been again placed at the bar, the Clerk of Arraigns said— Gentlemen, have you agreed,—do you find Hans Hansen guilty or not guilty? The FOREMAN—GUILTY. The INTERPRETER then stood up, and stated to the prisoner that he was convicted of the murder of Jacobi, and what had he to say why judgment should not be passed upon him. The PRISONER, who appeared greatly moved, replied (in German)—I have not done it. The JUDGE then put on the black cap, and passed sentence as follows:—Hans Hansen, the jury, after a patient investigation of your case, have found you guilty of the dreadful crime of murdering your comrade, Charles Jacobi, and in their verdict I entirely concur. By the law of England, and by every law, divine and human, your life is forfeited. The consolations of religion will be afforded you in prison during the short period of your existence on earth. I entreat you to devote your few remaining days of life to the earnest endeavour to reconcile yourself to your offended Maker. I can hold out no hope to you of pardon in this world; you must ask for mercy where alone it is to be found after death. And now it only remains for me, in the discharge of my painful duty, to pronounce the awful sentence of death; and this is, that you be taken from this place to the place from whence you came, and from thence to a place of execution, and that you there be hanged by the neck till you are dead, and that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall be confined after your conviction; and may the Lord have mercy on your soul. The words of the Judge were repeated in German to the prisoner by the interpreter. The prisoner was strongly moved, and made exclamations in his own language whilst the Judge was passing sentence. The interpreter was much affected by the discharge of his solemn duty. The court was greatly crowded throughout the day, and a large number of persons outside were unable to obtain admission.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following report relevant to the above case was published in the Royal Cornwall Gazette of 11th April: HANS HANSEN. This man, convicted at the Cornwall Assizes of the wilful murder of Carl Jacobi, a fellow-soldier in the German Jagers, was to have been hanged on Monday last; and, waiting the awful event, the convict gave himself up to penitence and prayer, to reading the Bible and other religious books in German, and to receiving spiritual advice. The Rev. Theophilus Clarke, Master of the Bodmin Grammar School, being a German scholar, was much with him. Throughout the period of his confinement since sentence of death, and with the full expectation that that sentence would be carried into effect, he persisted in declaring that he did not intentionally kill his comrade, and that the latter was not dead when he left him. It appears that others besides himself took the same view of his conduct. Among them, Mr. Preston Wallis, solicitor, of Bodmin, who most energetically and judiciously applied himself to the task of endeavouring to obtain for the prisoner a remission of his sentence. For this purpose Mr. Wallis incurred much personal labour, and directed the exertions of others, in obtaining information in support of an application to the Home Office, in Hansen's behalf. Eleven also of the jury, who tried Hansen, signed a memorial to the Home Secretary, which was presented through Dr. Michell, one of the members for Bodmin. The Memorial was based on the opinion that the evidence at the trial offered no proof of motive for the commission of murder, and that the death of Jacobi was caused by an unpremeditated act on the part of Hansen; and therefore the memorialists, on re-consideration, felt that their verdict should have been one of manslaughter.—On Friday last, the convict received a respite of his sentence; and on the following day a reprieve, and a commutation of the sentence of death to transportation for life. He was greatly affected on receiving the first announcement of the mercy so unexpectedly shown him, and we are informed, fell prostrate in the cell. He was then removed from the condemned cell; and in his altered position, continues to deport himself with propriety and seriousness.—The public of the neighbourhood were not generally aware on Monday that the sentence had been commuted; and in the course of the forenoon considerable numbers entered the town, in the hope of witnessing the execution.] The Court then proceeded with the trial of the following case:— JOHN CARNE, who had been relieving officer of the St. German's Union, was indicted for stealing and embezzling the moneys of the guardians. Mr. POULDEN and Mr. YONGE appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. COLERIDGE defended the prisoner, against whom there were three indictments, but only one was tried. He was relieving officer of the southern district of the Union, comprising six parishes, and was in the habit of paying about £5,000 a year in small sums for the relief of the poor. He had been relieving officer from 1819 to the early past of 1855. The allegations were, that he had charged 15s. 8d., on the books, as having been paid to a pauper called Sarah Stephens, when in fact be had not paid her that money; and that he had acted in the same way with regard to another pauper called Morcom. There were not only these wrong entries, but there were alterations proved to have been made after audits. From circumstances also which were deposed to, it was contended that the matters charged could not have been the result of mistakes (which was the defence set up by Mr. Coleridge). The Rey. Dr. Fletcher gave the prisoner a good character up to the time of these charges against him. The jury found him GUILTY, but recommended him to mercy on account of his previous good character. NISI PRIUS, Wednesday, March 26. (Before Serjeant CHANNEL). PETERS v. PETERS.—Counsel for plaintiff, Serjeant Kinglake and Mr. Kingdon; for defendant, Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Coleridge.—ln this case the parties were brothers,—sons of the late Mr. John Penhallow Peters; the plaintiff being Mr. Joseph Peters, the elder brother, and the defendant, Mr. John Penhallow Peters.—It appeared that after various transactions between the parties, they, in February I848, agreed to refer certain matters in dispute between them concerning the Crigmurrian property, to the arbitration of Mr. William Mansell Tweedy; who, in May 1848, awarded that John Penhallow Peters should pay to Joseph Peters a sum of £1150, by certain named instalments, terminating at 18 months from the date of the award; and the plaintiff in his declaration, stated that this amount had not been paid.—To this the defendant pleaded that at the time of the agreement to refer, there was no dispute as to any legal, equitable, or moral claim, and that therefore the award was void.—The pleadings having been opened by Mr. Kingdon, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH addressed the jury at considerable length, giving a history of the differences that had arisen between the parties to the present suit, by way of introducing reasons, other than technical and legal, for the defendant declining to be bound by the award. He then called and examined the defendant. At the end of his examination in chief, a long consultation took place between the counsel and attorney in the case; and the result was, that the parties agreed that a verdict should be given for plaintiff, damages £800, subject to terms, which were not stated publicly.—The jury, by direction of the court, returned a verdict accordingly. MEREDITH v. MARTIN.—This Special Jury case concerned, we understood, the right to a water-course. Numerous witnesses had been in attendance daring the Assizes, awaiting its trial; but, at an early hour this morning, it was made a remanet; thus, of course, adding greatly to the costs of the litigation it involves. MULLEY v. SHARPE and OTHERS, which appears in the Cause List, has not been tried. The Nisi Prius business of the Assizes thus disposed of, Serjeant CHANNEL, at about half-past 11 this morning, proceeded to hear criminal cases. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN.—ANN CARTER, 33; ANN COX, 41; and ELIZABETH PASCOE, 32; all described as of “no occupation," were indicted for having on the 9th of February uttered a counterfeit half sovereign to Jane Shears, at Penryn, well knowing the same to be counterfeit. In a second count they were charged with uttering a counterfeit half-sovereign on the 10th February, to Mary Simmons, at St. Gluvias.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; the prisoners were undefended.—Jane Shears deposed:—l am a niece of Mr. Daw, a dealer in potatoes and apples at Penryn. I was at my uncle's stores on the 9th of February; Ann Carter came and bought a gallon of apples for 8d.; she gave me a half-sovereign, and I gave her 9s. 4d. in change. She then went away, and I afterwards gave the half-sovereign to my aunt, Mrs. Daw. Since my aunt has been in Bodmin she has been taken very ill, and is unable to be moved from bed; she is attended by Mr. Ward, surgeon.—The learned JUDGE allowed Mrs. Daw's examination before the Committing Magistrates to be read; in it Mrs. Daw stated that in the forenoon of the 9th of February, Jane Shears gave her a half-sovereign, which she found to be counterfeit, and delivered it to Richard Reynolds.—Elizabeth Webber. I am in the service of Mrs. Daw; I was at my master's stores on the 9th February, and saw the half-sovereign, and observed that it was a bad one. I afterwards went with Reynolds in search of the prisoner Carter, and found her with the two other prisoners in a public-house at Falmouth. Reynolds took out the counterfeit half-sovereign and asked Carter if she knew it; she said it was a sovereign that she changed at Penryn. I said that was false, and that nothing but the half-sovereign had been changed at the Stores that day. After that, Caddy the constable came and Reynolds gave him the half sovereign.—Richard Reynolds—On the 9th of February I was coming out of Daw's stores, and saw the prisoner Carter go in. At that time the other two prisoners were standing about 10 yards from the gateway, on the opposite side of the road, talking together. I afterwards went again to Daw’s stores and was shown a counterfeit half-sovereign, and had it given up to me. I afterwards went with Elizabeth Webber to the public-house at Falmouth.—(This witness confirmed the evidence of Elizabeth Webber concerning the visit to the public-house, and added :—l said I wanted my master's money, and Elizabeth Pascoe said to me—"I will pay you the money if you will destroy the half-sovereign." I said l should I not do that until I had sent for the police. She borrowed a half-crown from Ann Cox, and then gave me four half-crowns; and I delivered the half-sovereign to Caddy, the policeman, who broke it in two. I put the 10 shillings in my pocket to carry to my master.—Caddy, policeman, gave evidence confirmatory of that given by last witness, and produced the two pieces of the broken half-sovereign.—Mary Simmons, deposed:—l am the daughter of Mr. Simmons who keeps an Inn at St. Gluvias. Between 5 and 6 o'clock in the evening of the 10th of February the prisoner Ann Cox came to the house and had two pints of beer and a noggin of brandy, for which she gave me a half- sovereign and I gave her 9s. 5d. change; she then went away and returned again between 8 and 9; and Carter and Pascoe came in afterwards and they all three remained together in the same room. Cox afterwards slept in the house; the two others went away. I afterwards discovered that the half-sovereign was bad, and I gave it to Evans the constable.—George Evans, the constable produced the half-sovereign.—Mrs. Louisa Rogers:—I live at the Red Lion Inn, Penryn. On the night of the 10th February, the prisoners Pascoe and Carter slept in my house. The next morning I saw Carter in the kitchen; Jarrett, the police-constable came there and charged her with passing bad money. When Carter left with the policeman, I saw my servant Amelia pick up from the floor under the chair where Carter had been sitting, a piece of paper containing a counterfeit half-sovereign which I gave to Jarrett, in about 5 minutes afterwards.—Amelia Tincombe confirmed the evidence of last witness, adding that she had swept the floor of the room that morning, and at that time there was nothing on the floor; and no person was in the kitchen that morning besides the woman Carter.—Alfred Hipwood Jarrett, policeman, produced the half-sovereign handed him by Mrs. Rogers.—William Murrey, silversmith of Liskeard, proved that the three half-sovereigns produced were all counterfeit, and all of one mould.—The jury found all the prisoners Guilty on both charges; and they were sentenced to nine months' hard labour, each. ARTHUR GREEN, 27, labourer, ELIZABETH MORSE 25, charwoman; and DINAH STEPHENS, 16, servant; were indicted for stealing six tame fowls the property of Simon Matthews, of St. Pinnock, on the 7th January.—There was a count for felonious receiving.—Mr. Kingdon conducted the prosecution.—The prisoners were undefended.—The jury, in accordance with the tenor of the learned Judges summing up found a verdict of ACQUITTAL, in respect of all three prisoners. JOSEPH NEWTON, 30, labourer, and HENRY BOND, 36, waterman, were charged with breaking and entering a gig-house of John Melchizedek Rogers, at St. Stephens by Saltash, on the night of the 1st January or early the following morning, and stealing four geese, the property of the said John Melchizedek Rogers. There was a count for felonious receiving. Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; Mr. Saunders defended the prisoner Bond; Newton was undefended. John Melchizedek Rogers, the prosecutor, stated that he was a farmer living at Shillingham near Saltash, and had a gig-house in the courtilage; on the 1st of January he had four geese locked up in the gig-house; and on the 2nd of January, he found that the lock of the gig- house had been broken open and the geese were gone.—William Rogers, son of the prosecutor, stated that he locked the 4 geese in the gig-house about 4 o'clock in the afternoon.—George Dout, who at the time of the robbery, lived in the parish of St. Stephens by Saltash, and was working on the railway. He deposed:—On the 3d of January I was at the Ferry Inn, at Antony Point near Saltash; I was having a glass of beer there, and the two prisoners were there. When I left, Newton told me to stop, and said he wanted to speak to me. I said I was going home to supper and would be back in a few minutes. I went away and returned, and when I came back I found Newton and Bond there. I had some beer with them. As I left the room with intention to go home, Newton followed me out to the door, and asked me if I could keep a secret, I said, yes, I can. He asked me that question, and I answered it two or three times ; at last I said “if I could not keep a secret, I would draw a razor across my throat. He then said he wanted to meet with such a man as me, who knew something about the farm yards, to look round and see what ducks, fowls, and geese were there, and to let him know on Friday or Saturday evening; he said his name was Joseph Newton, and lived at No. 3, Boot Lane, Devonport, where he kept a shop and sold beer, and could put away as much as 20l. worth in a week. Newton also said that Bond kept a barge, and that he went with him, and they could fetch poultry away without any person knowing any thing about it. He said to me:—have you heard anything about the geese and fowls stolen the other night. I said, “I think I heard a sound of it." He said, "I broke the lock and stole the 4 geese at Shillingham, and also the fowls from Tor. I went away then; and afterwards went back again to the public-house and saw Newton and Bond leave together. I afterwards went to Mr. Brown, the landlord, and told him what Newton had told me.—Joseph Brown:—l keep the Ferry Inn, at Antony Passage. Bond and Newton were at my house in the afternoon of the 3rd January, and I was drinking with them. Dout came in in the evening, and sat down alongside of them. I had known Bond 20 years; he used to work a boat, and now a barge; I asked him if that man (Newton) was now his mate; and he said he was.—l remember that after they were gone, Dout came and made a statement to me; in consequence of which I went to Mr. Rogers at Shillingham.—Louisa Byford stated that she lived at No. 17, Dockwall Street, Devonport, and that Bond lodged there with a woman who passed as his wife.— On cross-examination, this witness made a statement which told eventually greatly in Bond's favour. It was to the effect that at the time when search was made, (as by evidence of next witness) at No. 17, Dockwall- street, Devonport, she (Byford) had left that house, and had no actual knowledge that Bond was then in occupation of any portion of the house.—Richard Bray, constable of St. Stephens, stated that on the Monday after the 1st of January, he went with two other constables to No. 17, Dockwall-street, Devonport, and there found a woman called Jane Tamlyn, whom he had formerly seen with Bond, but not lately. He informed her that he had a search-warrant, and searched the room which it was said had been occupied by Bond, and found part of a roasted goose in a dish, with fowls cut up, and 5 wings of geese which he took possession of. There was also a man's blue serge frock with feathers about it; and a woman's dress lying at the same place with the wings.—Afterwards Bond was apprehended, and as I was conveying him on the steamer to prison, I heard him say to some person who had asked him a question which I did not hear:—"It would have done very well if the old b—r had not split.—l afterwards went to the house where Newton lived “No. 3, Boot Lane, Devonport," and there found part of a goose that had been roasted, a great many pieces of fowl, and what I judged to be a piece of raw goose, and a bag that had many feathers about it, lying on a heap of feathers in the corner of the chamber. I took those things and brought them away.— Richard Prynn, with his fellow constable, apprehended Newton, and on searching him found on him two keys which he gave to Lynham.—William Rowe , a bargeman on the Tamar stated that Bond worked a barge called the “Two Johns,” belonging to Mrs. Simmons. Richard Lynham stated that he received two keys from Prvnn, and on the 8th of January, went to search on board the barge “Two Johns," lying in Stonehouse Pool. He found many feathers, both below and on deck—poultry and goose 'feathers, and a padlock without a key. He found that both the keys which had been given him by Prynn corresponded with the padlock.—Bray, the constable, produced the five wings; one of which was identified by the prosecutor as having belonged to one of his geese; he was enabled to identify it by his mode of cutting the wings of his geese, and he could also swear that the colour of the feathers was the same as that of one of the geese he had lost on the 2nd of January. Verdict, Bond, NOT GUILTY; Newton, GUILTY. —A previous conviction was proved against Newton; he having been convicted at the Devon County Sessions February, 1855, of stealing poultry—Sentence—18 months' hard labour. JAMES BOND, 32, labourer, was indicted for stealing two sheep, the property of Mr. William Maynard, farmer, in the parish of St. Sampsons, otherwise Golant. In a second count, he was charged with killing two sheep with intent to steal the carcass; and in a third count, with stealing a quantity of mutton. There was also a count for felonious receiving mutton.—Mr. Bevan conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence.—Attorneys—for the prosecution, Mr. T. Commins; for the defence, Mr. Hamley.—The case occupied a considerable time; but the limited space at our disposal, owing to the report of the Trial for Murder, prevents our noting more of it, than that the case of circumstantial evidence on the part of the prosecution, was met by an alibi defence, which proved so far successful, as that the jury found the prisoner GUILTY, only on the count for felonious receiving.—He was sentenced to Nine months hard labour. NICHOLAS POLMEAR, 10, charged with stealing a quantity of timber, the property of John Smith, his master and employer, was ACQUITTED.—Mr. Bevan conducted the prosecution; Mr. Cole the defence. ______CROWN COURT, THURSDAY, March 27. The following Prisoner(s) received sentence this morning:— WILLIAM PEDDY, who had pleaded GUILTY of stealing, on the 16th of February, 3 bags, a bed sheet, and a clothes line, the property of William Quiller; and 46 lbs. of rope, the property of Messrs. Sharpe and Sons, at Liskeard; was sentenced to Four Months hard labour. CROWN COURT. Before Mr. Justice CROWDER. WILLIAM ROOSE, WILLIAM BROWN, RICHARD MOORMAN, and THOMAS MITCHELL, on bail, were indicted for assaulting Warwick Guy and William Thomas, whilst in the execution of their duty as constables, at Endellion, on the 31st December.—Roose and Brown pleaded GUILTY; and against the other two the prosecutors offered no evidence, and, consequently, under direction of the Judge, the jury returned a verdict of acquittal.—Mr. BEVAN, who appeared for the prosecution, stated that he was instructed by the prosecutors to say that as their only object in instituting proceedings had been to ensure for themselves protection in the discharge of their duty, and as they had no vindictive feeling against the defendants, they would be quite satisfied if the Court would call on them to give security for their good behaviour in future.—The learned JUDGE then addressed to Roose and Brown some observations by way of admonition and warning, and ordered them to enter into recognizances of 20l. each to keep the peace towards all her Majesty's subjects, and to appeal to receive judgment when called on. SENTENCE ON JOHN CARNE.—JOHN CARNE, relieving officer of the St. Germans Union, who, on Wednesday had been found guilty of stealing and embezzling the moneys of the Guardians, received sentence as follows:—John Carne, the offence of which you have been convicted is one of a very grave and serious character. It is matter of deep regret that a person of your condition should be brought to stand at the bar to receive the judgment of this Court for the commission of a felony. It seems you have been in a place of trust and confidence, and that you had an excellent character, which was believed to have existed unimpaired up to a late period. Investigations however have brought those who investigated the matter to the conclusion that for some considerable period of time, going back for some years, you have not been honest,—that you have had opportunities afforded you of large sums of money passing through your hands, and have had temptations to swerve from the paths of honesty, and to pilfer small sums from time to time. It is almost impossible that it can be ascertained with certainty to what extent that may have been done; because the paupers from whom you have withheld money die and pass away, and therefore proof against you in such cases is impossible. There have been several brought forward. Three cases were tried before the Jury; and on these you were convicted. The Jury, having heard the very high character you maintained for a considerable period, and having observed that these sums were small, have recommended you very strongly to my merciful consideration. I am always anxious to listen to the recommendation of a jury and to carry it out as far as possible. With respect to the smallness of the sums, that is a matter as to which it would be hardly right that that recommendation should take effect; because it is with small sums that you deal—an enormous number of very small sums; and in each indictment only three of those small sums can be put; and before the jury came these three very small sums. The jury, however, were induced to think that, on such a small matter you were entitled to merciful consideration, and also because of your good character. But men in your condition are persons of character.—I have reason to believe, from what I have heard, that although you, necessarily, deal with large sums and are in a place of very great confidence, you are by no means considerably paid; but that, on the contrary, the pay you receive for this, which is a situation of very great trust, is not what one might expect a person to receive who is entrusted with large sums. It has not come before me with certainty what they pay.—l think it is highly probable, that, being rather under-paid, you have been led into temptation and have thus carried on this course, which has been carried on to a serious extent. Those Books are required by Act of Parliament to be kept with the very greatest accuracy. Those very large sums come from all the parishioners and go to the Poor through your hands ; and unless the greatest accuracy be observed, there must be defalcations impossible to be ascertained. You tampered with those books. That tampering with the books is a very grave offence indeed—scratching out and erasing various parts of them and putting in certain other sums, so as to evade detection if possible. I have endeavoured to take all the circumstances into consideration, and do what the jury have recommended; and I shad impose upon you as lenient a punishment as the circumstances will admit. But it is quite clear that you must receive some considerable imprisonment, which to a person in your situation, undoubtedly, is a very great disgrace. The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned in the gaol of this county for 9 calendar months, and that during that time you be kept to hard labour. JOHN TROON, (on bail), was indicted for stealing a turkey, the property of Nicholas Reed, a farmer, at Perranarworthal, on the 22nd of December.—Mr. Bevan appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Coleridge for the defence.—The prosecutor stated that he had a farm at Polean, in the parish of Perranarworthal; and the prisoner lived about three quarters of a mile distant—at Ponsanooth. On the 22nd of December, about the middle of the day, the prisoner saw his turkeys safe on his premises; and missed one of them the next morning. About three paces from the poultry-house, he saw foot-tracks of a man, which led from thence towards Ponsanooth, where prisoner lived. The nature of the foot-tracks was described by the prosecutor; and his testimony was corroborated by his servant, William Roberts. It appeared that the tracks were not traced nearer than to within 40 or 50 yards of prisoner's house. The learned JUDGE, finding that this was the only evidence against the prisoner, stopped the case, and directed the jury to give a verdict of ACQUITTAL. His lordship observed, that foot-tracks, in aid of other evidence, were very often an important kind of proof; but he could never recommend a jury to find a person guilty only on the evidence of foot- track leading to within 40 or 50 yards of his house. The jury, of course, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The jury were then discharged. LIBERATION OF TWO PRISONERS IN GAOL ON FORMER ORDERS.—MARY ANN THOMAS and ELIZABETH THOMAS were placed at the Bar, for the purpose of receiving their discharge from gaol, on the ground of their having been illegally committed. The particulars of their committal were given on the Calendar as follows:— Mary Ann Thomas, aged 27, tried June 21, 1855. Offence, A common prostitute, wandering in the public streets, and behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner, at the borough of Truro, 3 calendar months' hard labour; and also, for want of sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, 12 calendar months' imprisonment, to commence at expira- tion of first sentence. Elizabeth Thomas, aged 21, tried June 21, 1855. Offence, A common prostitute, wandering in the public streets, and behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner, at the borough of Truro, 3 calendar months' hard labour; and also, for want of sureties to keep the peace, and be of good behaviour, 12 calendar months' imprisonment, to commence at expiration of first sentence. The learned JUDGE, addressing them, said:—Mary Ann Thomas and Elizabeth Thomas, you are sisters, I suppose. You have been imprisoned, both of you, I find, from the 21st of June. You were put in prison for being disorderly persons, wandering about as prostitutes; both of you, I understand, have been very-well known as such in that place; you had a punishment awarded to you, of three months—a very proper punishment for that offence, certainly. I find also that on the same day, you were charged with breaking the windows of Abraham Wellington—both of you; then the Magistrates appear to have ordered that you should find securities, each of you, yourself in £20, and £10 two sureties, for 12 months to keep the peace, and if you did not find these securities, at the end of the three months' imprisonment, you should have 12 months' imprisonment in addition to that. This certainly is an illegal committal, and I shall now discharge you. You have been already in prison six months under this, which is an illegal commitment. But at the same time I discharge you, I warn you to behave better, and to be more orderly, and give up some practices that you appear to have carried on as prostitutes in that place. I am informed you have been very disorderly bad characters. I recommend you strongly to reform your habits; because you will be liable on any act of disorderly and bad conduct to be taken up and imprisoned. At present, I discharge you, because it appears to me you are not now under legal imprisonment. You are therefore discharged. Take care how you behave in future. The two prisoners were then discharged; and thus concluded the business of the Assizes.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 11 April 1856

3. Easter Sessions

These Sessions were opened on Tuesday last, at Bodmin, before the following Magistrates:— J. King Lethbridge, Esq., C.A. Reynolds, Esq. Chairman; R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Lord Vivian. E. Coode, Jun. Esq. Hon. & Rev. J. Townshend D.P. Le Grice, Esq. Boscawen. W. Moorshead, Esq. Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. E. Stephens, Esq. T.J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. F.M. Williams, Esq. W.H. Pole Carew, Esq. N. Kendall, jun., Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. G.W.F. Gregor, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. R. Foster, Esq. Rev. J. Glanville. E. Archer, Esq. Rev. J. Glencross. W. Hext, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. J.S. Enys, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. H. Thompson, Esq. The following gentlemen qualified as Magistrates:— Lieut. Col. Walter Raleigh Gilbert, of the Priory, Bodmin. John White Peard, Esq. of Lanreath. William Bridges Willyams, Esq., of Carnanton. The Rev. Peter Charles Marshall, took the oaths on appointment to the living of Tregony. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. N. Robins, Roche, foreman. — W. Bond, St. Dennis. — J. Bray, St. Dennis. — W. Coplestone, St. Winnow. — H. Drew, Bodmin. — A Hambly, St. Mabyn. — J. Hariss, Alternun. — R.A. Harris, Blisland. — H. Higman, St. Austell. — W. Inch, Lanteglos. — P. Knight, Lostwithiel. — M. Loam, Liskeard. — J. Lovering, St. Austell. — J. Nicholls, Alternun. — E. Parkin, St. Winnow. — R. Payne, Roche. — E. Peter, Davidstow. — G. Pethick, Lanteglos. — H. Pollard, Egloshayle. — W. Runnalls, Blisland. — R. Stevens, Roche. — J. Thomas, Roche. — E. Ward, St. Dennis. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:—Mr. Thomas Westlake, of Alternun; and Mr. George Willcocks, of Egloshayle. The CHAIRMAN delivered the following charge (not transcribed). The Chairman then requested the Grand Jury to retire to their Chamber, and to give their prompt attention to the bills before them. VISITING JUSTICES REPORT.—The Visiting Justices had much pleasure in reporting the satisfactory state of discipline maintained among the prisoners, and the cleanly condition of the wards and dormitories. The court-yards and several other parts of the prison were in a great want of repair, which, however, under the present circumstances it would not be worth while to incur the expense of entering on. COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM.—The CHAIRMAN read some portions of the Statement of Accounts, for the year ending December 1855. It appeared that the total of receipts was 5,595l. 19s. 2d.; and that the expenditure left a balance of 169l. 5s. 11d. in the banker’s hands. The average weekly cost per head was 8s. 8½d. MILITIA STORES.—On the motion of Lord VIVIAN, seconded by Mr. THOMSON, it was agreed to pay to Mr. Joseph Pascoe, of Bodmin, the sum of two guineas for plans and estimate of a store-room for the Militia at Bodmin. CORONERS’ BILLS.—[table not transcribed.] Mr. THOMSON, addressing the Chairman, said—In consequence of the loss of another emigrant ship, with a melancholy loss of life—the Josephine Willis—off Folkestone, in Feb. last, I am once more prompted to call the attention of those around me to the large amount of our bills for inquests and burial fees, attending the loss of the emigrant ship John on the Manacles, in May, 1855. Now, Sir, if my view of the late Merchant Shipping Act (which I have read carefully throughout), is a correct one, the great object of the act appears to me to be to provide for exceptionable cases—that is to protect the public from the inevitable consequences that must result from ignorance, incapacity, and wilful neglect, on the part of the officers or owners of those ships. Well, then, sir, is not this county a part of that public; and why then are our bills to be rejected whilst almost every other claim is admitted and discharged? It is indeed no more or less than obliging us to contribute to the very penalties that are paid by the owners of those vessels to the government. Therefore, this injustice ought to be immediately removed, lest we have another list of bills to pay. For it cannot be lost sight of—that we have 150 to 160 miles of a very dangerous sea-coast around us. I am told we are obliged to pay those bills by a former act. If so, that Act was, I have no doubt, passed when emigration companies and their ships were unknown, and perhaps unheard of; and therefore it ought instantly to be repealed. And, sir, it is almost unnecessary to observe that we cannot be too watchful over our expenditure when taxation has been and is accumulating on us; and, if the bills now before Parliament become law, the burthens on land and household property must be increased. There is—the County Police Bill, the Agricultural Statistics Bill, the Vaccine Bill, the Bill of that remarkable legislator, Lord John Russell for general education, and, last, though not the least, the Government measure for Education of Pauper Children, who are nearly all, I believe, taken care of by the Parochial Schools and Unions. This bill, however, is but a feeble palliative to the ticket-of-leave system—a system that, if it bestows its benefits and blessings on many, bestows also its miseries on many more; as it lets loose amongst the unfortunate children of the poor and needy a considerable number of skilled and able teachers, to lure those children from the paths of virtue to those of vice and infamy. However, “its an ill wind, they say, that blows nobody good;” therefore, I trust that it may hasten forward amongst us, sound National Reformatory Institutions, as the surest, and only means, I believe, of arresting and diminishing the increase of crime around us. For, it is stated by the Rev. Mr. Hatch, the Chaplain to the Wandsworth Reformatory, that there were at the present time in England alone, 150,000 children either criminal, or training for crime. Some conversation on the subject of the early portion of Mr. Thomson’s speech took place between himself, the Chairman, and Mr. Archer. In the course of it, the Chairman mentioned, as a hardship on the County, that it had been called on to pay from 4 to £500, on account of the wreck of the John; a large portion of that sum being for the burial of persons wrecked in the John. who were strangers to this County, and whose relatives were in circumstances to pay for such burials themselves.—The Act of Parliament to which Mr. Thomson had referred made no distinction between emigrant ships and other vessels; and if any change in this respect was desired, the Chairman thought they must look to their friends in Parliament. There being no motion before the Court, the subject then dropped. [GAOL EXPENSES:—not transcribed.] GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—Since my last Report, the prisoners have been, on the whole orderly and well conducted, and consequently, but few punishments have taken place. Several prisoners are daily employed in raising stone, forming roads and building hedges; and I am glad to say they work with great willingness, and since the commencement of the works they have performed a considerable amount of labour. The Governor appended his certificate that the Rules and Regulations for the government of the prison have been complied with, as far as possible. Several of the airing-yards and passages require re-paving, and most of the roofs are in a bad state; some of the floors and partitions of the dormitories require repairs; in other respects the Prison is much in the same state as before reported. —The Comparative Statement showed that at the Easter Sessions last year there were 12 prisoners for trial; at the present Sessions, 8. Since the Assizes there had been one committal under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act. CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS.—Mr. THOMSON said, as one of the Visiting Magistrates of the Gaol, he had to lay a complaint against Dawe, the Contractor for conveyance of prisoners from Liskeard; it was for neglect of a very extraordinary character—the most extraordinary he ever heard of. Mr. Thomson then handed a paper to the CHAIRMAN; and the CHAIRMAN read it, as follows:— "John Millman was committed by Sir W. Trelawny, Bart., and H. M. Rice, clerk, on the 21st Feb. 1856, for stealing a tray, and sentenced to 14 days hard labour; he surrendered at 6 p.m. on the following day, bringing with him the warrant of commitment. The prisoner's account of his being permitted to bring his own commitment is that Dawe the Contractor brought him as far as Moorswater, and then gave him sixpence and the commitment to go on to gaol."—"Mary Ann Rowe, committed by A. Coryton, Esq., and H. M. Rice, clerk, on the 6th of March, 1856, for stealing a purse containing 3s., and sentenced to six weeks hard labour. This prisoner states that she was allowed by Bullen, the Callington Constable, to be at large until the 18th, when she slept at his house and paid sixpence for her bed, and he took her on, the following morning, to Dawe the contractor at Liskeard, from whence she was forwarded to Bodmin by some strange carrier, and brought to the prison by the ostler at the London Inn, at 2½ p.m. on the 19th March, being 13 days after her commitment. Dawe the contractor has applied for receipts for the above prisoners, which the governor has declined to give him. The said prisoners were convicted under the 18 and 19 Vict. cap 126— the Summary Jurisdiction Act. The Chairman spoke of the conduct of the contractor as most unparalleled; and spoke in at least equally strong terms, of the conduct of the Callington constable, in detaining a prisoner so long, before sending her on to prison. Dawe, the contractor, said, with respect to the prisoner Millman, he was taking on his prisoner from Liskeard towards Bodmin in a gig; but, being subject to gout, he (Dawe) stepping out of the gig, fell and hurt his leg; and, being unable to proceed with his prisoner, he paid a carrier for his conveyance to Bodmin prison, and gave Millman 6d. to have something on the road; instead of the carrier taking the prisoner down to the gaol, the prisoner himself voluntarily took down the warrant and delivered it to Mr. Everest (laughter). With respect to the female prisoner, she was brought over from Callington to Liskeard in a van, belonging to a man of Truro named Martin. On the same day he (Dawe) was called away to Plymouth—his daughter being ill,—and he sent on the prisoner, immediately, by the same van by which she had reached Liskeard from Callington, and paid the carrier to deliver her safely at the prison.—Dawe further stated that he had been a contractor since 1842, and had never lost a prisoner, or had any complaint against him; and he appealed to Mr. Everest to corroborate these assertions. Mr. EVEREST said he had never before had cause of complaint against Dawe, but had felt it his duty to report to the Visiting Justices the irregularities now brought under the notice of the Court. The Chairman, Lord Vivian, Mr. Archer, Mr. Carew, Mr. E. Coode, jun., and Mr. D. P. Le Grice, concurred in expressing themselves most strongly on the highly objectionable practice of sending on prisoners to the gaol by other than constables; and several of them spoke equally strongly on the detention of a young female prisoner at Callington by the constable Bullen, for 13 days, instead of sending her on at once to Bodmin gaol. The present proceedings in the matter were concluded by the CHAIRMAN addressing Dawe, as follows:— I am desired by the magistrates to tell you, and, through the Press to tell all other Contractors, that if this practice of sending on prisoners through the medium of carriers or other secondary hands be continued, on the very next occasion that occurs we shall vacate the contract. With regard to Bullen, whom we consider to have been more guilty than you, we shall write to the magistrates of his district on the subject of his delay in sending on the prisoner Rowe. Of course, Mr. Everest will take care not to give a receipt to any carrier delivering a prisoner. BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Jenkin, surveyor for this Division presented his first report:— Tamerstone:—Since the opening of the North Devon Railway, the road over this bridge has become much more important than it was before; and my attention has been called to the floods which, after heavy rain, not only cover the approach roads to a considerable depth, but greatly endanger the safety of the bridge itself, which is of brick and by no means strong. The parish authorities are about raising the road, and the effect of this will probably be to increase the pressure upon the Bridge by narrowing the outlet for the surplus water. This surplus water is occasioned partly by the extremely tortuous course of the river, both above and below the bridge, and partly by a considerable land stream which joins the river directly above it. It has been suggested that a special report should be made on this subject, with a view to relieving it, if possible, before it has sustained any serious damage. It would also be very desirable to ascertain, generally, what power the magistrates have to order the removal of obstructions to the proper flow of water in the rivers when such obstructions endanger the safety of a bridge. Hele Bridges:—There is a sudden turn in the road at the eastern end of these bridges, which at a cost of about 8l. might be very materially improved. Rilla Mill:—The drain ordered by the last Sessions has been put in and the road widened, but as it is not yet quite completed, it has not been paid for. It is very desirable that the parapets of this bridge should be coped with granite; they are low, the place is much frequented, and they are often getting thrown down and damaged. The cost would be about 10l. Lanlooe:—There is a covered drain required on the eastern side of this bridge, from several cottages; it will cost about £4. Trussell:—A portion of the retaining wall of the embankment at the sound end of this Bridge has given way, and it has been inspected by the local magistrates, who have ordered its repair, to the amount of £10. This is now being done, but it will cost from £12 to £13 to complete it in a proper manner, and it will be necessary for the Sessions to order the additional outlay. Pretty much of the remainder of the retaining wall is in a weak state, and may be expected to fall at no very distant period. Looe Bridge:—The Harbour Commissioners have got the stone for the footpath of this bridge, which they are prepared to lay at once, as referred to in Mr. Pease’s report at the last Autumn Sessions. Wenford:—The water-way of this Bridge is insufficient, and I am informed that it is often more or less damaged by floods; it might be increased without much difficulty by forming land arches. Key:—The same remarks apply to this bridge. St. Austell Higher Bridge:—The contractor will require £25 more, on account of re-building and coping the parapet walls of this bridge, as ordered at the Midsummer Sessions, 1854. Work has been done by him to this amount. Lostwithiel:—It is needless to refer to the very unsatisfactory state of this Bridge, it having so lately come under the notice of the Sessions; but I may state that on a recent examination of it, I have found it quite as bad or worse than I had been led to expect from Mr. Pease’s report. It seems to me impossible that it can accommodate the traffic much longer, more especially after the completion of the Cornwall Railway. Lerrin.—The piers of this bridge require under-pinning, and part of the eastern abutment has given way, and must be rebuilt. The cost will not, I expect, exceed £6, if the failing part of the wall can be removed without bringing down the remainder. The Magistrates adopted Mr. Jenkin’s suggestions with reference to Hele, Rilla Mill, Lanlooe, Trussell, Wenford, Key, and Lerrin Bridges, and St. Austell High Bridge. With regard to Looe Bridge, Mr. CAREW suggested that it should be left to the Surveyor to report whether the bridge was wide enough to allow of the Harbour Commissioners making a pathway. The Rev. R. BULLER stated that the width was 16 feet in clear, and the Commissioners proposed to make a pathway of three feet wide. Mr. Buller expressed himself in favour of the proposed pathway, but admitted that the Court of Quarter Session had hitherto opposed its formation. Mr. Carew’s suggestion was adopted. As to Lostwithiel Bridge, Mr. FOSTER fully corroborated Mr. Jenkins’s Report as to the inadequacy of the bridge, and remarked that that would be the more felt, on the completion of the Cornwall Railway. When that Railway is finished, further accommodation at the Bridge would be required; but meanwhile he would suggest that the Surveyer (sic) confine his attention to repairing the surface of the Bridge, and to communicating with the Cornwall Railway Company, so that improvement of the Bridge might be carried out in conformity with their works. (So we understood Mr. Foster).—Mr. ARCHER imagined that the Cornwall Railway would lessen the traffic over the Bridge.—To this Mr. JENKIN replied that the traffic would most probably be increased, because the Railway Station would be on the opposite side of the river from the town. —Rev. J. GLANVILLE made complaint against John Bullen, a contractor for roads and bridges in the Stratton district; who had carted out large heaps of stones and pebbles from the sea, and placed them near Hele and Widmouth Bridges. Bullen had placed the stones there about Michaelmas last; they had been left there from that time, and serious accidents had nearly happened in consequence.—On the 18th of March, after complaint by Mr. Jenkin, at the instance of Mr. Glanville, Bullen wrote to say that every thing had been done that was required. Mr. Glanville reported having seen the places so lately as yesterday, that the stones had not been removed.—It was ordered by the Court that Mr. Jenkin be directed to have the stones broken and spread, and to charge the cost of so doing to Bullen. WESTERN DIVISION OF BRIDGES.—Mr. Hickes, surveyor, reported as follows:— Since the last Sessions I have had the Bridge Roads not under contract put in good repair, and the road at Perran reported by me at the last Sessions as being in a bad state of repair has since then been repaired.— The parapet walls of Gwithian Bridge are in a bad state of repair, and I fear unless they are taken down and rebuilt, they will in a short time fall away.—The arches of Saint Erth Bridge will, I fear, in a few years be inadequate to take the water. The valley through which the stream runs is very flat, and the sand that is brought down by the stream settles under the bridge; the bed of the river below the bridge being not of sufficient depth to carry it off. The report was adopted; the subject of St. Erth Bridge being referred to the magistrates of the District. —The Rev. J. GLANVILLE asked whether the magistrates had power to order the cutting down of wood, above or below a bridge; and alluded to instances where such wood caused the flooding of, and injury to, county bridges, and also at times, rendered them impassible (sic).—After some conversation, the subject was, on the suggestion of Mr. CAREW, left to the consideration of the Chairman and the Clerk of the Peace. —On the motion of the Rev. J. GLANVILLE, it was resolved that Mr. Jenkin be requested to make a special Report with regard to the Cornwall side of Tamerstone Bridge. Mr. GLANVILLE also gave notice of motion at the next sessions for a sum of £20 to carry out the proposed improvements of that bridge. —On proceeding to the AGENDA, the CHAIRMAN read a letter from Mr. Kendall, M.P., expressing regret that he was unable to be present. Tregorrick Bridge.—On the motion of Mr. E. COODE, jun., seconded by Mr. TREMAYNE, Tregorrick Bridge, near St. Austell, was adopted as a County Bridge. THE NEW GAOL.—In the absence of Mr. Kendall, Lord VIVIAN moved the grant of a sum of 3000l. for interior fittings of the gaol. That 3000l. was not included in the estimate given in by the architect; it was for warming, bells and locks, water supply, and gas. As his lordship understood that the Clerk of the Peace had already received tenders for the loan of the sum required, he would also move that, in the event of the 3000l. being granted, this present sessions be at its close, adjourned for a month, with a view to enable the Clerk of the Peace to communicate with persons offering the money, so that the Sessions may be able to complete the arrangements for the loan. The estimate for the building, Lord Vivian added, was 25,000l.; to which must be added the 3000l. now moved for; making a total of 28,000l. payable in 30 years. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH seconded Lord Vivian’s motions; and they were adopted nem. con. ASYLUM.—LORD VIVIAN, (also in behalf of Mr. Kendall) moved the grant of £2000 for the purpose of new buildings and other improvements at the asylum; in addition to £500 already granted. It was understood, however, on the statement of Lord Vivian, that, (for the convenience of the county) of the £2000 now moved for, only £500 was immediately required. Mr. CAREW seconded the motion; and it was agreed to. INSPECTION OF BRIDGES.—On the motion of the Rev. J. GLANVILLE, it was resolved that each of the Bridge Surveyors be expected to visit the several county bridges and bridge roads half-yearly, and to give seven days notice to the Clerks of Divisions of the day and hour of attendance. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JANE BONE, 18, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a sovereign, the property of her grandmother, Catherine Bone, at Redruth, between the 20th of March and the 2nd of April.—Sentence—Two months hard labour. MARY FROST, 20, charged with stealing a gold locket and a silver pendant, the property of her master, John Martin Harvey Cardell, chemist and druggist, Bodmin.—Mr. T. Commins conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—William Thomas Harris, constable of Bodmin, produced the locket and pendant, which he received, on the 22nd of March, from Mr. Broad, watchmaker of Wadebridge.— Elizabeth Cardell, wife of prosecutor, stated that the prisoner came into her service as a domestic servant on the 9th of February and left on Tuesday the 18th of March. Witness saw the locket and pendant in a drawer of her dressing table, at the end of February. Missed the locket on the Monday evening before the prisoner left. The servant had constant access to the room.—John Broad the younger, stated that in the forenoon of the 19th of March, prisoner came to his shop, and asked him to purchase the locket and pendant now produced; and he gave her nine-pence for both.—The prisoner, when called on for her defence, said the articles were given her by a former servant of Mrs. Cardell’s, called Kitty Tremain.—Mrs. Cardell, recalled, stated that a servant named Kitty Tremain left her service on the 28th of February, and was now she believed, in Plymouth.—The prisoner, questioned by a juror said, she had made no effort to procure the attendance of Kitty Tremain as a witness; did not know where she was.—In summing up, the CHAIRMAN remarked that the prisoner when before the committing magistrates, made no statement of her having received the articles from another person; and he also suggested that it was not impossible for her to have procured the attendance of Kitty Tremain. The jury, after some delay, found the prisoner GUILTY. Sentence:—Six months’ hard labour. ROSALIND PENPRAZE, a little girl, was charged with stealing certain moneys and a bag, the property of Elizabeth Martin, at Redruth; and her father, THOMAS PENPRAZE, was charged with feloniously receiving the same. Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; Mr. Childs the defence.—Mr. Shilson stated that the prosecutrix kept a little shop in Redruth, using the shop also as her sleeping room. Between 7 and 8 a’clock (sic) in the evening of the 1st of January, she, having been out, returned, and locked the door, intending to go to bed, almost immediately after she had locked the door, there was a knock and she re-opened it, and the little girl Rosalind Penpraze and an elder sister came in to buy an orange. Before locking her door, Mrs. Jenkin had placed a bag containing 15 sovereigns on the quilt of the bed, intending to take it up afterwards and put it in a drawer. Close by the bed was a chair. The elder sister asked for the orange; and while Mrs. Jenkin served her, the younger sister—the prisoner—sat down by the bed. They had the orange and left; and just after they had gone, Mrs. Jenkin found that the bag and sovereigns were missing. She made search, called her neighbours, and after some little time they went to the house of the little girl’s father— the elder prisoner; who, with the two little girls, returned and searched, but no money was found; but, shortly after they left, the bag was found in the garden just outside Mrs. Jenkin’s house, but the money was gone.—Subsequently, the little girl produced a sovereign at the door, and said it was one of her grandmother’s sovereigns; and it would also be shown that the elder prisoner was subsequently seen with sovereigns.—Mr. SHILSON having opened this case, was proceeding to call witnesses, when Mr. CHILDS objected that the charge of felony against the little girl could not be sustained, inasmuch as she was under 7 years of age.—The elder prisoner repeatedly stated that the child would not be 7 years old till the 9th of this present April; and Tregoning, constable of Redruth, proved that the elder prisoner made the same statement before the committing magistrates.—Elizabeth Penpraze, wife of the elder prisoner and mother of the little girl, was sworn, and gave evidence corroborative of her husband’s statement as to the child’s age.—On this proof the Court held Mr. Child’s objection valid, and directed a verdict of ACQUITTAL. JOHN ROSVEAR, 17, was charged with stealing on the 1st of March, from his master Henry Nicholls, of Sennen, a pair of trowsers and a pair of boots.—The prisoner stole the articles on absconding from his master’s service, and was apprehended with them in his possession at the Britannia Inn, St. Blazey.— Verdict, GUILTY.—Sentence, four months hard labour. The jury were then discharged. JANE ALICE STEPHENS, 18, committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards her mother, Joanna Stephens, at Gwennap, on the 13th of December 1855, was admonished and discharged; no one appearing against her. GRACE GEACH, 22, had been committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards Mary Ann Rowse at St. Austell, on the 8th January.—In this case also there was no appearance against the prisoner; and she was admonished and discharged. ROBERT STEVENS, 54, shoemaker, committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards his wife, Mary Ann Stevens, at Lostwithiel.—The wife did not appear; and the prisoner was discharged; the Chairman however, warning him that if he repeated his ill-treatment of his wife, the Court would take measures to secure the appearance of his wife against him. He has been several times committed for breaches of the peace towards his wife. This concluded the criminal business of the Sessions. —A Bill against Robert Andrew, of St. Blazey, for felony, was ignored. ST. AUSTELL MARKETS AND FAIRS.—Mr. SHILSON, on behalf of the Commissioners of St. Austell Market, submitted for allowance by the Court of Quarter Sessions, Bye-Laws framed by the Commissioners, (under the powers of the St. Austell Market Act) on the 21st January last, for the regulation of the Fairs and Markets. The various Bye-Laws were read; and after customary formal proofs of notice and publication, they were allowed. ST. COLUMB.—The COURT sanctioned a proposed diversion of turnpike road in the town of St. Columb; on certificate by Mr. Willyams, Mr. H.P. Rawlings, and Mr. R.G. Bennet, that the proposed diversion will effect a shortening of distance and an increased accommodation for the public. PARISH OF CARDINHAM.—The COURT also sanctioned the alteration of a turnpike-road in the parish of Cardinham, from New Bridge to New Bridge Hill. The certificate of the justices, Rev. A. Tatham and Rev. J. Glencross—stated that the new road would be much less steep than the old one, and would also cross the Cornwall Railway at a lower level under a commodious arch, instead of crossing on a level with the line. The Court then adjourned. WEDNESDAY, March 9. APPEALS. St. KEVERNE, appellant; Mr. Shilson, and Mr. F.V. Hill. St. MARTIN IN MENEAGE, respondent; Mr. Childs. This was an appeal against an order, dated the 12th January, and under the hands and seals of Christopher Wallis Popham Esq., and the Rev. W. Thomas, for the removal of Anna Maria Dunn, single woman, and Simon, her male bastard child, aged 12 months, from the parish of St. Martin to the parish of St. Keverne.—The first ground of appeal was an objection that there was no jurisdiction in the removing magistrates, inasmuch as there was no proof that complaint had been made before them.—Mr. CHILDS submitted that the statement of the magistrates, to that effect under their hands and seals, on the face of the order, was sufficient prima facie evidence that complaint had been made.—The COURT held with Mr. Childs, and the case proceeded. Mr. CHILDS then stated the nature of the respondents’ case, which was a settlement in St. Keverne parish of the pauper’s father William Dunn, by hiring and service with one John Harry. Generally, a hiring at weekly or monthly wages was held to be a weekly or monthly hiring, as the case might be; but if there was the slightest evidence to rebut that presumption, and hiring would be held to be yearly; and, on the authority of Archbold, he insisted that service at weekly wages, with agreement between the parties that a month’s notice, on either side, would be required to determine the contract, was to be construed as a hiring by the year—the presumption of weekly hiring being rebutted by the stipulation for month’s notice. It would be proved that such was the nature of the service in the present case. The witnesses examined were William Dunn, the pauper’s father, and Henry Harry, now a farmer of Sithney, son of John Harry, builder, wheelwright, &c., with whom William Dunn served. The Court held that the evidence proved a weekly hiring, and quashed the order, with 5l. costs. MAWGAN IN MENEAGE, appellant; Mr. Shilson and Mr. F.V. Hill. ST. ALLEN, respondent; Mr. Childs and Mr. Chilcott.—An appeal against an order by H.P. Andrew, Esq., and W.P. Kempe, Esq., for removal of Louisa Lanyon, widow, and John Henry, her son, aged 7 years, from the parish of St. Allen, to Mawgan in Meneage. Settlement in respondent parish being admitted, the appellant set up a settlement of pauper’s deceased husband in the parish of Cury, by hiring and service with Mr. James Randle, farmer, of Colvenor in that parish. Mr. CHILDS took a preliminary objection to the ground of appeal in which it was alleged that, “in or about the year 1831,” the pauper’s husband, Thomas Lanyon, hired himself to James Randle of Cury,—the objection being that the words “in or about the year 1831” were not sufficiently definite to establish a complete year’s service prior to the year 1834—the date of the Poor Law Act, which abolished settlement by hiring and service. In support of the objection Mr. Childs cited the cases of St. Ann’s Westminster, and St. Paul’s Covent Garden. The Court overruled the objection, and held that the grounds of appeal would enable the appellant to go on. Mr. SHILSON then stated the nature of the appellant’s case—for establishing a settlement of the pauper’s deceased husband in Cury. The deceased being born in 1819 was in or about 1831 hired, by agreement made in his behalf by his mother, to Mr. James Randle of Colvenor, as a yearly servant; and in two subsequent years, he served in a similar way, by fresh agreements made in his behalf by his mother. In support of this case, Mr. SHILSON examined Ann Lanyon, aged 75 years, mother of the deceased Thomas Lanyon; and Samuel Hendy, aged 40, who at the time of Thomas Lanyon’s service with James Randle, was living with his father at Sawanna, within one field of Colvenor, and was in the habit of seeing Thomas Lanyon at labour on the farm; and the COURT, on the evidence adduced, held that the settlement in Cury had been made out. Mr. CHILDS proposed to rebut the evidence of dates by counter evidence. He would show that at the time Lanyon went into the service of Randle, he was of the age of 14 years, and consequently, on the evidence of his birth in 1819, the time of his entering that service was in September 1833, and the conclusion of the year’s service would not have been until after the passing of the Poor Law Act, in August 1834. This evidence of the period of service would be corroborated by an account book, belonging to Mr. James Randle of Colvenor, who would also prove that Lanyon was not in his service more that twelve months. If these facts were substantiated, then the respondent’s case was fully made out; while the appellants could not maintain their case, unless they showed, without doubt, that the alleged settlement in Cury was clearly prior to the passing of the Poor Law Act. The witnesses called and examined for the respondent, were Mr. James Randle of Colvenor; his servant Martha Rogers; and his son Samuel Randle, now living at Stithians. The Court held that the settlement in Cury was gained previous to the statute of August 1834. Order quashed, £5 costs. GWENNAP, appellant; Mr. Shilson and Mr. T. Commins. LISKEARD, respondent, Mr. Childs and Mr. Chilcott.—An appeal against an order, under the hands and seals of Lord Vivian and the Rev. Arthur Tatham, for the removal of Mary Perry, widow, and her two children, John and Charles, aged respectively 6 and 4 years, from the parish of Liskeard to the parish of Gwennap. Mr. CHILDS stated that the settlement in the appellant parish was admitted, as was also the chargeability of the pauper; and therefore, all that he would have to do would be to prove the pauper’s marriage and birth of the one surviving child—one of the two children named in the order having subsequently died. The pauper was the widow (or wife) of one Charles Perry, a miner, who had resided with her in the parish of Liskeard for 5 or 6 years prior to his quitting, two or three years since, for the purpose of going to Australia. He (Mr. Childs) apprehended that the appellant’s case was that the husband’s removal from Liskeard to Australia was not a break of residence in the respondent parish, and that therefore the pauper was irremovable. He believed that neither himself nor his friend Mr. Shilson could adduce any precise decisions on the point; and therefore, he called attention to the early stages of the law by way of showing how the position of a wife was affected in such circumstances. Referring to Archbold’s Poor Law, Mr. Childs said a wife might be removed in the absence of her husband, on the ground that the husband was not residing with her; and on this ground the pauper, in the present case, was removable. But then, by more recent statutes, the wife and family of a man could not be removed, supposing the husband himself, if residing in the parish was irremovable; and this constituted the irremovability of a wife and family in the absence of the husband. In the present case, the respondents asserted that the husband would be removeable from the respondent parish. The statute 9 and 10 Vict. c 66, however, enacted that no warrant should be granted or be of force for the removal of any person who had resided in a parish for five years next before the date of the order. In this case it was admitted that the husband and wife had resided in Liskeard parish for five years previous to the husband’s leaving for Australia. But the period of five years previous to the date of the order was broken by the husband’s departure; and, in order to ensure irremovability, the residence for five years must be without a break. But his friend Mr. Shilson would contend that absence, with an intention of returning, would not constitute a break. To this anticipated objection Mr. Childs replied that in the Cases on which it was grounded, the absence was but temporary. But, in the present case, the pauper’s husband left Liskeard for the purpose of going to Australia; and under these circumstances, it would be for him, on the part of the respondent, to prove that the husband was not resident with his wife. It would them be for his friend to show, if he could, that that absence caused no break of residence, either in fact or in law, in consequence of an animus revertendi in the husband. Mr. Childs contended that, neither in law nor in common sense, was an animus revertendi to be assumed in the case of such absence and distant voyage as in the present instance.—Mr. Childs next anticipated that his friend would argue that the pauper had resided quâ widow—which it would be for his friend to prove. But he (Mr. Childs) contended that residence quâ widow could not be coupled with residence quâ wife; the disruption caused by the husband’s absence prevented the connection of those two periods. Mary Perry, the pauper, was then examined. She stated that she resided at Trevecca, in the parish of Liskeard, and was married to Charles Perry, 8 years ago last January; and had by him, two children, one of whom had died since the order of removal. Her husband left her about two years since, and had not resided with her since that time; he left her in Sept. 1853, and she had not seen him since; she believed that he sailed from Liverpool in October, 1853.—Cross-examined.—Had lived in Liskeard parish 5 or 6 years before she was married; and had lived at Trevecca from her marriage to the present time. Her husband was pretty well off; he left for her some £20 in the Bank, besides other money at home; the rent of the Cottage which she had occupied from the time of his leaving, was 11s. 6d per month. She first became chargeable in October last. Her husband could not write; but she had received letters since her husband left, one of which contained a paper. (It was stated that this paper was a certificate from Australia, of her husband’s death, on the 3rd of April, 1854; but as legal proof could not be given of these documents, the evidence on them was inadmissible.) Mr. SHILSON contended, on the authority of Queen v. Glossop, that it was only necessary for him to prove actual residence for five years in the respondent parish, to render the pauper irremovable. In the present case, the husband had not deserted his wife, or left her chargeable; and she was now not chargeable as his wife, but as his widow.—The statute which had been referred to provided that no person should be removed who had resided in a parish for five years next before the application for order of removal; and he (Mr. Shilson) contended that the pauper had so resided. It was not required that residence should be one of legal construction, but a residence in fact; and on the authority of Queen v. Glossop, residence as a widow might coalesce with residence as a wife. But, in the present case, that was immaterial, inasmuch as there had been sufficient residence by the pauper, prior to the husband’s death, without being then chargeable. If she had become chargeable during the husband’s life time, then the question of break of residence would apply; but it was not applicable in the present case, in which the only question was one of actual residence by the pauper herself, and not that of constructive residence, through her husband. If a widow, she was entitled to connect her residence as widow with her previous residence as wife. If a wife, there was no break of residence occasioned by the husband’s leaving her as he did, with evident intention to return, as shown by the circumstances of the case. It was of no consequence how long was the term of absence, or how far the person went, if there was an animus revertendi. After some remarks by Mr. Childs, in reply to a case cited by Mr. Shilson, the magistrates retired for consultation. On their return the CHAIRMAN said—The Court confirms the order. Order confirmed; common costs; £2 15s. 0d maintenance. The Court granted Mr. Shilson a case on the two points—whether the pauper, as widow, was not irremoveable by reason of her five years’ residence,—and secondly, on the question whether the husband’s absence in Australia, with an animus revertendi, caused a break in his residence. The concluded the business of the Sessions. ______— The following gentlemen qualified as magistrates to-day:—Harry Reginald Salusbury Trelawny Esq.; and William Anthony Glynn Esq, of Boyton in Cornwall, and St. Helens, Isle of Wight. CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS—ln the course of the morning, Bullen, the Callington constable, against whom a charge had been made yesterday, that he had detained a female prisoner in his charge, 13 days after her commitment, before sending her on to Bodmin gaol, appeared in Court; and, in contradiction of the charge, informed the Court that the committal of the girl Rowe, took place on the 18th of March, and not on the 6th, as was stated yesterday; and he on the next day—the 19th, conveyed the prisoner to Liskeard and handed her over to Dawe. Bullen also stated that he invariably conveyed and delivered the prisoners, himself, and did not entrust them to other persons.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette 4th July 1856

4. Midsummer Sessions These Sessions were opened at Bodmin, on Tuesday the 1st instant, before the following Magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., chairman; Sir W.L. S. Trelawny, Bart. F.J. Hext, Esq. Lord Vivian. Thomas Hext, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. F.J. Trist Esq. R. Foster, Esq. F.M. Williams, Esq. C.G.P. Brune, Esq. J.W. Pearce, Esq. A. Coryton, Esq. W.P. Kempe, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. Col. Gilbert. R.G. Bennet, Esq. Rev. Vyell F. Vyvyan. H. Thomson, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. W. Morshead, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. E. Collins, Esq. Rev. J. Glanville. E. Coode, Jun., Esq. Rev. J. Perry. W.A. Glynn, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. Rev. J. Glencross. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. John Nankivell, Philleigh, foreman. — Francis Barrett, St. Austell. — Crispin Brenton, St. Wenn. — James Chapman, St. Erme. — Thomas Coleman, Tregony. — George Ferrell, Gerrans. — Richard Hicks, St. Wenn. — Richard Hayes Hill, Gerrans. — John Hoskins, Perranzabuloe. — John Fletcher Hunkin, Mevagissey. — Charles Jordan, St. Breock. — Thomas Lelean, Mevagissey. — Hugh Littleton, sen., Lanlivery. — Edward Moore, St. Mary’s. — George Pye, Helland. — George Read, Kenwyn. — Joseph Reynolds, Perranzabuloe. — Frank Roberts, Mawgan. — William Rowse, St. Columb Major. — William Sara, Probus. — John Thompson, Newlyn. — John Tredwen, jun., Padstow. — John Tremain, jun., St. Columb Major. The following gentlemen also answered to their names:— Mr. N.C. Stephens, St. Mary’s; Mr. Philip Wheeler, St. Austell; Mr. Henry Williams, Kenwyn; and Mr. Peter Wilson, Padstow. —Rev. Henry Farwell Rose, of Lesnewth, qualified as a magistrate; and the Rev. Thomas Hoskins Britton, took the oaths on appointment to the vicarage of Newlyn in Pydar. —The Royal Proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue and for the preventing and punishing of vice, profaneness and immorality was read; after which the Chairman delivered the following charge to the Grand Jury. (Not transcribed.) VISITING JUSTICES REPORT:—The Visiting Justices reported that the Gaol and Bridewell, with exception of the roofs and pavements, were in their usual clean and excellent order. They could not abstain from expressing deep regret that the building of the new prison had been, and appeared likely to be, delayed by some most unexpected difficulties. Even during the last week, two females—one 16 and the other 11 years of age—had been received into gaol, whom the governor found it impossible to keep in a state of separation. The Governor’s Report had been laid before the Visiting Justices, and they entirely concurred in it. The CHAIRMAN remarked concerning the difficulties referred to by the Visiting Justices, that they were entirely of a legal character, and rendered the borrowing of money for a time somewhat difficult. [CORONER’S BILLS.—Not transcribed] GOVERNORS REPORT.—The Governor felt it his duty to report the continued inadequacy and inefficiency of the present gaol to meet the requirements of law, not only as regards the separation of different classes of prisoners, but also the great want of the necessary requirements of a prison; and such inadequacy and insufficiency could not be cured except by the erection of a new prison.—Attached to the report was a schedule of the number of prisoners in prison; the totals being 78 males, 26 females, and one child; total 105.—The Governor certified that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison had been as far as practicable, complied with. Several of the airing-yards and passages required re-paving; and most of the roofs were in a very bad state. Some of the floors and partitions of the domitories (sic) required repair; in other respects the prison was much in the same state as before reported. [GAOL EXPENSES—not transcribed] The comparative Statement showed that at the present Sessions there were 20 prisoners for trial; at the corresponding Sessions last year 45. BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Sylvanus W. Jenkin, Inspector for the Eastern Division, reported at follows:— Trussell Bridge:—The repairs of the retaining wall of this Bridge have been completed; the cost has not exceeded the £10 ordered by the local magistrates. Looe Bridge:—As instructed by the last Sessions, I have inspected this Bridge, with reference to the formation of a footpath over it by the Looe Harbour Commissioners. A single footpath over a Bridge is always objectionable, both as being exceedingly unsightly and also as tending to throw an unfair proportion of the traffic on one side of the arches, and on this ground I cannot recommend its adoption; it being, I think, always best where a bridge is not wide enough to admit of two footpaths, to dispense with them altogether, and this is done at Wadebridge, where a footpath would appear still more desirable than at Looe. At the same time I am bound to state there is nothing in the case of Looe Bridge which renders a footpath peculiarly objectionable, but the contrary, there being no niches into which passengers can go out of the way of carriages passing. The present roadway is 18 feet wide, and a 3 feet pathway would still leave 15 feet, which although rather bare would probably be sufficient for the amount of traffic that passes over it. Tamerstone Bridge.—As instructed by the last Sessions, I have made a special survey of this Bridge and have taken levels over so much of the approach-road as is liable to inundation. I have also communicated with the local magistrates and with the waywardens of the parish of Launcells. The Bridge consists of two brick arches of 13 feet span, the springing being only 4 to 5 feet above the bed of the river; the area of waterway is about 120 feet through each arch, or 240 feet altogether; that of Bridgerule Bridge, between 2 and 3 miles below and with little increase of water, being 430 feet, is nearly double. The approach-road on the Cornish side for about 10 chains or half a quarter of a mile, is from 2 feet 6 inches to 3 feet under the level of the crown of the arch, and it is over this piece of road that the water principally flows. The overflow of water principally arises from a small cross stream, which, though usually insignificant, becomes very much swollen after heavy rains, and the parish authorities now propose to divert this stream and carry it into the river above Tamerstone Bridge. The effect of this will undoubtedly be to increase the quantity of water that will have to pass through the already insufficient arches of the Bridge, and, as far as I can judge, imperil its safety. I would therefore recommend that, provided the County of Devon would bear its proportion of the outlay, the sum of £20 be offered to the parish authorities to meet the extra expense of carrying this cross stream into the main river below instead of above Tamerstone Bridge, since one or more culverts would in that case be required to carry it under the public road. North Tamerton.—Part of the covering of the land arch of this Bridge has given way, and requires repair; the cost will be about 45 shillings. Poulson:—The iron work of this bridge requires to be scraped, examined, and painted. The Devonshire part will be done at the same time. The cost to this County will be about £8 10s. Some trifling repairs to the Piers and Quay work of Helycott, Greyston, and Clapper Bridges are required; the cost of which will be about £5. Tideford.—The turn at the South end of this Bridge is so sudden that it is almost impossible for a long piece of timber to be carried over it without knocking down the parapet; it can be altered at a cost of about £4 10s. Lerren.—The repair of this Bridge applied for at the last Sessions and referred to the local magistrates has been done; the cost has not exceeded £6, the amount then applied for. Looe Bridge.—The Rev. R. BULLER stated that the inhabitants of Looe and neighbourhood were greatly inconvenienced by the want of a footpath on the bridge, and he strongly urged the magistrates to grant leave to the Looe Harbour Commissioners to make the pathway, the Commissioners being willing to do so at their own expense. If three feet width could not be allowed, a path two feet wide might perhaps be permitted, and that would leave 16 feet for the road way. Lord VIVIAN thought the question could not now be reopened; the decision of the magistrates having been given against a pathway before the building of the Bridge. The CHAIRMAN also observed that the proposal to have a pathway had been originally negatived by the Bench, and the Surveyor reported that it would be objectionable. After some further observations, Mr. BULLER said he saw that the feeling of the Court was against his suggestion; and, consequently, he made no proposition. Tamerston Bridge.—On the motion of the Rev. J. GLANVILLE, seconded by Mr. CORYTON, it was resolved, that on the County of Devon assenting, Mr. Jenkin’s suggestion be adopted, and that sum of £20 be offered to the parish authorities, in the terms of Mr. Jenkin’s report. —The small sums asked for by Mr. Jenkin, for repairs at North Tamerton, Poulson, Helycott, Greyston, Clapper, and Tideford bridges were granted. WESTERN DIVISION.—The Report from Mr. Hickes, Surveyor for the Western Division, was as follows:—“I have much pleasure in stating there are no immediate repairs required to the Bridges or Bridge Roads, in this Division.” —Tregony Bridge.—The CHAIRMAN, referring to a letter he had received on the subject of Tregony Bridge (it was understood, from Mr. Gregor) questioned Mr. Hickes as to the possibility of injury to the bridge, by the removal of sand above it.—From Mr. Hickes’s replies, we gathered that a bank of sand which had formed a protecting barrier had, in part, been removed and sold for masonry purposes; no injury to the bridge had yet ensued, but should the removal of sand be continued to any considerable extent, it would injure the foundations of the Bridge.—The CHAIRMAN hereupon suggested to Mr. Hickes that if he found the removal of sand was continued, he should make a special report so that immediate attention should be called to the subject. —The CHAIRMAN again mentioned a subject which had at the Easter Sessions been brought under notice of the Court by the Rev. J. GLANVILLE, viz., the question whether the magistrates had, or had not, power to compel owners of wood over rivers, near county bridges, to cut it down, in instances where it caused floods and so tended to damage those bridges.—Some conversation on the subject took place between the CHAIRMAN, Mr. GLANVILLE, and the CLERK of the PEACE, together with reference to the act of Parliament bearing on the question; but no motion or resolution was come to. COUNTY GAOL.—In order, we presume, to meet the legal difficulties in the way of proceeding with the building of the New Gaol, before alluded to by the Chairman, Mr. SHILSON moved the Court, to the following effect:—That the Governor having made a Report in writing to the Justices, of the actual state and condition of the present gaol and house of correction, and of the number and condition of the prisoners confined therein; and it appearing to the justices from such report that there is a necessity for the erection of a new gaol; resolved, that the Court do order that such report be taken into consideration at the next General Quarter Sessions; and that notice of such report having been laid before this Sessions, and of the intention of the justices to take the same into consideration at the next General Quarter Sessions, be given by advertisement. The CHAIRMAN explained that the reason of this procedure was, that those persons from whom the County were about to borrow money were of opinion that the original Resolutions on the subject were, what they called, stale, and required to be resuscitated and revivified. That being the case, they (the magistrates) were obliged to begin again de novo. The motion was agreed to; but Lord VIVIAN expressed much regret that the County should have agreed to borrow at so high a rate of interest as 5 per cent.—The CHAIRMAN said, it must be borne in mind the county had borrowed in war time.—Lord VIVIAN replied that he had always been desirous of delaying the work; and he spoke of the reduced rate of interest to be anticipated in a few months. REGISTRATION LISTS.—The CLERK of the PEACE reported that he had received three tenders for printing the Registration Lists;—one from Mr. Latimer, of the Journal Office, Plymouth, for £53 4s. 8d,; another from Messrs. Liddell and Son, Bodmin, £54 10s.; and a third from Mr. Lancaster, of Falmouth, for £45. Mr. Coode stated that Mr. Lancaster was the last contractor, and had executed his work very well; there was no fault to find whatever.—Mr. Lancaster’s tender was accepted. CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS.—The CLERK of the PEACE said he had received one tender, and one only, for the conveyance of prisoners from St. Austell to Bodmin. It was from William Hart of St. Austell, whose offer was for 10s. each single prisoner, and 2s. 6d. for every additional one. Mr. Hart’s last contract was at the rate of 6s. 9d. for a single prisoner, and 1s. 5d. for every additional one.—The tender was accepted. MILITIA STORES.—Sir WILLIAM TRELAWNY stated that at a former sessions the magistrates guaranteed that the stores, in Bodmin, for the accommodation of the Rangers Militia, should be completed. It was now his duty to inform the Bench that they could no longer have the building they had occupied; the lease expired in April next, and the owner of the property, Mr. Mudge, refused to renew the lease. Under these circumstances, search had been made for other suitable property in Bodmin, and but one site could be found; this was a tan-pit, belonging to Mr. Mudge; the owner had said he would take whatever arbitrators would say was the fair value of the property. Sir William believed the property could be had for £1600; and the adjutant told him it was very suitable for the purpose. Lord VIVIAN said he had, by deputation from the Committee, waited on Mr. Mudge on the subject; and Mr. Mudge, to him, expressed his willingness to meet the wishes of the County in any way—either by breaking the lease at once, or by continuing and renewing it. Colonel CORYTON confirmed Sir William Trelawny’s statement, that recently Mr. Mudge had positively refused to renew the lease which expired in April. A lengthy and desultory conversation, very imperfectly audible to the body of the Court, took place between the Chairman, the gentlemen already named, and Mr. Thomson; and the result was, on the Chairman’s suggestion, the following notice, entered and given by Sir William Trelawny:—“That the present lease of Store Rooms &c. at Bodmin expiring in April next, and not being likely to be renewed, notice be given that a committee will be appointed at the next Sessions, to arrange either for the purchase or lease of a new site, and for the building thereon, in compliance with the provisions of the statute; and that, meanwhile, the Clerk of the Peace be requested to inquire of Mr. Mudge, the lessor of the present store-house, if he be willing to allow the regiment to occupy for one year more, in order to give time to the county to mature their arrangements. Sir WILLLIAM TRELAWNY then brought under notice the position of the 2nd Regiment of Rifle Militia at Launceston, with regard to their store-house. At the last Sessions, the Magistrates granted £40 for rental of premises for a year ending November next. (Those premises, it appears, are considered undesirable; one reason being that they are situated near the centre of the town.) Sir William said that spacious and desirable premises could be had, on lease for 14 years, of a Mrs. Cope, at a rent of £40 a year; and Sir William suggested that power should be given to the officer in command of the 2nd Rifles, together with one Magistrate, to sign a lease for the premises on those terms. Lord VIVIAN, referring as at previous Sessions, to an interview which Mr. Robartes, Mr. Kendall, and himself had with Lord Panmure, said he understood that, provision being made for the stores of the two regiments at Bodmin, the War office would make no requirement for the provision of stores by the county at Launceston. It was under these circumstances that the County had granted £40 for one year’s rental only at Launceston, in consequence of the delay of building at Bodmin; and if Sir William desired renewal of his grant, his lordship thought Sir William should give notice for consideration of the whole subject at the next Sessions. He thought it unnecessary to provide two stores in this county. The CHAIRMAN concurred in opinion as to the propriety of proceeding by way of notice for the next sessions, in accordance with the usual sessions practice. Sir WILLIAM TRELAWNY in reply to Lord Vivian’s statement as to the requirements by the War Office, said that he had recently received a letter from Lord Panmure, in which his lordship said he did not wish to disturb the existing arrangements. (These arrangements including stores in both Bodmin and Launceston). After considerable desultory discussion and conversation, the proceedings terminated in a notice, for taking into consideration at the next sessions the renting, for 14 years, more or less, from November next, at a rent not exceeding £40, premises for stores at Launceston. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. On the calling of the Petty Jury, the CHAIRMAN took occasion to say that he wished it was better understood that persons above 60 years should claim exemption from the jury lists, at the Petty Sessions; it was too late to make application when at the Quarter Sessions. RICHARD HICKS, aged 20, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a pair of cord trowsers, the property of Thomas Duggua, at Padstow, on or about the 10th of June. (Sentence: four months h.l.) ELIZABETH TREBILCOCK, 40 of no trade, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a portion of a ham, the property of Silas Ellery, at St. Columb Minor, on the 27th May. (Sentence: two months h.l.) JOHN STRONGMAN, 44, farmer, charged with having, on the 17th April, at St. Columb Major, found a purse containing monies, amounting to about 35 shillings, the property of Joseph Osborne, and feloniously appropriated the same to his own use.—Mr. J. Basset Collins conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—Joseph Osborne, the prosecutor, deposed that he was at St. Columb market on Thursday the 17th of April; and had a knitted purse in his pocket, containing from 25s. to 30s. Had occasion to use it, about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, when he purchased some seeds at Mr. Best’s stall. There were several persons standing by at the time. About half-an hour afterwards he missed his purse; and, in consequence of some information from a man called Harris, went with him out of the town, to a garden where Harris found the purse, and called out the prisoner who was in the house to which the garden belonged. Harris said to prisoner:—“This is the person who lost the purse you picked up, in the Town.” Prisoner said he did not pick up any such thing; it was an old rag he picked up. Harris said it was a purse. Prisoner said it was only a bag with a marble in it. There was 35s. in the purse when he (witness) lost it. Witness produced from his pocket a knitted purse, which he said was of precisely the same kind as the one lost.—cross- examined:—The garden where they found the prisoner was his sister’s. Prisoner offered to be searched; and said he had given the marble-bag to a boy in the town. William Harris stated that he saw Osborne at Best’s stall, with prisoner standing near; and when Osborne passed on, prisoner stepped forth, picked up the purse and said “tis a purse of money.” Witness said “is it a purse of money?” and the prisoner then said “Hallo, ‘tis a marble”; and put it in his pocket. It was a knitted purse, of the very same kind as the one prosecutor had now produced. (Witness then corroborated the evidence of previous witness as to the finding the purse, and the prisoner at the sister’s garden.) Cross-examined.—There were a good many people standing about in the market-place; but not close by. When prisoner said “there is a purse,” it was lying on the ground; after he had taken it up he said “Oh, no, ‘tis a marble-bag,” and then went away.— George Burston was standing with the prisoner in St. Columb Market, at the time in question; it might be 20 feet or more from Best’s stall; while standing there, prisoner said “there’s a purse of money;” witness saw him take up a purse, and as he lifted it, witness saw it contained money, and said “it is money.” Prisoner turned from him; and witness saw what was apparently a coin—a halfpenny or a half-crown—in the purse. Prisoner made no answer. Witness turned to him and said “What is it, Strongman?” and he answered “nothing but a marble.” The purse was a knitted one, like the one produced to day by the prosecutor. Mr. SHILSON, to the Court, objected that there was no evidence of felonious taking to go to the jury; it being laid down, by Lord Hale, that without animus furandi there could be no felony; and in recent cases, that where property was found, unless there were circumstances to show that at the time of the finding there was some reason to induce the finder to believe that the owner could be found, he could not be held guilty of felony. He submitted that, in the present case, there was nothing to show who the owner was, because there was no mark on the property, and there was no proof that the prosecutor had lost the purse. It was clear the prisoner had no felonious intent when he took the purse; for before he took it up he pointed it out, and said “there’s money in it.” If he took it without animus furandi, a subsequent conversion to his own use would not constitute larceny. The Court held that the case should go to the Jury. Mr. SHILSON then addressed the Jury, urging the same points as he had submitted to the Court, and commenting on the evidence, as bearing out his view. The CHAIRMAN summed up; finally submitting the following questions for consideration by the jury:— 1st. Were they satisfied the purse in question was the purse which prosecutor lost? 2nd. Did the prisoner take it, believing that the owner could not be found? If so, they would find him Not Guilty. 3rd. If he took it, believing that, with reasonable exertions the owner could be found, then he would be guilty of larceny. The Chairman suggested that the Jury should consider these questions seriatim; and he submitted to them the first question. They were not satisfied that the purse was the same which was lost by the prosecutor.—This was, of course a verdict of NOT GUILTY; and the prisoner was discharged. WILLIAM COAD, 24, miner, indicted for having, on the 26th of June, feloniously broken and entered the dwelling house of Samuel Truman, at Smeaton, in the parish of Pillaton, and stealing therefrom a watch, chain, and three keys.—The case was one of minute circumstantial evidence, and resulted in a verdict of NOT GUILTY. WILLIAM JEFFERY, 21, labourer, pleaded GUILTY of feloniously embezzling the sum of £8 9s. 6d. the property of his master, John Derry, of Egloshayle, on the 18th of February. (Sentence: six months h.l.) JOHN PERROW, 16, miner, pleaded GUILTY, on two indictments, of stealing a coat, pair of trousers, waistcoat, and pair of stockings, the property of Walter Whitehair, at Par Consols Mine, on the 8th of May; and stealing a pair of boots, the property of John Lorey, at Great Hewas Mine. (Sentence: two months h.l.) WILLIAM VINE, 19, miner, charged with stealing a cap, a pair of stockings, a sovereign, and a shilling, the property of John Cavill, at St. Blazey, on the 7th of June.—Mr. Bishop conducted the prosecution.—The prosecutor and prisoner were miners, fellow-lodgers sleeping in the same bed, at a lodging kept by Martha Pine, wife of William Pine, at St. Blazey Gate.—The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but expressed an opinion that it was improper to leave property about, as the prosecutor’s had been, throwing temptation in the way of young men. (Sentence: six months h.l.) WEDNESDAY, July 2. S E C O N D C O U R T. (Before Edward Coode, jun., Esq.) JAMES ADAMS, 35, labourer, (late a soldier in the Royal Devon and Cornwall Miners Artillery Militia) was charged with stealing a coat, a pair of doe-skin trousers, a waistcoat, and a cap, the property of Frederick Montrose, at Truro, on the 28th of May.—Mr. J.B. Collins conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Frederick Montrose:—I am a tailor lodging at Mr. Carnegie’s in Truro; I was in my bedroom there in the afternoon of Wednesday the 28th of May, and had a suit of clothes there, consisting of black coat, doeskin trousers and waistcoat, and cap. I went out, and on my return about 7 o’clock in the evening, I found that my suit of clothes was gone, and a suit of militia clothes was left instead. I had seen the prisoner once—on the previous Sunday afternoon—at Carnegie’s house.—Grace Williams:—I was working at Carnegie’s on Wednesday the 28th May. In the afternoon, the prisoner came there; I was the only person there, and he asked me if I had any thing to give him to eat; I told him there was nothing, and if there was, I could not give it to him, as I was only a work-woman. I fetched a noggin of brandy for him; and after that I went out and was absent about 10 minutes, leaving him alone in the house; when I came back, he was gone.—William Woolcock, policeman of Truro:—On the evening of the 28th of May, I had information of the prosecutor’s loss; and on the Saturday evening following I saw the prisoner; he was wearing Montrose’s suit of clothes, with the exception of the waistcoat. He came to me and said he had come back with the suit of clothes, and that he was drunk or should not have done it. I took Montrose’s suit from him at the Station house, and gave him back his uniform which I had got at Carnegie’s house. (This witness produced the clothes, which were identified by Prosecutor).—The Prisoner, in defence, said that when he went to the policeman he told him that he had been to Carnegie’s, to give back Montrose’s clothes, but found nobody home.—In summing up, the CHAIRMAN told the jury, if there was any doubt in the case, it was as to felonious intent; he could not, however, suggest any doubt on that point.—Verdict, Guilty. (Sentence: three months h.l.) ELIZA TRAER, charged with stealing two silver tea-spoons, the property of Joseph Tonkin, at Truro, on or about the 10th of April.—Mr. J.B. Collins conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Mary Tonkin deposed: I live at Truro, and had some silver tea-spoons which I kept in a drawer in my bed-room; they were marked J.M.T. About the beginning of April I missed two of the spoons, and saw them again a few weeks since in the possession of Mr. James. The prisoner and her husband lived in the same house with me; prisoner was in the habit of coming in and out of my rooms, and might have had access to my bed-room without my seeing her.—Eleanor James:—I keep a pawn-shop at Truro; on the 10th of June the prisoner came and offered two silver tea-spoons to pawn; they were marked J.M.T. Having previously received notice of the loss of spoons by Mrs. Tonkin, I referred to the notice and found the description to correspond. I therefore told the prisoner I must detain the spoons, but if she could come again and satisfy me they were her property, it should be all right. I handed the spoons to my son to take to Mrs. Tonkin, and he brought them back to me, and I afterwards gave them to Pappin, the policeman.—George Pappin, P.C., on the 10th of June received two tea spoons from Mrs. James, which he now produced, and they were identified by Mrs. Tonkin. The prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrate was read:—“I never took the spoons from Mrs. Tonkin’s house; my child brought them to me.” The policeman, in reply to a question from the Jury, said the child was about 5 or 6 years old.—Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: three months h.l.) ELIZABETH ANN ROBERTS, 13, pleaded Guilty of stealing a sovereign and a half-sovereign, the property of William Letcher at Ladock, on the 30th of May. (Sentence: one month h.l.) JAMES COLMER, 16, and WILLIAM TRATHEN, 16, miners, were charged with breaking into a warehouse, at St. Blazey, on the 16th of May, and stealing a desk, an account book, about 5s. worth of silver and pence, and some printed notice bills, the property of John Onless and Peter Ormont.—There was a second count for stealing. Mr. Childs conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—John Onless deposed that he was a native of Guernsey, and was a merchant residing at Plymouth, in partnership with Peter Ormont; they dealt in potatoes, and in May last had a store under St. Blazey Market-house; in the store was a desk containing the articles named in the indictment. About 8 or 9 o’clock in the evening of the 16th May he locked up the store; and between 11 and 12, in consequence of receiving some information, he went to the store and found that the door was open, and that the desk was gone with everything in it. Had seen the prisoners near the store that day; had frequently seen them about there. Saw footmarks between the store and a garden near. Went to the constable and apprehended Trathen, and found that the footmarks corresponded with his shoes. Near the window that had been broken open, found an iron bar. Afterwards, a man called Williams went down a shaft, and brought up pieces of the desk which witness had left in the store, and the hand-bills. The desk was one that witness had borrowed of a man called Batten.—Edward Batten stated that he lived at St. Blazey and was employed by prosecutors to sell potatoes, and he lent them a desk for the purpose of keeping their accounts in. On the evening of the 16th of May, about 11 o’clock, on going towards his home, he saw the door of the warehouse wide abroad, and he went to Mr. Onless, at the Packhorse, and told him of it. They went and examined the premises, and found outside an iron bar, with which it appeared the window had been forced open; the doors were open from inside, and the desk was gone. Witness had locked up the desk in the evening, and had left in it about 4s. 10d. in money, an account book, a money-bag, and some printed notices of sale of potatoes.—Wm. Williams, miner, at St. Blazey, on the morning of the 19th of May went down a shaft at St. Blazey Consols mine, about 200 yards from the store, and found at the bottom pieces of a broken-up desk, and some printed papers, which he brought up and gave to Werry, the constable.— Wm. Werry, constable, on Saturday the 17th of May, apprehended the two boys. Onless drew witness’s attention to foot marks leading to the store; observed Onless take a shoe from Trathen and compare it with those footmarks, and they corresponded very nicely. Witness also gave evidence of his having been at the top of the shaft when Williams searched below, and of having there received pieces of a desk, and printed notices brought up by Williams. These articles the witness produced, and they were identified by Batten. Witness also produced a bar of iron, which was identified by Mr. Onless as the one he had found outside the store. It was also identified by the next witness, William Medland of St. Blazey, who stated that the bar was his property; the day before the robbery, he had seen it in its place, in a garden, outside a window of the upper market- house; there were footmarks on the earth, close to where the bar had been placed.—On Cross- examination, he said the garden belonged to a Capt. William Stephens; it was not a thoroughfare, but was a rather public place—any person might go there.—Edward Merrifield, constable of St. Blazey parish, had the prisoners in custody for a time, for Werry. While they were in witness’s custody, they began chatting with some of their companions, and, by way of caution, he told them to consider him the greatest enemy they had; after that caution, and without any inducement or threat held out, Trathen said he would not have done it for £20—that he supposed it would be a £5 job, and he would give 50s. to get out of it. Colmer was present at that time, but did not say anything. Some evidence proffered, in the course of the case for the prosecution, of statements made by the prisoners, was excluded, after an objection by Mr. Shilson, on the ground of threat and inducement held out by the prosecutor, Mr. Onless, who, being especially desirous to get back his account book, threatened the boys that if they did not tell where it was he would “give it to them;” but, if they told him, he would not care about getting back the money, and would not go further with the charge. For the defence, Mr. SHILSON at first urged that there was no evidence at all affecting Colmer.—With this view the court concurred, and directed a verdict of acquittal as to Colmer. On behalf of Trathen, Mr. Shilson contended that the evidence was insufficient to justify conviction; he particularly adverted to the lack of proof as to the mode in which the foot-tracks were compared; and also to the fact that there was no evidence as to the circumstances or conversation that preceded Trathen’s statement to Merifield, and consequently they could not say to what that statement referred. The CHAIRMAN carefully summed up the evidence, and the jury found Trathen GUILTY; (Sentence: six months h.l.) Colmer, NOT GUILTY. The CHAIRMAN, addressing Colmer, said:—“You have had a narrow escape; from what we have heard to day we have reason to believe that but for the prosecutor’s ignorance of our law in respect to prisoner’s statements, you would not have been acquitted.” When these two prisoners were arraigned, they both pleaded guilty; but they were advised to withdraw their plea, and the result is, that Colmer who confessed himself guilty, has been found “not guilty, legally;” though it is said his guilt was really greater than that of his less fortunate companion. HANNAH OLIVER, 22, pleaded GUILTY to two indictments, charging her with obtaining money by false pretences from Grace Moore, at Bodmin: in the one case, 2s. on the 11th of December; and in the other cases 5s. on the 13th of December. (Sentence: three months h.l.) This concluded the business for the Second Court; and the Jury was discharged. ______Before J. KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq. WILLIAM EMMETT, pleaded GUILTY of stealing six sovereigns from the person of William Spargo, at Truro, on the 15th of May last. (Sentence: six months h.l.) STEALING BRASS.—THOMAS HENRY MARTIN was indicted for stealing five brass bearings, the property of Messrs. Freeman. There were three counts in the indictment; the first for stealing the bearings as fixtures in land; the second for simple larceny; and the third for receiving, knowing the property to have been stolen. Mr. CHILCOTT conducted the prosecution, Mr. SHILSON the defence. William Opie said he is foreman to Messrs. Freeman, who are granite merchants, and work Carnsew quarry in the parish of Mabe. There are cranes at the quarries for lifting the stones. The brass bearings are placed in the iron castings to support the gudgeon or axle of the wheel; they are confined to the castings by iron plates and nuts. The brasses are in two pieces, the outside ones easily taken off, on removing the plates and nuts; the inside ones cannot be taken off without removing a wheel 5 or 6 cwts. On the 23rd of April, when witness left the quarry at six in the evening, the crane was perfect. On the morning at 8 o’clock, witness saw the nuts and plates lying on the ground; three halves and one pair of brasses were gone. He gave information to Mr. Freeman. Some time afterwards, Jarrett, the policeman, brought brasses to witness, when they tried them with those at the crane, and they fitted exactly. Cross-examined.—The brasses are upon a cast-iron frame. The shaft and jib of the crane are wood, and the shaft is fixed in the ground, bound with iron; the shaft is 23 or 24 feet high.—John Charles Lanyon said he is an ironmonger at Redruth. On the 5th of May last, about seven in the evening, prisoner offered him for sale a great many pieces of brass bearings, some perfect, others broken. Before witness made any remark he put the brasses into the scales, so that he got fair possession of them. None of the brasses were half worn out. He then questioned prisoner, who said his name was Thomas Martin, jun., from Stithians, and that the brasses were given to him by James Martin, a carpenter living near Stithians Methodist Chapel, who requested him to carry them to Mr. Lanyon’s for sale. Witness replied, “Well, I shall keep those brasses; I will give you a receipt in wiring to take back to James Martin, and I will make inquiries.” I gave him the receipt to show James Martin how he had disposed of the brass; he was to come to me at the end of the week and bring James Martin with him, and I told him I would then pay him if I was satisfied the brasses were rightly obtained. He and Martin did not come at the end of a week or afterwards, and witness handed over two of the brasses to police-constable Jarrett, first marking them so as to identify them. On cross-examination, witness said prisoner’s father was a small farmer, and a very respectable man. Witness attended an inquiry before the magistrates at Penryn, on the 29th of May. Prisoner was there, but was discharged on recognizances to appear again, as there was then no county magistrate present to go into the inquiry. On the 3rd of June there was an inquiry into the case. Re-examined—On the 29th of May, prisoner was charged at Penryn with stealing other brasses, not those connected with the present case.—James Martin, carpenter, said he lives near the Stithians Methodist Chapel, and knows the prisoner. He never authorised him to take brass bearings to Mr. Lanyon for sale. Cross-examined—He had known the prisoner from a child; did not know that he was weak in his intellect.—Anthony Jarrett, policeman at Penryn, received five entire brasses, in nine pieces, from Mr. Lanyon, and on comparing them, with Mr. Opie, at the crane, found them to correspond and fit with remaining brasses. For the defence, Mr. SHILSON submitted that the indictment had not been supported by evidence, to show that the brasses stolen were fixtures to the land. The COURT, however, held, that as the brasses were fixed to the frame, and the frame to the land, the indictment was good on that count. Mr. SHILSON then addressed the jury, submitting that there was nothing to show that the prisoner had been seen near the quarry, from which he lived distant about five miles, and that he was very likely to have been made a tool of by some other person to dispose of the brasses. He then called as witnesses to prisoner’s previously good character, John Odgers and Michael Martin, farmers and constables of Stithians, and Stephen Spargo, a miner. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, said it was due to Mr. Lanyon to say that he had exercised proper precaution in the case. If other parties who bought such articles would use the same discretion and caution as Mr. Lanyon had done, they would be the means of preventing the commission of a great number of offences. The prisoner was found GUILTY on the first count. (Sentence: six months h.l.) JOHN DOYLE, 25, was charged with stealing 235 lbs. of lead, and a quantity of brass articles, fixed to a dwelling house the property of James Tregoning; and another count charged common larceny. Mr. BISHOP conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. The house in question belongs to Mr. James Tregoning, clerk with Messrs. Williams, at Scorrier. It is situated at Bucks’ Head, about a mile from Truro, in the parish of St. Clement, and in May last was unoccupied. On the 20th of May, prisoner sold William Matthews, a marine store dealer at Truro, 29lbs. of lead at 1½d. per lb., and in ten minutes afterwards brought 31lbs. of lead which Matthews also bought. On the 24th of May he brought 3cwts. 27lbs. of lead for sale, which awakened Matthews’s suspicions. He told prisoner to bring him a note from the person who supplied him with the lead, and in two hours and a half after prisoner brought a quantity of lead in a hand- cart, and gave a note to Matthews as follows:—“This is to certify, from the servant at Mr. Reynolds’s, Penair.” Before the prisoner had arrived, Mr. Matthews had communicated with Mr. Nash, police superintendent, who had come to the house, and took the man into custody. As he was conveying him through Ferris Town towards the police-station, prisoner suddenly ran off, but was pursued and recaptured by Mr. Nash. It also appeared that prisoner had sold a quantity of brass, such as knobs of doors, piece of a lock, bell pulls, stair rods, &c., some of the articles broken up. These he had sold to Peter Carlyle, another marine store dealer, for 6d. per lb. It was shown that prisoner had been seen by a little boy called Michell, near the milestone, at Buck’s Head, with a hand-cart in which was something covered with bags; and when prisoner was searched, a turnpike ticket of the Union gate, between Buck’s Head and Truro, was found upon him. He told Matthews his name was John Brown, from Southampton; to Carlyle he said his name was John Doyle. Mr. Nash found that the lead fitted places on the roof of the house whence it had been taken; and Mr. Tregoning and Mr. Nash fitted the brass sold to Carlyle at various places in the house. Verdict, GUILTY on both counts. Sentence, twelve months’ hard labour. The prisoner had threatened Matthews when he saw him in Bodmin near the gaol, and the Chairman, in passing sentence, said that threat had not been forgotten by the Court. HENRY ALLEN, 25, was found GUILTY of breaking and entering the Dwelling-house of John Davey, at South-hill, on the 9th of June, and stealing a cloth cap belonging to James Davey. Mr. J.B. COLLINS, for the prosecution, said there was another indictment against the prisoner, on which he should offer no evidence. (Sentence: six months h.l.) ROBERT HAWKEY, a ticket-of-leave man, was charged with stealing a fowl from Richard Sargent, of Stokeclimsland, on the 29th of June. About midnight the prosecutor heard a noise, and went down stairs to his fowl-shed, where he found the prisoner, who said he would shoot him. He barred prisoner in, but he broke down a partition and got out. Prosecutor then seized him, and held him till assistance came. One of prosecutor’s fowls, killed with a knife, was found in the shed. Prisoner afterwards admitted that he was a ticket-of-leave man. When at the Devonport Inn, Launceston, he jumped out of the window and ran off, but was pursued and recaptured. He was found GUILTY, and it was proved that at the quarter sessions at Bodmin, in October 1849, he was sentenced to four months imprisonment for stealing ducks; and at the sessions in October 1851, he was transported for ten years, for receiving with two other men, thirteen geese, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. FROST, who conducted the prosecution, applied to the Court to give the prosecutor a gratuity, under the act 7th George 4th, on account of his gallant conduct in capturing Hawkey. The CLERK of the PEACE did not think this court had the power to do so, but said he might be awarded an extra allowance. ASSAULT.—CHARLES COCK, a miner, was indicted for having unlawfully and maliciously inflicted upon Christopher Hosking some grievous bodily harm; and in a second count he was charged with a common assault. Mr. SHILSON for the prosecution; Mr. FROST for the defence. It appeared from the evidence that on Saturday the 12th of April, Christopher Hosking, a miner, was at Camborne market, and that on his way home he had to pass the prisoner’s house. When he arrived there, about midnight, prisoner’s wife was standing at the door, and she called to him, and asked if he had seen Charley, her husband. Whilst he was speaking to her, her husband came up, and asked what she was doing there. She said she was talking about Betsy Paul’s trial, upon which he said he would kill her if she did not go in. He also said to prosecutor, “If thee are not gone, I will blow thy brains out with a pistol.” He then rushed in, his wife followed, and prosecutor went on, but was almost immemediately (sic) overtaken by the prisoner, who said he would be the death of him, and struck him with a short poker a heavy blow on the back of the head, followed by many other blows, which caused prosecutor to fall on his knees, and the blood from the wounds, he said almost blinded him. His wife called out, “Charley, thee hast nearly murdered the man.” They then both left him, and prosecutor went on and knocked at Charles Clymo’s door, who came down and let him in. Prisoner soon came there asking for Hosking, and saying he would run a knife through his heart. Clymo barred the door against him, and after some time he went away. Hosking was assisted home by Clymo and Werry, and was taken to Mr. Oliver, a surgeon, who dressed his wounds. The surgeon said there was a wound in his forehead an inch and a half long; the scalp was cut through in one place to the bone, which seemed slightly depressed, but was not fractured. There was another wound at the back of the head, and serious consequences might have resulted if the injuries had not been properly attended to.—Prosecutor, on cross-examination, said there was no need of prisoner being jealous on account of his talking to his wife at midnight; he did not offer to lend prisoner’s wife money; he had passed on from the garden gate when the prisoner struck him; he believed he bled about two quarts. Another witness, William Werry, heard prisoner’s wife say that prosecutor was not talking more than two minutes with her; that he did no hurt, nor said any hurt. Prisoner said next day he was sorry for what he had done, and that he had had no words with the prosecutor previously.—For the defence, Mr. FROST submitted that it was a case of extreme provocation on the part of Hosking; that something must have been told prisoner by his wife when he went into the house, which aroused his jealousy and greatly excited him; that prosecutor ought to have moved away from the gate, and that prisoner was angry because he found him talking with his wife at twelve o’clock at night. The CHAIRMAN in summing up, said the prisoner was no doubt greatly excited, but he could not see that there was anything in the case to give extreme provocation; and even if there was, prisoner was not justified in having recourse to violence. Verdict, GUILTY on the first count, for doing grievous bodily harm. (Sentence: six months h.l.) The CHAIRMAN discharged the Grand Jury at one o’clock this day, with the thanks of the county for the promptitude with which they had discharged their duties. BILLS IGNORED.—The Grand Jury ignored the bill against William Bond, indicted for an assault with intent, &c., on Angelina Job, at Tywardreath; also a bill against William Robins, charged with unlawfully wounding John Steed, at Liskeard; and against James Trezise, charged with stealing from — Penpraze, at Liskeard. APPEAL.—CROWAN, appellant, Mr. CHILCOTT; TYWARDREATH, respondent, Mr. SHILSON and Mr. CHILDS. Mr. CHILCOTT said this was an appeal against an order of magistrates for the removal of Mary Goldsworthy (wife of John Goldsworthy), William John Thomas, her illegitimate child, and Jonathan, her son, from the parish of Tywardreath to that of Crowan. It was not disputed that they were originally settled in the parish of Crowan; but the appeal was on the ground of their being irremovable by reason of five years residence in the parish of Tywardreath. Respondents, however, submitted that the residence had been broken, in consequence of pauper’s husband having left Tywardreath eight months previous to the obtaining of the order. Mr. CHILCOTT said he believed he should be enabled to prove that John Goldsworthy and his wife had resided many years in Tywardreath parish, and that the husband, in the course of his occupation as a sailor, left the parish several months ago, and was now on his voyage to China, and intended to return to his wife and family. The question for the Court to decide would be, whether such an absence could really amount to a break of residence, or not. He then cited several cases in support of his argument, that an absence of this kind could not be held to break the residence. He also called the pauper, Mary Goldsworthy, but her evidence failed to show that her husband had gone on a voyage to China, or that she knew the name of the ship he had embarked in, or the owners, or where he was gone. It was seven or eight months since she had received a letter from him, and that came either from Liverpool or Whitehaven. Her evidence thus failing in its proofs, appellant’s case broke down. Order confirmed; maintenance, 3l. 15s. [SENTENCES OF PRISONERS.—for remainder see individual cases above] In sentencing Hawkey, a ticket-of-leave man, the Chairman said he was convicted in 1849, of stealing ducks, and had four months imprisonment; and in October 1851 was again convicted of stealing poultry, for which he was sentenced to 10 years transportation; 5 of which must have been remitted for some reason or other. The Chairman was sorry that, by the hypocritical assumption of penitence, the prisoner had induced the authorities to discharge him. The Chairman remarked on the mischief done by such conduct, and told the prisoner he would be taken back to the place from whence he had lately come, to be dealt with as the authorities might think proper. It was not for him, (the Chairman) to say what course would be adopted; but at present the sentence was, six years penal servitude. This concluded the business of the Sessions.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, Friday August 1 1856

5. Summer Assizes. These assizes opened at Bodmin, on Monday, the 28th of July. The judges appointed were the Honourable Sir Thomas Joshua Platt, Knight, and the Honourable Sir Samuel Martin, Knight, two of the Barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer; but, in consequence of illness of Baron Platt, his lordship's place here, (as it had been throughout the Western Circuit) was taken by Serjeant Channell. The High- Sheriff is Sir William Berkeley Call, Bart. of Whiteford; and the Under-Sheriff Coplestone Lopes Radcliffe, Esq., of Plymouth. About half-past 3 o'clock, on Monday afternoon, Serjeant Channell arrived at Bodmin, being met at a short distance therefrom by the High Sheriff and his official retinue, and escorted to the Crown Court, where he opened Commission. Immediately afterwards the learned Serjeant accompanied by the High Sheriff, and with the customary escort, proceeded to Bodmin Church [….] Baron Martin did not reach Bodmin, till nearly 10 o'clock on Monday evening; his lordship, at the close of the Devon Assizes on Thursday evening, having proceeded to London, to see Lady Martin, who is seriously ill. CROWN COURT. At 10 o'clock, on Tuesday morning, Baron Martin took his seat in the Crown Court. The following magistrates were sworn on the Grand Jury:— N. KENDALL, Esq., M.P. foreman; J. K. Lethbridge, Esq, H. Thomson, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. W. Morshead, Esq. R. G. Polwhele, Esq. W. P. Kempe, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. F. J. Hext, Esq. W. Braddon, Esq. F. M. Williams, Esq. T. Hext, Esq. T. R. Avery, Esq. W. D. Horndon, Esq. H. H. Williams, Esq. J. B. Messenger, Esq. R. H. S. Vivian, Esq. R. Johns, Esq. C. A. Reynolds, Esq. W. Peel, Esq. J. P. Magor, Esq. The following magistrates also answered:— W. Marshall, Esq., W. P. Michell, Esq., R. B. Kinsman, clerk. The Mayors and Portreeves of Boroughs, and the county coroners, were then called; after which the Queen's proclamation was read, and the learned JUDGE delivered the following CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. Gentlemen of the Grand Jury; although the calendar contains a larger number of prisoners than I believe is usual at your summer assizes, yet with the exception of three cases of alleged murder, there is nothing at all in the cases contained in it that is not likely to occur in a county of this kind. With the exception of these three cases, there is no case of personal violence; there is no case of stabbing, no offence against the person of almost any kind, and no case of real burglary with violence. And I cannot but say, looking to the calendar, it speaks well for the administration of the law in this county and for the conduct of the inhabitants generally. With the exceptions I have mentioned, you will find no trouble in disposing of the cases. The depositions seem to be taken with great care, by persons and before justices who understand the administration of the law. I do not apprehend you will find any difficulty with the cases; but if you do, I shall be glad to assist you in any way you require. With respect to those three cases of alleged murder,— two of them for the alleged murder of infant children, there is one of them to which I must call your attention. Four persons will be indicted for the alleged murder of an infant child. So far as acts are concerned, they are evidence against all to whom those acts are brought home. But with regard to statements made subsequent to those acts, by any of the fellow-prisoners, they are evidence against the parties making them, and them only. You have no right to make use of a statement made by one prisoner against another, in order to convict that other. I fear you will have considerable difficulty in this case. You will find that a very great deal of the evidence consists of statements made by one prisoner against another. I would call your attention especially to the woman Eliza Burnes. There were two men and two women alleged to have been engaged together. With respect to the woman Burnes, you will say if there is any evidence against her. With respect too to the woman Ann Matthews, the alleged mother of the child, you will also say if there is any evidence against her. With respect to the two men, you must be careful to see if the facts proved make out a prima facie case against them, and if so, you will find a bill; but you must be careful to prevent your minds being influenced by statements of one against the other.—With respect to the next case, No. 6 on the Calendar,—Mary Ann Roberts—it is a case of the same kind; and you will have to say if the death of the child was caused by her wilful act. I do not know what the evidence of the surgeon may be; but on the depositions he seems to be in doubt if the cause of death was not an involuntary act of the woman during her unaided delivery. You must judge of that as you best can.—With regard to the other case of murder, the evidence before the Coroner's Jury seems to be clear; and if the same evidence is given before you as before the Coroner, I have no doubt you will feel it your duty to find a Bill.—You are probably aware that an Act of Parliament has been passed in the last Session, enabling witnesses to be sworn before the Grand Jury; and your Foreman will have to perform the duty which was formerly performed in Court. I understand some doubt exists whether the Grand Jury are bound to examine all the witnesses on the back of a bill. That is not so. You are in the same position as you were before, and have to examine only such witnesses as will make out a prima facie case; there is no necessity for your examining all the witnesses.—ln carrying out the functions imposed on you, it is necessary, especially in the first half day of the Assizes, that you should attend to the lighter cases. To take the heavy cases at the commencement of the Assizes, causes great delay. You will therefore be good enough to look at the back of the indictments, and get such cases before you as have the fewest witnesses. If the parties do not attend, you will be good enough to communicate with me, and I will stop the costs. I have nothing further to say on this matter. I trust that, at the end of your proceedings, you will be of opinion, as I am, that looking to the depositions there is every thing favourable to the state of this County and its administration of the law. The Jury were about to retire to their room, when the learned Judge recalled them, and said:—l believe, Mr. Foreman, you are aware that by the Act of Parliament, you are to place your initials against the name of each witness you examine. The Judge, afterwards, again re-called the Grand Jury, and said:—Since I made my observations to you, an application has been made to me that one of the persons charged with this child-murder, may be sent before you as a witness. I think you will find that will facilitate your labours. (We understand that His Lordship referred to Eliza Burns, one of the four prisoners charged with child murder at Truro.) TRIALS OF PRISONERS. JAMES SMOUTEN, a seaman, aged 23, pleaded guilty of stealing, on the 5th of July, a coat, the property of Thomas Claridge, at St. Germans.—ln passing sentence, the learned JUDGE said he thought it probable there was some truth in a statement made by the prisoner that he took the coat when in liquor, and intended to return it; and his lordship remarked on the readiness with which the prisoner shewed the coat to the constable; but, drunk or sober, he must be careful not to repeat such conduct, or he would be liable to a very different punishment than would now be imposed.—Sentence, One Month's hard labour. JOANNA EDWARDS, 48, a charwoman, was indicted for having, as a servant of the Rev. William John Alban, at Mevagissey, stolen about 3 lbs. of soap, his property, on the 10th of March. On this indictment she pleaded guilty.—She was then indicted and pleaded not guilty to a charge of having, on the 8th of April, burglariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of the Rev. William John Alban at Mevagissey, on the 8th April, and stolen a piece of beef, value 5s., the property of the said William John Alban.—Mr. Bevan conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Ann Andrew deposed:—I am a cook in the service of Mr. Alban, and know the prisoner, who used sometimes to be in Mr. Alban’s house as washerwoman. About 10 o'clock on the Tuesday night, I left some beef in the inside larder communicating with the kitchen; I went to bed about 11 o'clock, and a few minutes after six the next morning, I was called down stairs by the housemaid, and found that the window had been broken, and the piece of beef gone; I next saw the beef in possession of the constable Hingston, at St. Austell, on the following Thursday. (The constable here produced the beef, and it was identified by the witness Ann Andrew).—John Dimond, gardener in Mr. Alban's service:—l recollect the night of the Tuesday spoken of; between 10 and 11 o'clock, I was in the kitchen, and saw my fellow-servant Ann Andrew fasten the windows before she went to bed. When I went to bed, about half-past 11, I left the cook in the kitchen. Next morning, about ¼-past 6, I came down stairs, and saw that a pane of glass was broken in the window, by which the slide of the window had been put back; and the back door was unbolted, which I had seen bolted the night before. I went out to the tool-house, and saw that the door which I had fastened the night before, was opened; and that there were marks on the door of its having been opened with a spade which was then resting near the door. Under the window of the larder, I saw marks of shoes—apparently a woman's, and afterwards I saw a similar mark on the windowsill of the kitchen. On the Wednesday evening, I went with the constable Hingston to the prisoner's house, and saw him search and find a piece of beef under a bed-tie. It was the beef I had before seen. The prisoner said she had it at her brother William's; but almost immediately afterwards she said she found it on the road.—William Hingston, constable, of Mevagissey, gave particulars of his search at the prisoner's, and of the statements made by her, substantially the same as the evidence of the previous witness.—Susan Andrew, housemaid at Mr. Alban's:—I recollect the Wednesday morning, when it was found that something had been stolen from master's house. I came down stairs 8 or 10 minutes after 6 o'clock. (This witness corroborated previous evidence, as to the window being broken, and the beef stolen from the larder.—The jury found the prisoner GUILTY of felonious receiving.—Sentence:— Two Months hard labour for felonious receiving the beef; and at the expiration of that sentence, three months hard labour for stealing soap. GILBERT BENNETT, 25, miner, charged with breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Baily, at Camborne, on the 21st of June, and stealing a sack and half a bushel of oats. He was also charged with felonious receiving.—Mr Holdsworth was counsel for the prosecution; Mr. Coleridge for the defence.— William Baily deposed:—I live in Trelawarrenr (sic) street, Camborne. On my premises I have a barn and stable within the courtlage, and detached from the dwelling-house e (sic) the back part of the premises adjoining the back road. About half-past 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening of the 21st of June, I locked the stable-door, having on the previous Thursday put in the barn above the stable a sack containing half a bushel of oats. I locked the stable each night, and opened it each morning afterwards, till Sunday morning about half-past 6, when I found that the stable-door had been ripped open, and that the sack and oats were gone. In the morning of the 4th July, Policeman Ward, told me where the sack was; I went to the house of the constable George Noble, and there I saw the sack, which I gave into Noble's custody (Noble here produced the sack, and it was identified by the witness). I have not seen the oats since. When I saw the sack at Noble's, there was wheat in it. The prisoner lives about 3 or 400 yards, or it may be a quarter of a mile from me.—Cross-examined.—I have known prisoner 10 years; and never heard anything against him till this affair.—Joseph Ward, police constable at Camborne:—I was on duty on the 4th July, in Union- street, between Trelawarren-street, and prisoner's residence. I heard a shrill whistle three times, and went towards it in Trelawarren-street, and there made a stand; I heard footsteps of a man coming on; I concealed myself behind a door way until the prisoner came up and I took hold of him. Prisoner had a sack on his back, with something in it. I took hold of him and asked what he had there; and he said grain. I put my hand into the sack and found it was wheat, and said this is Eddy's wheat. Mr. Eddy had had his mill broken into and wheat stolen. Prisoner said, "Oh do let me go, and I'll never do it again;" he afterwards said that John James had found it in a brake belonging to Mr. Paull, and told him where to go for it. He dropped the sack from his shoulder, and a young man, by my directions, took it to Noble's house, and I left it there.—George Noble, constable produced the sack; and stated that on the night when it was brought to his house, the prisoner said that he and John James had found it a few days before, on the top of a hedge, and that John James and he had gone for it that night. (This witness also stated, on cross-examination, that the prisoner had borne a good character).—John James, miner—l live at Rosewarne Downs, in the parish of Camborne. I know the prisoner; I never went with him to any hedge, and never found a sack; I never told him to go and get one; I never saw this sack before I saw it before the magistrates.—Mr. COLERIDGE said he could not ask the jury to disbelieve the evidence of the last witness; and if they believed him, the story told by the prisoner was untrue, and that was evidence from which the jury might, if they thought proper, derive the inference that he stole the property. Mr. Coleridge, however, spoke of the good character which the prisoner received; but, as that was rather for his lordship's consideration, he would not trouble the jury with any observations in defence.—The jury found the prisoner guilty of felonious receiving, with recommendation to mercy on account of previous good character. The prisoner was then indicted for stealing six tame ducks, the property of Henry Jenkins, at Illogan.—Henry Jenkins—l reside at Red River, in Illogan. I am a farmer and keep ducks; I recollect rearing 6 ducks, of which my little boy had charge. I missed them on the morning of the 4th July, and in the course of the day saw George Noble, the constable, and in consequence of what he told me I went to the constable Ward and saw four ducks in his possession.—Joseph Ward, constable—On the night in question I apprehended the prisoner with the sack; I searched him and found 4 ducks in his coat pockets; I asked him where he got them; he said he stole them down at Red River, and begged to be let go and he would never do so again.—James Jenkins, son of prosecutor, who had charge of the ducks, stated that he last saw them at his father's about 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening of Thursday, the 3rd of July; next morning he found the six ducks missing, and in the evening went to Ward's house and there saw four of them. (Ward produced the ducks, which were identified by the witness). GUILTY. Sentence—Two months hard labour in respect of the sack; and one month hard labour for stealing the ducks. THOMAS LITTLETON, 22, a joiner, charged with stealing two planes, one chisel, and one plumb bob, the property of Samuel Trevethern Bennett, shipwright, from his yard, at Padstow, on or about the 14th of July.—Mr. Coleridge conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Cole the defence,—The Prosecutor deposed—l am a shipwright at Padstow; in July last I left there for some days, leaving my tools in charge of Pascoe Billing, my workman. On my coming back, I received information that the planes were missing. In consequence of that, I called my workmen together and told them that if the planes were not brought back by the Tuesday night following, I should take measures to discover and punish the guilty person. This was on the Monday. The planes were not brought back on the Tuesday, and on the Wednesday morning, a search was made in the hold of the vessel from which they had been missed. Prisoner was in my employ, and had been at work in the hold of the vessel. I asked him if he knew any thing about the missing planes. He cried and said he did not know any thing about them, and that he had not seen or touched them since the time of their being missing, he also offered to make the same statement before any magistrate, and to allow his boxes to be searched, without warrant. I went to Blanning, the constable, and told him what had passed, and I then went to my yard to tell Littleton to come and open his boxes. I found Littleton was not there; and I then went to Blanning to hasten him to Littleton's lodgings; and I and Blanning went there together to the prisoner's house, and there I saw Blanning take a plane from under prisoner's arm, and the prisoner asked me to be merciful to him. I said I could not do any thing for him, as it was gone out of my hands. I got a search-warrant, and searched prisoner's lodgings, and found one other plane, a chisel, and a plumb-bob. The plumb-bob, I believe, was lost in November, and the chisel was lost in May. The plane that was found under his arm was also my property. On the 1st of July, the prisoner went to work for me, with tools belonging to me; he had been working in the yard before, but not as my servant. I find tools for my apprentices; and the men for themselves; the prisoner was on trial, and would have been an apprentice if all things had gone straight. The understanding was that I was to find tools for him until he got his own, and when he worked with his own tools, his wages were to be raised from 9s. a week to 10s.—Thomas Blanning, constable:—On the 16th of July, Bennett called on me and gave me some information, in consequence of which I went to Littleton's lodgings and found him at the foot of the stairs; he had under his arm a new plane that answered the description of the one lost; I took it from him and charged him with having stolen it from Bennett. Bennett was close behind me, and when I apprehended the prisoner, he turned round to Bennett, and said "be merciful," or something to that effect. (The witness then confirmed previous evidence, as to the results of the search at prisoner's lodgings, under search warrant; and he produced the various articles spoken to, for identification).—Pascoe Billing, foreman of Mr. Bennett:—On Tuesday the 8th of July Mr. Bennett went away, and left in my care the yard and tools, and these two planes in particular; one of them was new and had never been used. I put the planes in my own chest, locked it, and kept them there till Thursday morning the 10th, when I took them on board the vessel for two men to work with, and they were again taken on board the vessel on the following Friday morning; I saw them there that morning, but not afterwards till the following Wednesday, before the Magistrates. The old plane had been missing about two months; the prisoner was working about the premises about that time. The defence by Mr. COLE, both in cross-examination and in his address to the jury, was, chiefly, that the prisoner took the tools not with a felonious intent, but justifiably under some alleged agreement or understanding between him and the prosecutor, his employer; and the prisoner received a very good character from the Rev. F. J. H. Kendall, vicar of Lanlivery. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, but recommended him to mercy on account of his good character; and the learned judge passed the lenient sentence, a fortnight's hard labour. JOHN GROSE, 21, miner, JOSEPH GROSE, 18, also a miner; and SAMUEL PARSONS, 19, carpenter; were charged with burglary at the dwelling-house of John Trewelling, at Tywardreath Highway, and with stealing therefrom two loaves of bread, on the night of Saturday the 12th July. Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution. The trial resulted in acquittal of all three prisoners.—But they were less fortunate in a second indictment, which charged them with stealing a rope, three tame fowls, and two poles the property of Joseph Phillipps, on the same night, and in the same neighbourhood.—They were all found GUILTY on this charge, and were sentenced to twelve months hard labour, each.—There was a third indictment, which was not pressed, charging the three prisoners with stealing on the same night, 6 gallons of cider and a water cask, the property of Samuel Jane. NICHOLAS VENNING, 47, coach-builder, was charged with stealing a vice and a spanner, the property of William Biddick Kellow, coach-builder, at St. Austell, on the 22nd of July.—Mr. Bere conducted the prosecution; and the prisoner was undefended; the trial resulted in a verdict of acquittal. JOSEPH KNIGHT, 21, carpenter, was charged, that he being a servant of William Brewer, cabinet-maker, of St. Columb, stole from his master on the 19th of July, a workbox, a triangle, and some pieces of wood.— Mr. Holdsworth conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Carter the defence. After several witnesses bad been examined, the learned JUDGE stopped the case, and directed a verdict of acquittal, but strongly cautioned the prisoner, and workmen and apprentices generally, against taking any portion of their masters' property however small, under any supposition that they were entitled to it. If masters chose to give any refuse or other material for workmen or apprentices to work up for themselves, it was a different thing; but it must be understood that workmen and apprentices had no right to it.—There was a similar indictment against PHILIP SMITH, aged 22, also a carpenter in Mr. Brewer's employ, for a precisely similar offence; but after the result of the preceding case, no evidence was offered, and the JUDGE directed a verdict of acquittal.— Mr. CARTER said it was right he should state on behalf of these two young men that there were in court witnesses who would have given them an excellent character. The JUDGE said he did not doubt their good character; but they must in future bear in mind that they have no right to take any of their master's property.—Mr. BREWER, the prosecutor, addressing the Judge, said he was pleased that his lordship had thus disposed of the cases; his only object had been to give warning for the future.—The Judge said he had taken a right course. SAMUEL McMEIKEN, 27, draper, was charged with embezzling certain monies, to the amount of ten shillings and upwards, the property of his master, James Millar, of Redruth, draper, on or about the 14th of July.—Mr. Cole conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—James Millar deposed:—I am a draper at Redruth, and am in the habit of employing young men as servants, to travel for me. The prisoner was in my employ; and his duty was to call on my customers, and to take orders and receive money, on a particular round. My agreement with him was for two years—a sort of apprenticeship; the young men do not receive wages, but have their board, lodging, and travelling expenses, and at the end of the two years we sell them a round and establish them in trade;—this being paid for by bills at long date, as we can agree. His duty was to give account every Saturday night of moneys received and to pay over the money to me. On the 5th of July he returned, after having been out for a week, but did not pay me over any money; he ought to have returned on the Friday night, but he did not return till late on the Saturday night, remained over Sunday, and started on Monday morning before I got up. I made some inquiries about him at Penzance, and the result was that I had him apprehended. I have here the prisoner's account-book, which I took from him at Penzance; it contains entries of his having received a shilling from Mrs. Kingston, a shilling from Mrs. Rawling, and 10s. from Mrs. Grenfell. I got that book from him a fortnight before he was taken into custody; when I went down to Penzance, I discovered that he had been receiving money; those sums I have mentioned had been paid to him as instalments on account, and he has never handed them over to me.—Mary Ann Bonner, who lives at Penzance, and receives money on behalf of Mr. Millar from his customers, proved that on the 4th of July, she paid to McMeiken the three several sums named in the indictment; he having applied to her on the 19th of June, for money due from Mrs. Grenfell.—William Nicholl, constable of Redruth, proved that on the 19th July he had a warrant for the apprehension of prisoner, and on the following day, took him into custody at Morvah, and charged him with embezzling his master's property to the amount of 5l. and upwards, and he said he would not have this exposure for his existence, and that, if he owed Mr. Millar anything he would pay him, if he would give him time.—ln the course of cross-examination by prisoner, the prosecutor admitted that he had sold a considerable amount of debts, and got £90 in respect thereof, on the round on which the prisoner was engaged; but asserted that he was not bound to sell to the prisoner, at the end of his two years, any particular round; he might sell him any round.—There was between the prosecutor and prisoner much controversy as to the custom of their trade; and, eventually, the learned JUDGE on the evidence adduced, and on the account book put into his lordship's hands, summed up much in prisoner's favour, suggesting that, although it was clear the prisoner had received the sums of money in question and had not paid them to his master, there might be doubt as to the intent to defraud,—which was the essence of a charge of embezzlement; there was the possibility that the money was retained as set-off for wages. His lordship also expressed strong disapproval of the system under which a man of such age as the prisoner was kept at work without receiving wages for his maintenance; it was, his lordship said, a perilous state to place such a man in—to be in that receipt of money, and to have nothing for himself as compensation, but the purchase of a district at the end of 2 years.—The jury found a verdict of NOT GUILTY. SIMON KINVER, 19, labourer, was charged with maliciously killing a sheep, the property of Thomas Adams at Laneast, on the 3rd of May.—Mr. Coleridge was counsel for the prosecution, but was engaged in the nisi prius court until a large portion of the evidence in this case had been taken by the learned JUDGE, by examination from the depositions.—George Adams, son of the prosecutor, deposed:—I live with my father at Lidcott farm. The prisoner was in the employ of Mr. Lethbridge, who is my father's landlord, and whose estate adjoins. Five or six weeks before this sheep was killed, my father lost some lambs, which I found lying dead on some of the adjoining estates. Sheep and lambs were destroyed, from nearly all the flocks in the neighbourhood; 5 or 6 in a week; I have seen 5 dead at a time; they were cut and stabbed. In consequence of this, I went to watch, about 9 o'clock on the 2nd of May, and sat on a furze-brake opposite the field where Mr. Lethbridge's sheep were to be that day. I saw Kinver and another of Mr. Lethbridge's men bring the sheep into that field; and afterwards the other man left, and Kinver was left alone in the field, with a gun in his hand. The sheep broke from this field (Higher Widdons) to a field below called Lower Widdons, where Kinver followed them and remained there till the bell struck 12, and the sheep then went up to Higher Widdons again, and Kinver followed them and lay down in a gap; he then walked across the field into the plantation and I lost sight of him for 20 minutes; I left my place and went into the plantation, and he was not there. I then went to see my father's sheep; and then returned to the Plantation, which was to be searched that day by, I suppose, 30 men of Mr. Lethbridge's and the neighbourhood; all hands turned out to make search, as it was supposed the sheep and lambs had been torn by dogs. That search continued till 4 o'clock; and when all the men were gone away, I went back to the place from whence I had been watching before, and saw Kinver and the sheep in the Lower Widdons, where they remained till 6 o'clock; and then when I joined Kinver, he told me there was another lamb bitten. At this time, Kinver had also been joined by one of Mr. Lethbridge's lads, named Henry Geake Venning; then Kinver told me there was another lamb bitten, I said "when?" He said, when I fired." I asked him at what time. He said, "about half past 5." I said, “where were the sheep?" He said "in the Higher field; there was many a lamb outside the hurdle; I saw them run off; I ran to the hurdle, and inside I saw a bleeding lamb; I saw the furze move, and I fired in the direction." I asked him where it was; and he said in the higher corner, and that he had brought the carcase of the lamb down to the lower field." During all that time, I had been watching those fields; and from half past 4 to the time I joined him, I am certain there was no sheep or lambs in the Higher Widdons, and none at the time he fired. I examined the lamb, and found it had two stabs in the neck, and the tail was cut,—nearly divided in two; there were not such marks as a dog would make; I believe the stabs were made with a knife, and the mark on the tail was a perfect cut. I walked towards home with Kinver and the other men, and on the way Kinver was asked if he killed anything when he fired. He said no, he did not see any thing, but he had heard dogs in the Plantation nine or ten times that morning, and that the last time he went through the Plantation it was something larger than a dog and it made a terrible noise. As I came back I saw a man called Bligh, who examined the lamb in the presence of the prisoner, and said, Simon, this looks exactly like a cut with a knife." Prisoner made no reply.—l then made arrangements to watch, the next day; and about half past 9 left to go home; on the road, I again saw Kinver, and said to him, " I have been into Bligh's, and I am very much interested in finding out who is doing the mischief." He replied, "you are in as much danger as the rest." The next dinner hour I made arrangement to watch, and went to the furze-brake, and took my place where I could command the field in which our sheep were. During that forenoon, Kinver was watching, with Mr. Lethbridge's keeper Hawke. As soon as Hawke left, (according to our arrangement), Kinver left the field and was absent about an hour; and then he came back and was joined by four men and directly afterwards by two others. I left and went home; but directly afterwards, a communication was made to me, in consequence of which I went to one of my father's fields, and there saw a dead sheep; its throat was cut; the windpipe cut all across, four or five inches with a sharp instrument; a cut across the nose; and at the shoulder a stab four or five inches deep, and perfectly fresh and warm. My father came there, and we observed near the sheep footmarks of shoes with nails. I had no nails in my shoes.—The witness minutely described the footmarks, which he observed near the dead sheep, and which he traced at various parts of the fields, to the Widdons; and he went on to say:—When I got to the Widdons, I saw the prisoner there; the keeper and another man joined me; and we found that the footprints corresponded with the prisoner's shoes. My father charged him with killing the sheep, and put him in custody. When I said we must compare the shoes, the prisoner rose up and said "there's no sense in this." I said "there's no sense in having so many sheep killed;" I told him too that I had been watching the day before, and that his movements did not correspond with what he had told me, and that the account he had given me was almost entirely false, and that there had been no sheep at all on Higher Widdons at the time he said the lamb was bitten. My father took him into custody and we walked to the bottom of the field where we had seen the perfect impression, and on comparing it with the prisoner's shoes we found them correspond exactly; the shoes also corresponded exactly with the impressions where we had found the dead sheep. About this time, some person asked him if he had any thing in his pockets; he said "nothing but a knife," which he produced, and I found on it the mark of recent blood; the knife looked as if it had been washed; there was no blood on the outside of the handle; the blood was inside, and on the handle was some wool. Some one made an observation that there was blood and wool on the knife; and he said “that there may!" afterwards at Launceston, he said he hoped I would do what I could for him. I said I should say nothing about it but the truth, but I believed it was impossible but that he must be convicted of killing that sheep and wounding more. He said he ought not to be punished for what he did not do, and that he had not done half of it. I said “do you mean that you have had any company in the affair; or did you see any other person kill sheep?" He said, yes he did; and he named a person, whom he said he had seen kill a lamb in his master's field. I said "did the person know you saw him?" He said he did. "Then," I said "you were together," he said yes; and he mentioned several cases that he did not do.— Confirmatory evidence was given by James Hodge, a labourer, who was at Lidcoat (sic) farm on Saturday the 3d of May; Richard Hawke, Mr. J. King Lethbridge's keeper, at Tregeare; Joseph Bligh, Mr. Lethbridge’s hind, who stated that between Lady-day, and the 2nd of May there had been as many as 32 sheep and lambs killed in the neighbourhood; and that Kinver's employment was to look after Mr. Lethbridge's sheep under him (Bligh); Thomas Adams, the prosecutor, who added that neither himself nor any one else in the neighbourhood had lost any sheep since the 3rd of May, when the prisoner was apprehended; and Benjamin Sambells, policeman at Launceston, who received prisoner in custody on Saturday, the 3rd of May; about half-past 6 on Saturday, Kinver attempted to escape from the lock-up and witness retook him.—The Prisoner, in defence, briefly stated something to the effect that the sheep had been destroyed by dogs.—The learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury found a verdict of GUILTY.—The learned JUDGE deferred sentence, and 'intimated that the case seemed to him of so extraordinary a character, that he should like to make some inquiries as to the prisoner's intellect. A bill against the prisoner, for maiming and wounding a lamb, the property of John King Lethbridge, Esq., at Laneast, on the 2nd of May, was ignored. The following bills also have been ignored:—George Harris, breaking into the Church at St. Neot, and stealing gold fringe, and two gold tassels, the property of the parishioners of St. Neot; William Smith, feloniously receiving gold fringe from George Harris; and John Crabb, feloniously receiving gold fringe and gold tassels. (Harris is one of the two prisoners who effected escape from gaol last week).—Ann Hill, concealing the birth of her child, at St. Minver. NISI PRIUS COURT. MONDAY, JULY 28. Mr. Serjeant Channel took his seat in this court at ten o'clock. The following was the Cause List:—

Plaintiffs' Attys. Plaintiff. Defendant. Defts'. At. Bishop. Meredith, (remanet)[S.J.]. v. Martin. Gill. Carlyon. Martyn. v. Williams. Coode & Co. Hamley. Beer. v. Fry. Chilcott. Williams, Clerk [S.J.] v. Hill Coode & Co. Coode and Co. Hocking. v. Martyn. Carlyon. Same. Pomery. v. Same. Same. Roscorla & Davies. Burgess, Admix. &c v. Ryley. Ashurst.

BEER v. FRY—This was an undefended action, to recover £27 8s. with interest, on a promissory note payable on demand. Mr. COLE, on behalf of the plaintiff, said defendant had pleaded that he did not make the note. He had, however, an admission of defendant's handwriting, and he should put in the note. The note was then read, dated 30th October, 1854, and was signed by John Fry, of St. Teath, innkeeper, promising to pay to Mr. John Beer, the sum of £27 8s. with interest. The interest from the date of the note amounted to £2 4s., and a verdict was given for plaintiff for £29 12s. Mr; COLE applied for an order for immediate execution. The learned JUDGE said he would make it, if necessary. MARTYN v. WILLIAMS.—Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH and Mr. PHEAR; attorney, Mr. EDMUND CARLYON. Counsel for the defendant, Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE and Mr. KINGDON; attorneys, Messrs. COODE and Co. Mr. PHEAR having opened the pleadings, Mr. M. SMITH stated that the plaintiff, Mr. Elias Martyn, is the owner of an estate called Goonamarth, in the parish of St. Mewan, and he had brought this action against defendant to recover compensation in damages for a breach of covenants contained in a grant or license to work china clay on that estate. At the time the license was granted, the owners of the estate were gentlemen of the name of Ferris and Gill, who were trustees of the Trevanion property; and on the 1st of May, 1852, by a deed made between those two gentlemen and Mr. John Henwood Williams, the defendant, they granted the latter liberty and license to dig and work for china clay within certain limits. He was to be at liberty to raise, wash, and make merchantable and fit for sale all the clay he might obtain, and for that purpose to bring in adits, water courses, and to put up such houses, sheds, and other erections as were necessary. The term granted was for twenty-one years, but it was to be determined at any time by the tenant, Mr. Williams, giving a year's notice. In the licence there were two covenants; by one of those the defendant agreed that he would make compensation for any injury done to the enclosed land by his clay works; that such compensation was to be paid to the lessors and their assignees, lessees, or tenants; and that its amount was to be ascertained by arbitrators, one to be appointed by defendant, the other by Messrs. Ferris and Gill, and the two umpires to appoint a third, whose decision was to be final. Plaintiff claimed damages tor the breach of his covenant. He alleged that defendant entered on the estate, and worked for china clay, and in the course of that working destroyed about ninety land-yards of the enclosed and arable land, somewhat more than half an acre. Defendant gave notice in December, 1854, to determine his tenancy in December, 1855; but before it was determined Messrs. Ferris and Gill sold the estate to Mr. Martyn, the plaintiff, who, considering himself possessed of all the rights of the previous owners, desired to have an arbitration to ascertain the compensation to be paid by defendant for the land he had destroyed. On the 28th of March, 1856, he gave notice to defendant to appoint an arbitrator, and named as his own arbitrator, Mr. Pearce, of Tywardreath. Defendant failed to appoint an arbitrator, and one of the breaches of covenant alleged in the declaration, for which damages were claimed, was that defendant did not appoint an arbitrator. For the ninety land-yards of arable land destroyed by defendant's clay works, plaintiff claimed £33 2s. The tenant of the property had also sustained a loss, through not being able to raise a crop from that part of the surface; defendant had stated he could allow the tenant £4 a year, and this, with the amount claimed by plaintiff would make a sum of between 40l. and 50l. The other alleged breach of covenant was this. Defendant had covenanted that he would keep and retain such works, houses, sheds, engine-houses, and erections as were erected and built, in good and sufficient repair, and that the same should be so kept and retained to the end of the term, and so delivered up, except the engines and machinery, which defendant was to be at liberty to remove. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had broken this covenant. He got behind with his dues and rent, and a distress was put in by Messrs. Ferris and Gill, and china clay, timber, and other things were taken and sold. After that, defendant allowed the clay work to go to ruin. It was necessary that there should be an underground level to carry off the water, and certain pans and pits were necessary. Defendant had allowed the level to fall in, and had not kept up the pans. To restore those works to the state they were in at the time defendant gave up his tenancy would amount to about 30l., which sum, as well as those for breach of the other covenant, plaintiff claimed by this action. Witnesses were then called and examined. Mr. John Pearce, of Tywardreath, had estimated the value of the land destroyed, at 33l. 15s. being thirty years purchase, at 1l. 2s. 6d. a year, for ninety land-yards. The land is worth nothing as it is; there is a pit in it half the depth of that court, and the level had fallen in. Mr. Martyn lives at Carthew, in the parish of St. Austell. It would take two or three times 33l. to restore the land to its former state; the surrounding land is worth 2l. an acre.—The other witnesses called in support of the facts stated by Mr. M. Smith in opening the plaintiff's case, were James Kent, a farmer of St. Mewan, who occupies Goonamarth estate; James Common, a clay workman at Carthew; and James Olver, a manager of clay works. On the part of defendant, Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE took some legal objections, and afterwards called as witnesses the defendant himself, John Henwood Williams, William Rickard, who had been manager of defendant's clay-work, Mr. Hancock, auctioneer, and Mr. Gaved, a clay merchant. It was explained that there is a large excavation in which the clay was dug and washed, after which it was carried by a level and launders into the mica pits. The level was about 40 fathoms long, half of it under-ground, the other half a deep trench open to the surface. In the open part of the level there were landmarks, but not in the underground part. The mica pits with which the launders communicated, were for clearing the clay from the mica, and those mica pits were made of deal, about twenty inches wide, fourteen inches high, and 9 feet long. The clay ran from the mica pits into a deep pit where it settled, and whence it was pumped up into the pans, where it was dried, and then cut into blocks, after which it was scraped and cleaned, and was then ready for the market. It was important to obtain this description of the process, as appeared in the further progress of the case. The legal points insisted upon by Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, and the material facts of the evidence were thus noticed by the learned Judge, in his summing up of the case. Defendant's counsel had objected that Mr. Martyn, the plaintiff, was no party to the contract with defendant, because Martyn had no interest in the premises until May 1855, whilst defendant's china clay digging had ceased in December 1853, after which all that was done was to scrape and to clean some of the clay which had been previously raised. All the injury done to the land, in the course of the working and digging for china clay, had therefore been done before May 1855, when Mr. Martyn became interested in the estate; for which reason defendant's counsel submitted that, under the present declaration, plaintiff was not in a situation to recover. Upon that, the counsel for the plaintiff, had applied to him (the learned Judge) to amend the declaration in certain particulars, so as to enable plaintiff to recover for the damage done, whether before or after Mr. Martyn's possession; in fact, at any time between the commencement of the contract in May 1852, and the determination of the tenancy in October 1855. He (the learned Judge) had some doubt whether it was a proper case for amendment of the declaration, but inasmuch as if he did not amend, there would be no opportunity of revising his decision, whilst if he did amend, there would be an opportunity of bringing the matter under the notice of the court whence the record had issued, he had thought it better to make the amendment. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is trustee for those persons interested in the land before he took to it in May 1855, and he was entitled to recover for all damage done previously. The declaration having now been amended, it was for the jury to say whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover £23 for the damage done to the land, according to Mr. Pearce's evidence, or if not, what amount he was entitled to recover. But those damages were to be given conditionally, the matter being reserved for the consideration of the court above, to say whether the plaintiff should retain those damages or not. Another breach of covenant, however, had been charged in the declaration; plaintiff having said that defendant's term expired in October 1855, in consequence of his previous twelvemonth's notice, and that plaintiff was entitled to have the works connected with the clay works delivered up to him in good repair, which had not been done. The question on which the learned counsel for plaintiff and for defendant differed, was with regard to the meaning of the word "works," which "works" defendant was to keep and deliver up in good repair under his covenant. It appeared the launders were a kind of troughs not fixed to the land but moveable; and he (the learned Judge) did not think those were any part of the works intended to kept in repair and so delivered up at the end of the term. Then there were the mica pits, which were made of wood, and moveable, and he did not think they could be a part of the "works" contemplated by the covenant. But then there was a large pit, the sides of which were timbered, which was necessary to the workings and there was that part of the level which was underground, communicating with the large excavation, both of which, he considered, were works within the meaning of the covenant. It had been shown by the witnesses that the level was broken in, and the large pit out of repair, and the jury would say to what damages the plaintiff was entitled on that account. It had been stated that it would take from £10 to £15 to repair the level, which being choked, there was now a great deal of water in the large excavation; and that it would take from £7 to £8 to replace the timber and repair the pit. With reference to the launders and other moveable things, Messrs. Ferris and Gill, when they levied for arrears of rent under the contract, had taken and sold them, showing that they were not to be treated as "works" within the meaning of the covenant. Leaving, therefore, out of the question the pans, the launders, and the mica pits, the jury would say whether they considered the large pit and the underground level had been kept in repair, and if not, to what damages the plaintiff was entitled. This was the second breach. They could also say, on the first breach, to what damages the plaintiff was entitled for injury to land, leaving it to the court above to say whether he should retain those damages or not. The jury, after some deliberation, give a verdict for the plaintiff; damages on the first breach, £16; on the second, £12. POMERY v. MARTYN.—Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. COLLIER and Mr. KINGDON; attorneys, Messrs. COODE and Co. Counsel for the defendant, Mr. M. SMITH, and Mr. PHEAR; attorney, Mr. EDMUND CARLYON. Mr. COLLIER stated that the plaintiff was Mrs. Mary Pomery, the widow of Mr. William Pomery, who formerly rented a farm called Higher Treburthes part of the Trevanion estates, in the parish of Veryan; whilst defendant was Mr. Elias Martyn, who was plaintiff in the previous case. The estate was rented at 85l. per annum. Mr. Pomery died in 1853; defendant became purchaser of the property in 1853 or 1854, and was entitled to the rent due at Michaelmas 1854, up to which time money was paid by Mrs Pomery, leaving a small balance. Mr. Martyn was desirous of terminating the tenancy, and gave Mrs. Pomery notice to quit which would cause the tenancy to expire at Michaelmas 1855; and an agreement was entered into by defendant, that he would take all the corn on the estate, as well as hay, at a valuation, Mr. J. Pearce to act as valuer on the part of defendant, and Mr. T. Rogers, of St. Just, on the part of Mrs. Pomery, and should they not agree, to call in an umpire, Mr. Trethewy, of Grampound. The agreement was dated 14th of April, 1855, and the valuers and umpire met on the 22d August, 1855, to value the corn, and on the 28th of September to value the green crops. The total estimate was 459l. 17s. 1d., to which adding for the mowstead, the claim altogether amounted to £481 9s. 7d., and giving defendant credit for all he had paid, and for what was owing to him, the present action was brought for the recovery of the balance 111l. 3s. 10d. The defendant had pleaded a set off, and paid into court 34l. 10s., which he alleged, discharged all he owed to plaintiff. After some further details of the case, Mr. Collier called as witnesses, Mr. John Pomery, son of the plaintiff, and Mr. Thomas Rogers who had valued on the part of Mrs. Pomery. The learned JUDGE had once or twice, during the evidence, stated his strong opinion that the case was one of minute details of account between the parties, and that it was a fit case for a reference. On his again expressing that opinion, when Mr. Rogers was giving his evidence, the learned counsel on each side acquiesced and an order of court was made, referring all matters in dispute to the valuers, Messrs. Pearce, Rogers, and Trethewy, who shall have power to decide without calling other parties before them, but who may call other parties if they please. The costs of the cause to abide the event, the costs of the arbitration to be decided by the arbitrators. HOCKING v. MARTYN.—This was a case similar in its nature to the last, the plaintiff occupying Lower Treburthes estate, in Veryan, and the defendant being the same as in the previous case. The particulars were not entered into a verdict for plaintiff being agreed to, subject to a reference, as in the last case, and on similar terms, except that the arbitrators named were Mr. Pearce, Mr. Treffry, and Mr. Trethewy. BURGESS v. RILEY.—For the plaintiff, Mr. M. SMITH and Mr. KINGDON; attorneys, Messrs. ROSCORLA and DAVIES. For the defendant, Mr. COLERIDGE; attorney, Mr. ASHURST. Mr. M. SMITH stated that the action was brought by Mr. William Burgess, the administrator of Mr. Henry Burgess, of Camborne, to recover the value of goods supplied to Cubert United Silver Lead mine. Defendant, Mr. Edward Riley, of London, was sued as an adventurer in the mine. The goods were supplied at the end of 1854, and in 1855, mostly on the order of the Captain, who was called Richards. Some of the goods were supplied by the administrator, after the death of Mr. Henry Burgess, and the total value was to be amount of £120 9s. 8d., but some money having been received on account, the balance now claimed was £70 9s. 8d. Mr. M. SMITH then produced the transfer-book of the mine, showing that Messrs. Watson and Ensor had sold defendant 200 shares, which were divided into 9,000ths; and he put in a letter from defendant to the former secretary, Mr. Truscott. dated the 20th of February, 1856, in which he requested him to ask the committee to allow his calls to stand over till the first week in April, when he would pay them. Mr. James James, storekeeper to Mr. Burgess, and Capt. John Trewin, of Cubert Mine, were called to prove the order and delivery of the goods, the latter producing the way-bills. It was a cost-book mine, he said; the meetings were held every three months in London, and Mr. Foulkes is now secretary. It was the usual practice to supply goods to the mine on credit. Mr. Christian, clerk to the late Mr. Burgess, and Mr. J. B. Truscott, the former secretary to the mine, were also called. The latter proved receiving transfer of the shares to Mr. Riley, and entering it on the books, and that Mr. Riley had subsequently made three or four payments to December, 1854.—For the defence, Mr. COLERIDGE submitted that there was no evidence to show that Mr. Riley had had anything to do with ordering the goods, or that any credit was given to him by Mr. Burgess, or that any authority was given by him to the purser except from the mere fact of his being a shareholder. He cited the case of Rickard v. Bennett to show that directors could not pledge the credit of individual shareholders. The learned JUDGE said that was a case of money borrowed. Mr. M. SMITH said his friend's argument had been often put, but always overruled. The learned JUDGE said he would put it to the jury, whether it was the usual case of dealing for this mine to purchase goods on credit; whether these goods in question were supplied to the mine; and whether they were used on the mine. Mr. COLERIDGE said he was satisfied from the evidence on the last two points. The learned JUDGE then put it to the jury whether they were satisfied it was the usual course of dealing for the mines to purchase goods on credit. The jury found that it was so. Verdict for plaintiff for £70 9s. 8d. The court then rose. CROWN COURT. WEDNESDAY, JULY 30. (Before Mr. Baron Martin). MARY JANE ALLEN, 20, was arraigned for stealing a sovereign, two handkerchiefs, a shawl, and two pieces of ribbon, on the 12th of July, the property of her master, Mr. William Rickard, of St. Erme. She pleaded guilty of stealing the money, but not the other articles. Sentence deferred. WILLIAM PENGELLY BARNES, 22, a tailor, pleaded guilty of stealing at Truro on the 10th of July, a German silver watch, waistcoat, neckcloth, handkerchief, and 3s. 8d., the property of John Sherman. Sentence deferred. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER. MARY ANN ROBERTS was indicted for the wilful murder of her male child, in the parish of Calstock, on the 23d of March. To the arraignment the prisoner pleaded NOT GUILTY. The following were sworn on the Jury:—Richard Lanyon, foreman; Henry Eddy, Thomas Craddock, John Coomb, John Bunnaford, Robert Allen, Henry Harvey, William Lawry, John Congdon, Oliver Banbury, and George Leach. The Counsel for the prosecution were Mr. COLERIDGE and Mr. BULLER; for the defence Mr. CARTER. The prisoner was allowed to sit during the trial. She looked concerned and serious, but not agitated or affected. Her age is twenty-three. At the request of Mr. CARTER, all the witnesses were sent out of court until called for. Mr. COLERIDGE stated the case for the Prosecution. The charge was a very serious one, and the circumstances would demand the close attention of the jury. There was no concealment of birth and, as far as he could judge, the prisoner must be found guilty of the murder of her child, or innocent; it did not seem that any third conclusion could be arrived at in the case. The prisoner is a married woman, and at the time this offence took place, her husband had been absent about 3 years, and was about to return to this country. She knew that, and being with child, she had a very natural wish to conceal it from her husband. A young woman of the name of Smitheram had been in the habit of sleeping with her. She suspected the prisoner was with child, and charged her with it more than once, but prisoner always denied it. The learned Counsel went on to state some of the circumstances of the case, and said he believed it would be proved that the prisoner had been delivered of a child, and that it had been born alive, and it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that the injuries had been inflicted after it was born. He then called the following witnesses:— Mary Smitheram.—I live at Calstock; have known the prisoner about five years, and slept with her about three years. She is married. On the 23d of March, Sunday evening, I went to bed with her about nine o'clock; there were two of her children in the same bed. Between three and four in the morning she called me and said, Mary, you must get up, your father has called you. I said, it is too early, I am not going to work till after breakfast. I asked her the time; she said she did not know, the clock had stopped. I listened, and said it was working. She was out of bed when she called me, she came into bed again, and I went to sleep. About half an hour afterwards I awoke and found her crying. I asked her what was the matter, but she did not speak. I again asked her, and she said "nothing." I listened and heard something “choking" in the bed. Prisoner was then in the bed, also the two children. I said "Mrs. Roberts what is the matter, is Billy choking?" She said he is only catching his breath, as he does sometimes. She got out of bed, and said I must go down stairs, I might as well go first as last. As she was going down stairs, I heard a baby cry. There was light and a fire down stairs. When I heard the baby cry, I heard it choking again, as she was going down stairs. I remained in bed some time, then heard the same noise down stairs of a baby crying and choking. I called out and said, Mrs. Roberts are you not coming to bed? She said, this is the second time I have been down stairs, and l am coming. She came to the foot of the stairs, and said, "I have got a child, and for God's sake don't never split." She then came up stairs. She got up about three stairs, and fell back again. I screeched, and her mother came to the door, and said what is the matter. The prisoner said to me, say nothing. When she fell back in the stairs, I had gone down and helped her up; she was in the room when her mother spoke. The mother lived next door; it was to the outer door of the house she came. When prisoner said to me, "say nothing," I said, "I can't say nothing," and she then said "nothing" herself. She told me to come into bed, and said we would afterwards get up and do the work, I said I can't come into bed. I then took my clothes, and went into her mother’s house. Before prisoner went to bed, I gave her a change of clothes. I had several times toId prisoner she was in the family way. She always said she was not. Her husband had been absent about three years. I did not observe anything in the bed; I did not examine it. Cross-examined—Her husband had been home about four days before this. I did not sleep with her when her husband was home. I saw him about the premises. He went, I believe, to another part of Cornwall to see his mother. When he went away, she sent for me to come and sleep with her again. It was in consequence of that I slept with her that night. She has three children, the eldest six or seven years of age.—ln answer to further questions, witness denied that she said before the magistrates and the coroner that the prisoner's child Billy was short of breath. The depositions, however, showed that she had said so. Witness admitted that before the coroner, she said she came home from chapel and went to bed, and that, she said was true. She had now stated, in the first part of her evidence (to which prisoner's counsel called attention) that she went to bed with the prisoner about nine o'clock. Witness further said, the prisoner was always very kind to her children; she bore the character in the neighbourhood of being a kind and feeling woman. Mary Ann Yenning lives next door but one to prisoner's house. On Monday morning, the 24th of March, very early, I was spoken to and went into prisoner's house. Saw a baby lying on the floor before the kitchen stove. It was a little boy, and was dead. Prisoner's mother was there, and at her request I washed the body, it was a little warm in the bowels. There was a little mark on the front part of the neck, something like a bruise, the skin was not broken. There was also a little mark on the breast. I carried the body upstairs. Prisoner was then in bed, and said she was very bad. I said, "Oh! Mrs. Roberts, how came you to have a child like this?" She said, "I never did nothing to it, I never touched it." I put the child's body in the cradle. Cross-examined—I said to her in the bedroom, "How came you to do so?" and she then said, "I never touched it." A woman at time of delivery is scarcely mistress of her actions. There were spots of blood from the bed down to the kitchen. Before the kitchen stove there was a large quantity of blood; witness believed the delivery was completed there. Henry Turner Wood, surgeon, went to prisoner's house on Easter Monday last. Prisoner was in the bedroom. I made no examination of the child then, but returned on the following Wednesday with Mr. Sleeman, surgeon, and Crocker, a constable. Prisoner's mother, Mary Dordge, brought us the body of the child, and we examined it. It was the body of a full-grown male child, of average length and weight. It had not been prematurely born. The features were swollen and livid, particularly about the lips. I observed scratches on the chest, neck, and face; they were circular cuts. There was a large bruise on the front part of the neck, extending about three inches. I can't tell what the bruise was occasioned by. I divided the skin over the bruised surface in the neck, and found the parts beneath much congested and laden with blood. I examined the lungs and found they were thoroughly distended with air, and somewhat congested, particularly at the back of the lungs. The lungs were dark red, indicating that respiration had fully taken place. To the touch they were crepitant, full of wind and air. We weighed the lungs, which were 1093 grains. I put them together into water, and they floated, I divided them into two lungs and they both floated; I cut them into twenty pieces, and all floated. I infer from that, that respiration had fully taken place. There was nothing unusual in the stomach. The liver, abdomen, and chest were healthy. The surface of the brain was very much congested; that was not natural; in my opinion it was sufficient to cause death. There was nothing particular to be found on examining the windpipe. It is my opinion that the death of the child arose from congestion of the brain, produced by the pressure in front of the neck, and the stoppage of respiration. It was my opinion that the pressure in front of the neck was produced after the birth of the child. I found that opinion on the state of the lungs. By the JUDGE—Was it possible that the pressure in front of the neck might have been done by the mother during the delivery? Witness—It was possible. Cross-examined—The bruise was on a part where it might have occurred during self-delivery. There was no verdict of wilful murder by the coroner's jury. The learned JUDGE here handed to witness his deposition before the magistrates, in which he had stated that the bruise on the part of the child's neck was in a place where it would probably occur in case of self-delivery. Witness said the deposition was correct. Richard Sleeman, surgeon at Tavistock, in practice about 24 years, was present when the body of the child was examined. Witness described what he observed, a mark on the neck, lividity of the face, and several marks of violence on the body, in the face, under the left ear, one on the front, and one on the side of the chest. The marks had the appearance of having been produced by nails. The surface of the brain was highly congested. I formed a decided opinion that the child died from asphyxia by strangulation, or suffocation; and I am of opinion that death occurred after the complete birth of the child. The marks I observed on the body were not sufficient to cause death; but there was, besides, the mark on the point of the neck, more important than the rest. The bruise at the lower part of the neck was not superficial, the deeper parts were involved. It was not a very large bruise, it was about half an inch long. The cellular tissue beneath the skin was livid. By Mr. Buller—Did you form any opinion as to the mode in which death had been occasioned? Witness—No. Might it have been occasioned in the delivery of the child?—Certainly not. What are your reasons for that opinion?—Witness—There was crepitation throughout the lungs, which floated in water, and each portion when subdivided floated. Under firm compression no portion of the lungs could be made to sink, and the weight was nearly 1,100 grains; all which, combined, proved that respiration had been fully established. The congestion of the brain was no doubt caused by the pressure on the neck. Strangulation, the cause of the congestion, was sufficient to produce death. Cross-examined—We did not examine the heart vessels; thought we had seen enough without that, to show the cause of death. The vessels of the heart have an effect upon those of the brain. This concluded the case for the prosecution, and Mr. CARTER on behalf of the prisoner, submitted that there was no evidence to go to the Jury. The learned JUDGE said he had thought the same, after hearing Mr. Wood's evidence, but that of Mr. Sleeman was of a stronger nature, and he could not take upon himself the responsibility of stopping the case from going to the jury. Mr. CARTER then proceeded with the address on behalf of the prisoner, contending that the evidence was totally insufficient for a conviction. As he was proceeding with his comments upon the case, the learned JUDGE was engaged in looking over the evidence; and at length he stopped Mr. CARTER, and told the jury he had been examining the evidence, and he was of opinion that it was quite insufficient to support a charge of murder; it was nothing more than a case of doubt and suspicion. The jury then gave a verdict of NOT GUILTY and the prisoner was discharged from custody. MURDER OF A SOLDIER.—SENTENCE OF DEATH. WILLIAM NEVAN was indicted for the wilful murder of Benjamin Robinson, on the 1st of June. He was also charged with the same offence on the coroner's inquisition. The prisoner, when arraigned, and asked whether he was guilty or not guilty, replied, "Not guilty, it happened by accident." The same jury were sworn as in the previous case, with the exception of William Charles Crowle in the place of George Leach. The counsel for the prosecution were Mr. Collier, Q. C., and Mr. Holdsworth; for the defence, Mr. Coleridge. The prisoner is an Irishman, age 44. Mr. COLLIER stated the case for the prosecution. He had to call the attention of the jury to a grave and solemn investigation into the circumstances attending the death of a brave officer in Her Majesty's service. The deceased was a serjeant-major of the name of Robinson, who had the charge of a number of pensioners acting as guard of some convicts in a vessel called the "Runnymede," lying in the Plymouth Sound on the 1st of June, and about to proceed to Swan River with those convicts. The prisoner was acting as corporal under the deceased, Serjeant-major Robinson. He had some months before acted under him as private soldier at Dartmoor Prisons, and it would appear from the evidence, that there had been a strong feeling, on the part of the prisoner, against Serjeant-Major Robinson, who was a smart and active officer, and had found it his duty to remonstrate with the prisoner, and on several occasions, for not attending to his arms and accoutrements, and for some trifling deficiencies in duty. These remonstrances on the part of the sergeant produced a strong effect on the mind of the prisoner, who had some months before been heard to say, "if he finds fault with me again, I shall put a bullet in my musket and send it through him." A day or two before the transaction in question took place, prisoner spoke to his commanding officer, Major Russell, asking him to allow him to leave the ship, because, he could not sail with Serjeant-Major Robinson. He made complaints of the Serjeant-Major, saying, amongst other things, that he was continually reversing his orders. Major Russell told prisoner be was willing to put him on shore, but in that case he must leave the guard altogether, and not return to Dartmoor, and the expenses of bringing him from his home and of his outfit, would be deducted from his pension. Major Russell was inclined to dismiss him, but at the suggestion of the surgeon, he retained him for a further trial. The prisoner therefore remained in the ship, and was there on Sunday the 1st of June. In the afternoon of that day, Serjeant-Major Robinson had been parading the men, and amongst others had inspected the prisoner. He inspected the men's appearance and firelocks. By an order shortly before given by Major Russell, the men took their muskets on these occasions loaded, but not capped, and upon being inspected, it was the practice to take them below, and deposit them in a place for that purpose. There was an order that the muskets which were capped should be placed in a stand upon the poop, in order that the men who were on guard might be always ready for an emergency. The men, after inspection, had gone below, but for some reason the prisoner remained on the deck with his musket. If he did not, he must have gone below for it, because he was on deck with his musket shortly before the occurrence with which he is now charged, and he was seen by another man on deck, to put a cap upon his musket. The Serjeant-Major, on inspecting the men, found that one of the soldiers, called Sullivan, was missing, he being engaged in cleaning his musket. The Sergeant-Major, seeing the prisoner on deck, told him to go and call Sullivan to come to him. The poop is slightly raised, to the height of three or four steps above the quarter-deck, and the Sergeant was on the poop. Sullivan, on being called by the prisoner, went up the starboard side to the Sergeant-Major, who was standing on the opposite side, upon the poop, close to the quarter-deck, where he inspected Sullivan's musket. The prisoner then went up the steps to the poop, where be faced towards the Sergeant Major, placed his gun against his hip and fired. The gun was loaded with ball, and the unfortunate sergeant-major was shot in the abdomen, and said, "O my God, I am shot, I am dead." The sentry caught the Sergeant-Major as he was falling; and a pensioner called Kinnaird rushed at the prisoner, who had walked not towards the serjeant- major, but in an easy way down the steps. He seized the prisoner by the collar, who said "do not have such a hold of me, loose your hold, I have done it, I have been driven to it." On the same afternoon, the prisoner was taken into custody by inspector Damrel, of the Plymouth police. He took prisoner to the room where serjeant-major Robinson was lying dead, and charged him with shooting him. Prisoner said, "if I did it, it was an accident; I did not know it was my gun that went off; it caught in the coop (there was a hen-coop on the poop) and went off by accident; at times l am not all right; at certain times I do not know what l am about; he threatened to take away my pension." This was the prisoner's statement, but he (the learned Counsel) was afraid the circumstances of the case would not allow the jury to come to the conclusion that the gun went off by accident. Evidence would be given to show that the prisoner stepped aside from the hen-coop, and therefore he could not have hitched the gun in it. It was also very strange, and inconsistent with the prisoner's innocence, that he should say, when Kinnaird seized him, "Loose your hold, I have done it, I have been driven to it." The following witnesses were called for the prosecution: Fenton Kinnaird, Daniel Sullivan, Matthew Cromer, and Joseph Sullivan, pensioners forming part of the convict guard on board of the "Runnymede;" James Damrel, police inspector at Plymouth; Major Russell, staff officer of pensioners; and Mr. Kay, assistant surgeon of H.M.S. "Conqueror." The prisoner appeared very anxious during the examinations of the witnesses, and sometimes communicated with his counsel. When Joseph Sullivan gave evidence, the prisoner became much affected, sat down, and leaned forward with his head on his hands. Mr. COLERIDGE then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, in an able and eloquent speech of considerable length. He contended that the gun was discharged by accident, and that the prisoner's story was true that it had caught in the hen-coop. That the gun was loaded and capped in the ordinary course of prisoner's duty, and that there was no proof of his having taken aim at the deceased. He remarked that the two witnesses who saw the gun discharged, differed as to the position of the prisoner at the time; that one of them must be wrong in his statement; that it was possible, considering the excitement at the moment, that both of them might be wrong, and a little change of position would have brought prisoner near to the hen-coop, as he had stated. The sentry and Sullivan were close by the sergeant-major at the time, and was it likely that he would discharge his musket intentionally, and run the risk of shooting the three men; and that he should do such an act intentionally at three o'clock in the afternoon? The learned counsel also submitted that there was no proof of motive for the commission of such a crime; that it could not be supposed the prisoner would murder the sergeant-major merely because he had some dislike to him; and the learned counsel endeavoured to throw discredit on the statement of Kinnaird with regard to threats used by prisoner towards deceased, and as to the expression Kinnaird said prisoner made use of when he seized him by the collar after the discharge of the musket. Reviewing all the circumstances, he confidently asked the jury for a verdict of acquittal. The learned JUDGE summed up the evidence, and remarked on some of its features, and with regard to the alleged absence of motive, he said it was well known that every year persons were found to take away the lives of others upon motives which to people in general appeared wholly inadequate. He remarked also upon the statements made by the prisoner to Kinnaird and to police inspector Damrel, and told the jury they must form their own opinion, and do their duty both towards the prisoner and towards the public. The jury then retired from the court, and were absent nearly ten minutes. In the interval the prisoner was removed from the bar. When the jury returned into court, the prisoner was again placed at the bar, and bowed to the judge. The Clerk of ARRAIGNS said—Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon your verdict, do you find William Nevan guilty or not guilty. The Foreman—GUILTY. The Clerk of the Arraigns (addressing the prisoner)—William Nevan, you have been indicted for the wilful murder of Benjamin Robinson. Upon your arraignment you pleaded not guilty, and thereby for your trial you put yourself upon your country. Your country have found you guilty—have you anything to say why the Court should not award judgment against you, to die according to law. The JUDGE then put on the black cap, and addressed the prisoner as follows:—William Nevan, you have been found guilty, after a patient trial, in which everything that could be possibly urged in your defence has been done by the learned counsel who defended you. You have been found guilty of wilful murder, and it is my duty to state that I entirely concur in that verdict. I do not see how any other verdict could have been properly returned on the evidence in this case. I think it is the fair result of the whole of the circumstances of the case, and I have no reason to suppose that any of the persons who gave evidence against you, stated any other than what they conscientiously believed to be the truth. I do not mean to pain you by any lengthened address. You must be conscious yourself that you wilfully took that man's life, and you must also well know what is the legal consequence of such an act. There has been placed in my hands a statement from a number of persons, I presume in the town of which you are a native. With that I have nothing to do. Any use to be made of it shall be by forwarding it to the Secretary of State, who will take the pleasure of the Queen upon it. I only refer to it to beg you to place no sort of reliance upon it, but to take advantage of the short time you have to live, to prepare for eternity; for it is my belief that the Secretary of State will not consider anything stated therein, sufficient to induce him to advise the Queen to make any remission of your sentence. I therefore advise you to take advantage of the religious attendance I know will be afforded to you, to prepare for that fate which will inevitably shortly fall upon you. The sentence of the Court is, that for the wilful murder of which you stand convicted, you be taken from hence to the prison whence you came, and that you be taken thence to a place of execution, there to be hanged by the neck till your body is dead, and that your body be taken down and buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall be confined after your conviction; and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul. The learned Judge, in passing the latter part of the sentence, was quite overcome by his feelings. When the sentencing was concluded, the prisoner exclaimed—"The Lord look upon me.' He was then removed from the bar. BURGLARY.—JOSEPH BASSET, 27, cabinet maker, was indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Mrs. Ryan, at Berkeley Vale, in the parish of Falmouth, and for stealing therefrom various articles of plate. The prisoner's brother, John Bassett, had been committed for the same offence, but he had escaped from prison, as we stated last week. Mr. BEVAN and Mr. HODGES appeared for the prosecution against Joseph Bassett, who was undefended. We gave the full particulars of this case, at the time it was brought before the committing magistrates; a short notice of it will therefore now suffice. Mrs. Ryan is the widow of a naval officer living at Berkeley Vale, Falmouth. She and her servant Mary Oates, went to bed about ten o'clock on Sunday night the 25th of May. Next morning at six o'clock, Mary Oates found that the house had been entered in the night, and that a great many articles of plate had been stolen from the back parlour. A man called Brice saw the prisoner and another man near Mrs. Ryan's house about a quarter to 12 on Sunday night, May 25th. A coast-guard man, called Rabey, saw the prisoner about three-quarters of a mile from Mrs. Ryan's house, on the road to Penryn, about one o'clock in the morning. The prisoner and his brother were afterwards seen together between Falmouth and Penryn, between the latter town and Truro, and at Grampound, on the road from Truro to Plymouth. The prisoner was carrying something in a handkerchief. At Plymouth he offered to sell various articles as old silver at the shop of Mrs. Reynolds. The assistant in the shop, named Brown, had suspicion, detained the articles offered, and sent for the police. The prisoner and his companion decamped, but they were subsequently apprehended at Truro. The articles offered for sale by prisoner, consisting of dessert spoons, forks, tea-spoons, salt-spoons, &c, were produced, and identified by Mrs. Ryan. The jury found the prisoner GUILTY, and two former convictions for felony were proved against him, one in June, 1852, and the other in April, 1853. There was another indictment against the prisoner, for a burglary in the house of Mr. Haly, of the parish of Falmouth, but this was not prosecuted. Sentence was deferred. FORGED NOTE.—JOHN COLLIVER, 39, stated to be a railway labourer, was indicted for having feloniously uttered a 5l. Bank of England note, he knowing it to have been forged. Mr. COLE and Mr. BEER for the prosecution, attorney, Mr. BISHOP; Mr. CARTER appeared for the prisoner. A number of witnesses were examined, and the case lasted a long time. It appeared that on the 21st of July, the prisoner was in a public house at Par, kept by Mr. Hole, where he had some porter, and in payment for it offered a 5l. Bank of England note. Mrs. Hole had the numbers given her of some forged notes which were in circulation, and on comparing the note offered by the prisoner, she found it was one of those numbers. Miss Hole, to whom the note had been tendered, therefore declined to change it, upon which the prisoner paid for the porter with half-a-crown. About half-an-hour afterwards, he went into another inn at Par, kept by Mrs. Treloar, where he again offered a £5 note to change. Mrs. Treloar sent out her daughter to get the change, but in the meantime Mr. Thomas Scantlebury came in and told Mrs. Treloar there was a man about the place who was trying to pass forged bank notes. Mrs. Treloar then ran after her daughter, and brought the note back. The prisoner was there, and Scantlebury told him he was an impostor, upon which he said, if the note is bad, I did not know it. Prisoner was then taken into custody by Tinney, a constable of Par, who happened to be present, and he was afterwards taken to St. Austell. On his way there, he asked the constable to allow him to retire for a few minutes, and the constable did so. He returned and was taken on to St. Austell, where he was searched and some letters and envelopes found upon him. On the same afternoon a Mr. Rutter was passing the same way, and happened to retire to the same spot as the prisoner had done, where he found several letters, and one of these was afterwards recognised as in the prisoner's handwriting. Some of these letters were produced as evidence against the prisoner, the counsel for the prosecution submitting that they were a correspondence between the prisoner as utterer of forged notes, and a person at Devonport who obtained those notes from the parties who forged them. One of the letters (found upon the prisoner at St. Austell) was dated Devonport, 23rd June, 1856, and addressed to the prisoner at his lodgings at Mrs. Holman's, Boar-street, Bodmin. The letter was signed R. Harris, and was as follows:—“I think you quite right in leaving as you did. Things are very quiet. I have heard nothing about what occurred, neither can I find anything in the papers about it. L am surprised at it; should I hear anything I will let you know. I will make it convenient to see you as soon as possible. I am getting some goods made up to take with me, and will let you know when I am coming. You can send a post-office order at any time. If you want any goods before I see you, send to me, and I will direct to you at Bodmin. I think you had better change your name. Should you send an order, say from William Hodder payable to Robert Harris, at Plymouth. Depend upon it the butchers are the surest. I think a great deal might be done, accomplish it as soon as possible, and then try the islands. Burn this as soon as you have read it." Other letters were read, in which the writer stated that "Susan had not been able to do anything, as the police wanted to find her." and the prisoner was told to alter his name, and to drop the writer a few lines as soon as he received the "goods." that he would have sent for thee, &c. The suggestion by the prosecution was that the "goods" meant forged bank notes. Another letter (found by Rutter where the prisoner had retired) was addressed on the envelope to Miss E. Wills, Mrs. Holman's, Boar-street, Bodmin, but inside commenced with, Sir, I am very sorry I could not get them till Tuesday morning, but there are plenty of them now ready," &c, Another letter, found at the place where the prisoner had retired, was in his own handwriting, dated Bodmin, July 17th, and stating, "Sir, I have this morning received the goods," &c. In another letter, July 18th, prisoner was told to send his post-office orders in future as from John James. A female who had lived with the prisoner at Bodmin, said there was such a person as E. Wills, but it was submitted to the jury that this evidence was not reliable. She said the prisoner had not been in the habit of selling any sort of goods. The bank note was then produced, and was stated by Mr. Merrifield, an inspector of notes for the Bank of England, to be a forged note. Mr. CARTER made a very long speech on behalf of the prisoner, who was, however, found GUILTY of uttering, knowing the note to have been forged. Sentence deferred.—In this case, a witness had failed to attend on the Tuesday, and had kept the Grand Jury waiting over until the Wednesday. The learned Judge told her he had a mind to fine her £20 as a warning to people that when they were required to attend on such an occasion, they must lay aside all other business. The witness pleaded ignorance, and said she would act differently another time. The Grand Jury were then discharged shortly before eleven this day, the learned JUDGE observing that with the exception of three cases, it was due to the county to say, that it was in a very satisfactory state with regard to crime. The Court rose at nine o'clock.—We shall give the remainder of the trials, and sentences of the prisoners next week. The case of child murder at Truro was proceeded with on Thursday before Mr. Baron Martin. NISI PRIUS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 30. (Before Serjeant Channell.) MEREDITH v. MARTIN. (Special Jury case.)—Counsel for plaintiff, Sergeant Kinglake and Mr. Coleridge; for defendant, Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Karslake.—Mr. Coleridge, opening the pleadings, stating that the plaintiff was James Henry Meredith, and the defendant Rebecca Martin.—The declaration charged the defendant with interrupting the flow of a stream to which the plaintiff is entitled in respect of a close of land.—The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty; 2ndly that the close of land was not in the occupation of the plaintiff; 3rd, that the reversion of the land was not in plaintiff; and 4thly, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the flow of the stream. Serjeant KINGLAKE said, in this case the plaintiff is Mr. Meredith, the devisee in trust and executor of the will of the late Mr. Treffry, of Place. The defendant Mrs. Rebecca Martin, widow of Mr. John Martin of St. Austell. She is the occupier of certain clay works called Screeda Clay Works; and this action was brought in consequence of her wrongful diversion of water rising and flowing through a property called Newton, in St. Austell, which is part of the property of the late Mr. Treffry, and is at present under the control and management of Mr. Meredith. This water, as you may be well aware (and I am glad that some of you have seen the premises) is exceedingly valuable for the purpose to which it has been applied—that of clay- works; and it is in consequence of its diversion by Mrs. Martin, and those who manage for her at the Screeda Clay Works, that this action was brought. These Screeda Clay Works had been worked about 30 years; and they adjoin the Newton Estate, which formerly belonged to Mr. Treffry and now belongs to Mr. Meredith; the estates being separated by, a fence; and next adjoining, higher up is a farm called Penhale, all these estates being divided from each other by certain fences.—It appears there was very little water on Screeda; and about 30 years ago, Mr. John Martin turned his attention to the surrounding district, to see in what way he could be accommodated with water necessary for his works at Screeda; and that led to an arrangement in 1834, between Mr. John Martin and the then owner of Newton Estate, Mr. Paul Moyle Robins. Mr. Robins, the predecessor of Mr. Treffry, in the ownership of Newton estate, when he became owner of the property in 1832 or 1833, took steps to improve the site and condition of the water, which at that time was, after heavy rains, a swamp, and diffused over the surface. At that time too, the estates of Penhall and Screeda were open and unfenced, and Mr. Robins put up a hedge to divide his estate of Newton from Penhale and also from the Screeda Moor; and, in addition to that, be improved the well- head, by putting up a bank and applying himself otherwise to the husbanding the water; and having done all this, for the purpose of getting the water more closely together and sending it down the leat to Newton farm-house, in 1834 an agreement was come to between him and Mr. John Martin; and in his (the learned Serjeant's judgment, that agreement was decisive of the case. The agreement was dated the 25th of March 1834; and by it Mr. Robins agreed to grant to Mr. John Martin, the full, free, and uninterrupted use of the water-course called Carclaze Leat running through Newton fields, for the purpose of working an engine or engines in Screeda Clay Works; together with all the spring-water rising in Newton estate, except such as was required as pot-water for Mr. Robins or his tenants; and together with the use of some pits and pans; the consideration agreed to be paid by Mr. John Martin being £7 a year rent, and 18d. per ton on all clay returned.—This water for the use of Newton farm-house was conveyed by a leat. After that agreement was made, a conduit, for conveyance of the surplus water of Newton to Screeda, was made through the hedge that had been made by Mr. Robins. In 1836, Mr. Treffry purchased Newton estate from Mr. Robins; and, in 1839 or 40 Mr. John Martin paid to Mr. Treffry 's agent £21 as three years' rent; and in 1842, £14 for two years rent; under the agreement referred to. In 1844 Mr. Martin died; and from that time his widow had continued the Screeda Clay-works, being assisted by Mr. Julyan her brother, Mr. Geach, her foreman, and Mr. William Martin, her son. The rent was continued during the life-time of Mr. Treffry, who died in 1850; and the defendant paid rent to Mr. Meredith down to Lady-day 1854, when her tenancy of this water was determined by notice to quit given at Michaelmas 1853. There had been nothing unneighbourly on the part of the plaintiff in determining this tenancy. It so happened that clay was found on the Newton estate; and it would seem that Mr. Treffry always had a purpose to open clay-works there. In 1854, Mr. Meredith granted these clay-works on Newton to a Mr. Teague, and as water for working them was essential, it became necessary to determine Mrs. Martin's interest. Her occupation ceased at Lady-day, 1854, and the rent was paid by her to that time. But after Lady-day, 1854, the conduit by which the water was conveyed from Newton to Screeda Works was stopped by plaintiff's agents, and some wrangling took place; but eventually defendant and her agents became satisfied they had no right and they relinquished all occupation of the water; and Mr. Teague remained in undisputed possession till about October 1855, when the agent of the works at Newton found that the supply of water suddenly ceased; in consequence of a hole having been bored, and the water tapped, at the point above, where the artificial conduit came through the hedge; the effect of which was to divert the water into the old channel leading to Screeda. Mr. Teague went and stopped up the hole; which was afterwards re-opened by defendants agents; and this opening and re-stopping went on, till it became necessary to take legal means of settling the dispute.—On the law as affecting the case, the learned Serjeant said nothing could be more clear than that where water rises, the owner of the spring is entitled to the whole of the water and its overflow, until it flows into some known and defined channel. The learned Serjeant, in the course of his address, explained with much minuteness the plans necessary to the understanding of the case; and then proceeded to call witnesses. The witnesses on the part of the plaintiff were:—Benjamin Brokenshir, civil engineer, of St Austell; Richard Hancock, mine-agent, of St Austell; Jacob Hancock, miner; John Hancock clay-carrier; Edward Pascoe, tin-miner; Thomas Trethewey, labourer; Thomas Truscott, labourer; John Puckey, principal mine- agent of the late Mr. Treffry, and in his employ for 20 years before his death; John Perry, agent of clay- works, and manager of the Newton clay-works, for Mr. Teague; James Teague, part lessee of Newton clay- works under Mr. Meredith, from March 1854; Richard Medland, captain of the Newton Clay-works; John Jonas, of St. Austell, who had worked at Screeda clay-works, and now works at the Newton clay-works; John Retallick, of St. Austell, who had worked at the Newton clay-works; James Henry Meredith, the plaintiff. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH objected, to the court, that the plaintiff's evidence did not support the declaration, inasmuch as it had not been proved that the plaintiff was entitled to the flow of the stream, nor that defendant had cut the bank of any stream. Plaintiff's case only proved the existence of some swampy ground, in which a well was made; and all that was suggested against the defendant was that a hole had been made in the Screeda estate, which had intercepted or interrupted the subterranean water; but there was no proof of interference with the water after it came to surface, or assumed a visible course; and, therefore, the defendant was not liable to this action. Serjeant KINGLAKE, besides controverting Mr. Smith's view of the evidence as to the condition of the water-site, stated that in a second count of the declaration, it was alleged that the defendant had cut a dam, which at all events would satisfy the description given, supposing that a bank was not a correct term. After reply, and discussion, the learned JUDGE decided that the case should go to the jury, giving Mr. M. Smith liberty to move, on a point reserved. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH then addressed the jury for the defendant. Referring to an assertion by Serjeant Kinglake than the agreement put in rendered the case, in effect, an undefended one, he affirmed that this agreement, which he (Mr. M. Smith) had willingly admitted, was as consistent with the case for the defendant as with that of the plaintiff. He believed it was from misconception of that agreement that Mr. Meredith had been induced to make this claim.—Mr. M. Smith then explained the defendant's map of the premises, and stated what he termed the undisputed facts of the case. He then adverted to the legal point already put to the Court—that the defendant was not liable to action for any act done in her own land which interrupted subterranean water; and there was no proof that the defendant had cut either the bank or dam of any water-course, or that she had done any thing affecting any flowing stream of water at surface. Thus far, Mr. Smith said, he had been arguing on the assumption that it had been proved that the defendant had made the hole complained of. But the case for the defendant was, that this was not at all a new hole, but had been there as long as memory could go back. It would be proved that there were clay- works on the Penhall side of Screeda Moor as early as 1823-4; and that the water spoken of was used, and carried into the leat, as early as 1835; it would, further, be shown that there were some tin-streams worked on Screeda Moor before the establishment of Clay Works, and that the stream was partly supplied at that time from the hole in question.—The clay-works set a going in 1823 were continued on till 1834, when the agreement already referred to was made, by which some of the Newton Water was let to the Screeda Clay-works people. It was this agreement which had been the cause of misconception. Mr. Meredith might fancy that all the water which the defendant got from Newton was obtained under that agreement; but it would be shown that before that agreement there was some water flowing from Newton to Screeda, and that this agreement was only for an additional supply; principally from Carclaze Leat, but also granting some of the surplus water from Newton. This agreement not being under seal, Mr. Meredith put an end to it, and at Michaelmas 1854 gave defendant notice to quit, and also stopped up part of the conduit. The Martins, however, thought they were entitled to this lease of water, as long as their clay works existed; but it turned out they were wrong. Mr. M. Smith, said he did not think this agreement could have any effect on the case, if he proved the existence of a stream of water from Newton to Screeda, long before its date.—Mr. M. Smith again recurred to what he asserted was the main point in the case—the assertion that the defendant had made, or enlarged, or in some way dealt with, the hole referred to, and thus interfered with the supply of water to the plaintiff's tenant; and he repeated that he should meet this imputation by proof that the hole had always existed; and, at all events, that the defendants had never made it.—He remarked on the fact that, in proof of alleged diminution of supply of water to Newton, the tenant of that farm had not been called; from his not being called, the jury might assume that there had been no such diminution as to form ground of complaint.—The learned gentleman briefly repeated the main points to be decided by the jury, and then proceeded to call witnesses:— Richard Carveth, surveyor; William Hore, farmer, formerly at Penhale; John Hancock, also at one period a farmer living at Penhale; Captain Robert Martin; Thomas Sturbridge, farmer, now living at Penhale; John Shear, John Poad, Samuel Poad, captains of clay works; Joseph Warwick, miner. At this stage, the case was adjoined till the following Thursday morning. WILLIAMS (Clerk) v HILL.—This special jury case, the hearing of which had been looked forward to with great interest, was now thus briefly disposed of.—The Counsel for the plaintiff were Mr. Montague Smith and Mr. Coleridge; for the defendant, Mr. Collier and Mr. Karslake.—Mr. COLERIDGE stated that the plaintiff was the Reverend Edward Williams; the defendant Mr. Richard Hayes Hill; the declaration stated that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff; and the defendant pleaded "NOT GUILTY." Mr. M. SMITH said he was not going to trouble the jury in the case, as his friend Mr. Collier had a statement to make. Mr. COLLIER was glad to say the jury and his lordship would be saved all trouble in this case; the defendant expressing his regret that he should have been induced to strike the plaintiff, and consenting to a verdict for plaintiff, with five guineas damages. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH said he was very happy to hear that the case had ended in this way. Mr. Williams did not bring this action with the object of obtaining vindictive damages; but he felt the indignity of the assault committed, and that it was necessary to take some step. That step was this action. He (Mr. Smith) was very happy to find that the defendant expressed regret at having assaulted Mr. Williams, and he thought it was creditable in Mr. Hill to have done so. On the understanding that the verdict would be for 5 guineas, the matter would now end. The jury accordingly returned a verdict for plaintiff, for 5 guineas. His Lordship certified for a special jury. The Court rose at 6 o'clock. NISI PRIUS. THURSDAY, JULY 31. (Before Serjeant Channell.) MEREDITH v. MARTIN.—The case for the defendant was completed this day by the examination of further witnesses:—George Cobbledick, who had worked at Screeda clay-works, and had also for some years occupied Penhale; Thomas Bettison, who worked at Screeda under the late Mr. Martin, and his widow, the defendant; John Geach, captain of Mrs. Martin's day-works; William Langdon Martin, son of defendant; and Benjamin Julyan, brother of Mrs. Martin, and who had been her agent at the clay-works, since the death of her husband in 1844. Mr. M. SMITH addressed the jury on the evidence for the defence, remarking that the observations he had made on the law of the case would not now be material, inasmuch as he felt confident he should have the verdict on the main question. His view of the law affecting the case was that, assuming the plaintiff’s case proved, the defendant did not break any bank or take down any dam, that was the bank or dam of any water course belonging to the plaintiff; and therefore, in point of law, there was no cause of action. But his main assertion was that the plaintiff's case was not true and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the water in question,—that this water had flown as it now flowed, from time of earliest memory,—that neither Mrs. Martin, nor any one for her, had made any hole or excavation interfering with the water belonging to Mr. Meredith,—and that the hole complained of had existed from all time. He (Mr. M. Smith) admitted that there was a spring arising in Newton, that a well was afterwards made for collecting and confining the water at that spring; and that there was a leat conveying the water thence to Newton farm- house; and to this water the defendant made no claim whatever. But she claimed to be entitled to the water that had flowed by the two streams out of Penhale hedge, from all time. Serjeant KINGLAKE replied; reminding the jury that the action, on the record, was shaped in a double way—one allegation being that the plaintiff was in possession of certain land and clay works and by reason of that possession was entitled to a certain stream of water, and that the defendant had cut down the bank of that stream and thereby had deprived the plaintiff of the water; and secondly, there was, what was probably the more important allegation—that the defendant had destroyed a certain dam, and had thus diverted the stream. In support of his case, the learned Serjeant insisted on the principle of law—that whenever a person has a spring of water on his land he has a right to appropriate it to his own use, and even though any overflow of that spring might pass into adjoining premises, yet until that overflow assumed a definite and fixed course, the person on whose property the spring rose to surface, had a right to do every thing he could for the appropriation of that water, and he had a right to divert that water in any way, on his own property, if he did nothing to injure adjoining property. In the present case, the spring rose on Newton, the property of Mr. Meredith, and Mr. Meredith was the person entitled to the water from that spring; and it was not because, in years past, some of that water might have filtered or oozed through the hedge of the leat, that Mr. Meredith was not entitled to protect that spring on his own land and to prevent its being turned away or distributed, car obstructed in any possible way; and if any person on adjoining property did any act whereby Mr. Meredith's right to the whole of the water from the spring on his land, was intercepted or interfered with, it became a cause of action. The learned Serjeant cited Broadbank v. Ramsbottom, decided in January 1856, and reported in the Law Journal, Exchequer Reports, May, 1856. In that case there were two closes of water in dispute. In the one there was a place where, not by any spring on the land, but by means of a large sunken place—a kind of land-slip—a large quantity of rainwater collected, and thence flowed away in various directions—partly by ditches and partly over the surface of the land—till eventually it got into a brake belonging to an adjoining neighbour, who had been in the habit of applying it to his own use. The question in the case was whether the gentleman on whose land the pond was situated in which the waters collected, had a right to divert it in any possible way for his own use; and the court held that undoubtedly he had, and that no one could legally disturb him in that right. The second point in the case was, where there had been a well of overflowing water, as in the present case; the overflow eventually getting into the defendant's land. The question was, whether the owner of the land where was the well, had a right to cut off altogether and appropriate to his own use, the water that had overflowed to his neighbour; and the Court said decidedly he had.—The learned Serjeant then addressed the jury at some length on the evidence in the case. The learned Judge then proceeded to the summing up, which occupied him nearly an hour and three quarters. The action was brought by Mr. Meredith against Mrs. Rebecca Martin for diverting a stream of water, in which Mr. Meredith claimed to have a reversionary interest. The stream of water in question rose from a spring on Newton estate of which they might take it that Mr. Meredith was the owner; his claim arising as devisee in trust under the will of the late Mr. Treffry. That estate of Newton had been let to a gentleman called Teague, who was carrying on clay-works there, and who, in respect of his action, had the same rights as his landlord Mr. Meredith. The defendant had pleaded several pleas to this action:—1st, that she was "not guilty;" 2nd, that the plaintiff and his tenants were not the occupiers; 3rd, that the plaintiff had no reversionary interest; and 4thly, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the stream. His lordship thought, however, that as regarded the verdict of the jury, the case would mainly depend on the first plea—that of not guilty. Proceeding to speak of the facts of the case, and referring to the plans, his Lordship said Newton estate was west of Penhale and of Screeda works; the Newton estate proceeded from North to South, being bounded on the East, on the top part by Penhale estate, and lower down by Screeda Moor. Between the Penhale estate and Newton, and between Penhale and Screeda was a hedge or fence. There was some variance in the evidence, whether that hedge had always existed in the same state as at present. With regard to the fence between Newton and Screeda Moor, there was evidence that it was made within living memory by Paul Robins; but it was also in evidence that that hedge built by Robins did not go quite up to the fence between Newton and Penhale, but left a space through which water passed and cattle strayed; and that this gap was filled up, completing the fence between Newton on one side, and Penhale and Screeda on the other. The stream of water now in dispute arose thus:—There was now on Newton estate a well, of small depth (21 inches), and occupying, at least in part, the site of a spring previously existing there; and it was formed for the better collection of the water that rose there. In 1834, and prior to the construction of this well, Paul Robins, the then owner of Newton estate, entered into an agreement with Mr. Martin (husband of the defendant) and who was then working clay-works on Screeda Moor; those clay-works having, at that time, been working for about 10 years. The date of that agreement, (on which each party relied as substantiating his case) was the 25th of March, 1834. Previous to that time it would appear from evidence, that there had been an overflowing of water from Newton estate, down to Screeda moors—the overflow, probably, of springs; and one main object of that agreement was to secure for Mr. Martin the use of another stream called Carclaze Leat, and which taking its rise on Newton estate passed over Screeda Moor, much to the south of this spring that had been the subject of so much discussion. But besides granting to Mr. Martin, the use of Carclaze Leat, and stipulating for rent to be paid for it, the agreement went on to what was more particularly now the subject matter of dispute—"all that spring of water, rising on Newton estate, that was not required as pot-water for the use of Paul Robins or his tenants at Newton. And, thirdly, there was a demise of a parcel of waste land, &c., &c. For the use of the water it appeared there was a rent, under this agreement, of £7 a year; and for the use of the pits and pans on the waste land, a sort of royalty at 1s. 6d. per ton on the day prepared there. And, as to the duration of contract, it was to be so long as the said John Martin might require for carrying on his Screeda clay-works.—Before the making of this agreement, there was, from the site of the well on Newton estate, a leat going in a southerly direction and conveying the water to Newton farm-house; and subsequently the position of that leat had been removed nearer the hedge before referred to.—The agreement had been acted on, and the rent paid, first by Mr. Martin and afterwards by Mrs. Martin, to the persons successively entitled to it, until the lease was determined at Lady-day, 1854, by notice from the plaintiff. From that time the conduit was stopped, but the plaintiff’s case was that, notwithstanding that stoppage, there was a sufficient supply of water at Newton, until about the 13th of October 1855; and the plaintiff alleged that this diminution of supply was caused by defendant's diversion of the water of that stream; in the first place, by cutting the bank of that stream; and secondly, by removing and destroying a dam; and these were the wrongful acts which were alleged against the defendant—Adverting to the case cited by Sergeant Kinglake—Broadbank v Ramsbottom—the learned judge was of opinion that though it had some reference to the present case, it was not strictly applicable to the main point under discussion. In that case it was held that a person was entitled to water rising from a spring in his own land, and that he had a right to reserve for himself the overflow of that water and to prevent it going to a neighbour's land. But in the present case, the question was—had the defendant been guilty of either of the two wrongful acts charged against her in the declaration:—in the first place, whether she or her agents had diverted the water by making the hole in the bank; and, in the next place, supposing the defendants had not made that hole originally, whether they had removed a turf placed in it by the plaintiff, and thus removed or destroyed a dam. Another point in this case was—supposing the jury should be of opinion there was proof that, the defendant had done any thing to the hole, whether that was not done or the Penhale estate, which was in defendant's occupation; the learned judge referred to evidence adduced, that the visible hole was on the Penhale side, and he stated that it was part of the defendant's case that this hole was through, the Penhale hedge, at the corner where that hedge joins the Newton hedge—that that hole had been there as long as any remembrance, and that water had issued through it, before the agreement between Robins and Martin, and before the conduit was made,—that it flowed through two channels which united into one stream some 4 or 5 feet after it came out of the Penhale hedge. The defendants asserted that though, after the determination of the agreement, they had no right to any supply of water from the conduit leading from the well, yet that they had a right to water oozing out of that hole which had existed prior to that agreement. And they (the jury) would have to consider, as one part of this case, whether they believed that that hole existed now in the same shape and character, and so as to admit, as near as might be, about the same supply of water as before that agreement was entered into. To fix the defendant on the first count, the plaintiff must satisfy the jury that the defendant diverted the water by tapping the bank; but if the hole was there before, and had been uninterfered with by the defendant, then the declaration was not proved as regarded that first count; although if holes were caused naturally by the action of water, and were not artificial holes made purposely and intentionally, the plaintiff might be entitled, on his own land, to stop the exit of water and preserve the overflow.—But the plaintiff insisted that there was no hole previously, and that the hole had been made by the defendant's agents, and that it interfered with the bank of the stream; and he (the learned judge) should ask the jury to say by their verdict, whether they were satisfied that the hole was made by the defendant at all; and then, if the defendant made the hole, whether it was a hole that interfered with anything except the Penhale and Screeda Moor estates.—As affecting cases of this kind, his lordship said there was a difference between water running on the surface, and water that was subterranean. In the present case, the water was neither one nor the other, exactly; and, if the plaintiff were entitled to a certain spring on his own land at the point where the well was now situated, and, the water afterwards taking its course downwards, the defendant drained the spring on plaintiff's land, by means of a hole made in her own land, his lordship was of opinion that this was not a wrongful act, as now charged in this declaration. He did not say it was not an act for which the defendant might not otherwise be responsible. There were certain rights attached to a visible stream of water; the person through whose land it flowed was entitled to a certain enjoyment of that stream; he could not interrupt that water in its natural passage so as to prevent a person lower down the stream having the benefit of the flow of water through his land; and he could not dam that water above so as to throw on the land higher up such an accumulation of water as would be injurious or offensive. But that was as to the user of a stream visible to the eye. If, however, the spring in the plaintiff’s land on the Newton Estate, had been drained and the supply cut off by means of a hole dug entirely in the lands of the defendant, without saying that the defendant might not be answerable in some way or other, all he would say on this point was that that hole if made by defendant, and made entirely in adjoining land—not the Newton land—though it might have the effect of draining the spring, it would not establish the wrongful act charged in the first count of the declaration,—namely, the cutting of the bank.—The second count of the declaration charged the defendant with removing a dam. What was said to be the dam was this:—After October last, a turf was placed by plaintiff's agents, to stop the outlet of water, which the hole had caused. He thought it was immaterial whether this turf stopped the outlet entirely or only partially. The plaintiff might have had a right to stop the outlet, on the supposition that it had been made since the agreement referred to. But if the turf was placed in a hole that was entirely on the eastern—the Penhale side, then it was no dam of the plaintiff’s stream, such as would support this action—it was not a dam of the stream that plaintiff seeks to be entitled to.—Before reading over the evidence bearing on the points spoken on, the learned judge gave some statements in explanation of the conduit which he had before briefly referred to. It appeared that immediately after the agreement in 1834, this conduit was made for the purpose of collecting water in, and it was stopped at the expiration of the agreement, in order to prevent in future that supply of water. (Further description would be unintelligible without plans). The learned judge, again reminding the jury that the question they had to determine was that which arose on the plea of "not guilty," proceeded to read and comment on his notes of evidence; and then, again stating that the principal question arose on the plea of "not guilty," said that if the spring arose in plaintiff’s land, though the plaintiff might be entitled to stop for the future any overflow that had taken place, yet the right to the stream and even the right to stop any overflow were quite distinct and different from the question whether or not the defendant had been guilty of cutting a bank or removing a dam. If the hole which was there in March last was a hole that existed long before, and was made by natural causes, or was enlarged or increased by natural causes, without any interference by the defendant, then the issue, on the plea of not guilty, was not established against the defendant, with regard to the 1st count. If the hole was made by the defendant, but made in her own land, and if the effect of it was to drain only underground springs of adjoining land, then, without saying it would not subject the defendant to some liability, he was of opinion it would not warrant or sustain the wrongful act now charged. If the hole was not made on the Newton estate, then it did not appear to him that the removal of the turf placed there by the plaintiff, was the destroying of a dam of the stream to which the plaintiff was entitled in his own land.—If the hole was entirely on the Penhale side and not at all on the Newton side, then, in the learned Judge's judgment, neither of the wrongful acts charged in the declaration could be established. The Jury would say if the defendant was guilty or not guilty. If they thought the hole was not made by the defendant or by her directions, they would say so. If they thought it was made by her directions, but was made wholly on her own estate, they would say so. If they found the defendant not guilty, they would also state on what issue they found. If they found that the defendant made the hole and made it in the Newton estate, the land of the plaintiff, and that that hole carried away the water rising on the plaintiff’s estate, then they would find for the plaintiff. At 10 minutes past 3 the Jury retired, and in half an hour they returned into Court; and their Foreman said:—We find for the defendant, on the plea of "not guilty." In answer to questions from the learned Judge, the Jury said they found that the defendant had not interfered with the hole at all, and had nothing to do with it; that what had taken place with reference to the hole was in the Penhale land; that the hole itself was in the Penhale land, and did not extend into the Newton land. The verdict was entered—for the defendant, on the plea of not guilty; and for the plaintiff, on the three other issues. This closed the business of the Nisi Prius Court. CROWN COURT. THURSDAY, JULY 31. (Before Mr. Baron Martin.) The following prisoners were sentenced this morning:— DANIEL SULLIVAN, who had pleaded guilty of stealing a sheep, the property of Joseph Teague, at Redruth. The learned JUDGE said, Sheep-stealing was one of those offences which occasionally it was necessary to punish with very great severity, because sheep form a most valuable property in this country, and they are perfectly unprotected. They must of necessity be left in the fields, and are easily killed and stolen by badly disposed persons. If he had reason to suppose that this offence was general in Cornwall, he should inflict upon the prisoner a much more severe sentence. He should now sentence him to Eighteen months' hard labour. SIMON KINVER had been found guilty of maliciously killing a sheep, the property of Mr. Thomas Adams, of Laneast. The learned JUDGE said, I have endeavoured to ascertain what motive you could have had for conduct as wicked and malicious as was ever brought forward in a court of justice. You were in the service of a kind master, yet for many weeks you proceeded on the system of killing sheep, giving out that it was done by dogs, and ultimately reporting that it was done by some wild animal which it was supposed had escaped, and in a very few weeks 32 sheep were killed by you in this way. Ultimately, Mr. Adams seems to have supposed you were the man who did it. He took the pains to watch you, and it was found that you tortured an unfortunate sheep in a manner disgraceful to any man. It is bad enough for such quiet animals to be killed of necessity; but you stabbed this sheep in the shoulder, then cut its throat, then cut its nose nearly off, and then left the animal lying in the field, for the purpose of gratifying a malicious feeling towards a man who had never injured you and whose only purpose was to discover the man who had destroyed his neighbour's sheep. The sentence of the Court is that you be Transported for fifteen years. MARY JANE ALLEN, who had pleaded guilty of stealing money from her master, Mr. Rickard, of St. Erme, was sentenced to Two months' hard labour. WILLIAM PENGELLY BARNES had pleaded guilty of stealing a German silver watch, waistcoat, handkerchief, and money, the property of John Shermon (sic), at Truro. The learned JUDGE said this was a very scandalous larceny from a person in whose house the prisoner had lodged and been treated with kindness. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour. JOSEPH BASSETT had been found guilty of a burglary in the house of Mrs. Ryan, in the parish of Falmouth. The JUDGE said, not many years ago, you were convicted of stealing some small articles, for which you were imprisoned two months in the house of correction. Very soon after you came out of prison, you and your brother, who was also concerned in the robbery for which you now stand to receive sentence, were again convicted of what might appear, upon the face of it, to be a slight offence, the stealing some timber, which I apprehend was out of doors, and if it had not been for your known bad conduct and character, I do not think such a severe sentence would then have been inflicted upon you as transportation for seven years for that offence. I have no doubt the court did right in that case. I presume you obtained a ticket of leave and returned, both of you, and immediately began your crimes afresh. You broke into Mrs. Ryan's house, and stole all the plate you could lay hands on, about £30 worth. It is a most serious offence. It is the bounden duty of all persons who administer the law, to protect houses by night. You must be conscious that your race is now run. The sentence of the Court is that you be Transported for the term of your natural life. JOHN COLLIVER had been found guilty of uttering a counterfeit £5 Bank of England note. In passing sentence, the learned JUDGE observed that Bank of England notes form the bulk of the circulation of this country, and it was the duty of every person administering the law to protect the public against such persons as the prisoner. The note he had attempted to pass was an excellent imitation, and if presented in payment for articles to a large amount it would probably have been taken, and have passed into circulation, and ultimately have caused loss to some honest person. To pass a forged note wilfully, was as bad a mode of committing a robbery upon a person to that amount, as could well be. From the letters read, it was clear that the prisoner was carrying on a correspondence with a person at Devonport, whose trade was to get these forged bank notes from where they were prepared, and to circulate them through the country. The learned JUDGE said the prisoner and his correspondent seemed to have understood their trade well, and after making some further remarks upon the case, he sentenced the prisoner to Six Years Penal Servitude. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER AT TRURO. ANN MATTHEWS, aged 32, shoemaker, JAMES GEORGE, 19, barber, and RICHARD JOSE, 35, tanner, were indicted for the wilful murder of the female child of Ann Matthews; and, in a second count, Ann Matthews and James George were charged with feloniously receiving, harbouring, and maintaining Richard Jose, knowing him to have committed the murder. The prisoners pleaded NOT GUILTY. The following were sworn on the jury:—Henry Wright, foreman, William Spry Spettigue, Francis Wallis, John Simmons, Robert Vivian, Richard Snell, William Reynolds, George Scaley, Andrew Nicholls, Michael Oliver, Christopher Martin, and Thomas Phillips. The counsel for the prosecution were Mr. STOCK and Mr COLERIDGE; attorney, Mr. PASSINGHAM. The prisoner Ann Matthews was undefended, but Mr. BEVAN appeared for the prisoner George, and Mr. COLE for the prisoner Jose; attorney for Jose, Mr. SAMUEL POLLARD, of Wadebridge. Ann Matthews often appeared nervous and excited during the trial; at one time she fainted, and was removed from the dock for a few minutes, and attended to by Dr. Bullmore, of Truro. The prisoner Jose maintained a stolid and sullen look throughout the day, displaying no particular agitation, as most prisoners do under such dreadful circumstances. Sometimes, however, he looked a little anxious; and attended closely to the evidence. The prisoner George looked as if he were entirely insensible of the peril of his position. Mr. STOCK addressed the jury on the part of the prosecution. After speaking of the awful nature of the charge against the prisoners, he said the jury would have to consider, if they believed the evidence laid before them, whether the prisoner Jose with his own hands took away the life of this helpless infant; and further they would have to inquire whether the prisoners Matthews and George, or either of them, were so present at the murder, aiding and countenancing the commission of it, as to be guilty of the same offence as principals; or, if the evidence did not satisfy the jury to that extent, they would have to consider whether Matthews and George were not guilty of the lesser offence (as the law called it) of harbouring and maintaining Jose after the murder, so as to make them what was called by the law, accessories after the fact. The learned counsel then proceeded to detail the circumstances of the case, stating that the prisoner Ann Matthews is a widow, the mother of 3 children; that she lived in Boscawen Row, Truro; that her husband died about four years ago, and that she had lived in a decent and respectable manner till, in an evil hour, she met with the prisoner Jose. About 8 or 9 months ago, he went to lodge in her house, and from that time they had lived together in a state of open adultery, the prisoner Jose being a married man. In the same house were lodging, since the commencement of this year, the prisoner George, who was a barber, and a young woman of the name of Burns, and they were living in the same sort of illicit intercourse as the prisoners Jose and Matthews. Matthews became with child; there was a strong reason for keeping this secret, because if it were known she had child by Jose, the parish allowance for her other children would be withdrawn. No provision was made for the birth of the child, which was an important fact in the case; and it would appear there was an attempt to procure abortion, which failed. The learned counsel then detailed the facts connected with the birth of the child, as given in the subjoined evidence, the manner in which it was killed, that the body was afterwards carried to Pencalenick pond, about two miles and a half from Truro, where the prisoner Jose tied a stone round its neck with a cord, and threw it into the pond; that the body was discovered by a lad who was fishing in the pond; that it was conveyed to Truro, to the Union Hotel, where it was examined by Mr. Painter, surgeon, who afterwards made a post mortem examination at the request of the coroner, and a verdict of "wilful murder against some person unknown" was returned by the Coroner's jury. That subsequent inquiries by the police led to the suspicion that the prisoner Ann Matthews had been confined; that she was, after some objections, examined by Mr. Painter and Dr. Bullmore, who found that she had been recently delivered; that Jose, Matthews, George, and Burns were then apprehended, and made statements implicating each other; that in consequence of Jose's statement that the child had been poisoned, the body was disinterred from St. Clement's churchyard, where it had been buried after the inquest, but that on examination by Dr. Bullmore and Mr. Painter, no effects of poison could be discovered; the conclusion arrived at was, that the child had died from suffocation. With regard to the nature of the evidence, a great part of it, the learned counsel said, would be unimpeachable, given by respectable witnesses who could have no motive to deceive. The remaining part of the evidence was of two classes, and would demand the careful attention of the jury. One part of it would consist of the statements of the prisoners themselves. It was a principle of law and of common sense, that what one prisoner states against another in his absence is of no weight against that other. What one prisoner states in the presence of another is evidence, but is by no means to be taken as conclusive evidence against that other because he does not contradict it at the time. But there is no stronger and better evidence against a man than his own statements against himself. In the present case, therefore, the jury would have to take the statement of each prisoner, only so far as it weighed against himself or herself, and reject that portion of the statement which related to the other prisoners. They might, however, consider which of the prisoners' statements was the most consistent with other undoubted testimony. For instance, they would find that Jose's statement was utterly at variance with the medical evidence, and could not be true; whilst they would find that the prisoner George's statement was quite consistent with the medical evidence, and in all probability was true. Then, as to the evidence of Eliza Burns, he admitted, on the part of the prosecution, that the jury would be required to attend to it with the greatest care, and to receive it with the greatest caution. But although she had been living in a state of unchastity, it did not follow that she must be guilty of bearing false witness against her neighbour. It might be said that she was unworthy of credit, because she was present during the whole of this horrible transaction, when Jose thrust his fingers into the child's throat, and afterwards put it in a pan of water, and that she did not interfere and try to save the child's life. But they must remember that she was under the control of the prisoner Jose, who was a strong man, and she a helpless woman. Further, it appeared she had not told of it, as it was her duty to do; but it must not be forgotten that she had been subjected to the strongest solicitation not to reveal what she had seen, and for a time she kept her promise not to do so. It was true she had herself been committed for the murder, with the other prisoners, and had been brought into that court from the county gaol to give what is called Queen's evidence. She had now the strongest motives to endeavour to clear her own character, and, probably, she would have a strong desire to save the prisoner George, with whom she had been living. All this made it necessary that the jury should receive her evidence with the greatest possible care and caution. At the same time, if they found her evidence was corroborated by other unsuspected testimony; if her description of the way in which the murder was effected, was exactly borne out by the testimony of the medical men, who would say the appearances of the body were exactly such as would follow the acts she described; if, further, she gave her evidence in a proper and becoming manner, and her story was probable and consistent, it would be the duty of the jury to entertain her evidence as one of the most important parts of testimony on which their verdict would have to be founded. Even if they should find Eliza Burns unworthy of credit, he was far from saying that there was not enough, apart from her testimony, to convict the prisoner Jose of having committed this dreadful crime; but if they believed Burns, Jose was guilty, as clear as the sun at noon day. He then repeated, that if the other prisoners were not principals, they must be held as accessories after the fact, and he then proceeded to call the following witnesses:— Eliza Burns—I am 19 years of age, and am a shoemaker; have known James George twelve months, and have lived with him. I went to live in Ann Matthews's house about nine months ago. She was a shoemaker; I worked at the trade in her house. She was living alone when I went to her house. Richard Jose came to live in the house about two months after I went there. He slept with Ann Matthews. George came to live in her house about six months after I went there. George and I lived there together till this matter took place. About two months before Matthews was confined, she told me she was in the family way, and I was not to tell any one of it. She said if I were to tell, she would lose the pay from the parish for her children. I remember the evening of the 26th of March last. She had made no preparation for the birth of the child. She has three children. On the evening of the 26th of March last, Ann Matthews went to bed with a headache. She made no complaint to me. Jose came home that evening from his work about six o'clock; he worked at the tanyard. Matthews had gone to bed when Jose came home; he asked me to cook his supper, and asked me where Ann Matthews was. I said she had gone to bed very bad. I prepared his supper, and he had it. After that he went into the garden, and I went to a neighbour's house, and stayed there about an hour and a half. I then went back, and found Richard Jose sitting by the kitchen fire smoking his pipe. I asked him if he was going to bed: he said he should when he had smoked his pipe. I went to bed leaving him by the fire. George came to bed to me about half an hour afterwards. In the morning, about four o'clock, Jose came to my bed-room and asked me if I would come down stairs to Ann Matthews. I told him I would in a few minutes. A little after he had gone, I got up and went down, without awaking George. When I went down, the kitchen door was shut, there was a pitcher of water against it. I heard Ann Matthews groaning, and asked Jose to come in. He told me I must stop a few minutes; he could not leave go Ann Matthews. I asked him the second time, and he made the same answer. I put my hand inside as well as I could, moved away the pitcher, and got into the room. Jose and Ann Matthews were there. I heard the baby cry very loud. I saw it lying on the floor in the middle of the kitchen, I saw it move. Jose called on James George, who came down stairs. Jose was holding Ann Matthews, who was standing up in her night-dress, with a gown thrown loosely over her. Jose asked George to assist Ann Matthews to her bed-room; and he took her by her arm. When they were going to the bed-room, and had just got to the door, Ann Matthews turned round and told Jose to stop her baby from screeching. Matthews then asked me if I would get her a cup of tea. George took her to her bed-room. Myself and Jose were left in the kitchen when George and Matthews left the room. I saw Jose put his finger in the child's throat, and say "that won't do for it." The child was then struggling. He had his finger in the child's throat for about five minutes; the child was gurgling, and he shook it. He took a pan from the cupboard, and poured water into it from the pitcher, and put the child's head in the pan of water. The child was on the floor when he had his finger in its throat. I told him not to kill the child. He told me to be quiet, and not to tell any one what he was doing by it; he said, if I told, I should hang him. No part of what I saw Jose do was done when Ann Matthews was in the room; she had left the room when Jose put his finger in the child's mouth. I got the tea for Matthews. Jose cleaned the kitchen; he asked me to clean it, I told him I could not. He said, if you will get me a cloth I will do it myself. I got him a cloth, and he did it, and threw what he cleaned up over the back garden hedge. He came in and told me where he had thrown it, and said he was sure no one would find it. I went to Matthew's bed-room with the tea; the child was in the pan of water when I went up stairs. Matthews was then in bed, and she asked me if her baby was dead. I told her all that Richard Jose had done by it. She told me not to tell any one what he had done. I told her I would not. I gave her the tea, and then went to my own bed. George was there. I was greatly hurried. About an hour and a half after that George went away, and just before eight I got up and fitted breakfast for the family, Jose, and the children. Jose came from his work at eight o'clock. I told him I should leave. I was then hurried. He wished me to stop, to attend Ann Matthews; he said if I did he would pay me well for it. I told him I would stop. He told me that he had put the child in the cupboard. He told me to tell no one what he had done by it. He opened the cupboard and showed it to me. I told him if he did not take it out from there, I could not sit at work for the day. He then carried it up stairs, and when he came down told me he had put it in a box in the bed- room where Ann Matthews was. After this Jose went to work, and in about half an hour I went up stairs to Ann Matthews. She was in bed, and showed me where Jose had put the child; she pointed out the box, and told me not to tell any one what he had done by it; she said if I did I should hang him and do for her. I told her I would not tell. I next saw Jose at dinner time, one o'clock. He told me again not to tell what he had done. He seemed hurried, and said he hoped I should never tell. I told him I would not. He went up stairs to Ann Matthews, and was with her about half an hour. He then went to work. I saw him again in the evening at 6 o'clock, when he told me again not to tell. The child was then up stairs. He said he should carry it away. George came home between 7 and 8. I was in the kitchen. Jose asked George if he would go with him to put away the child. George said, yes. Jose unhung a basket in the kitchen, went to Ann Matthews's bed- room, and when he came down stairs he had the child in the basket. While Jose was up stairs with Ann Matthews I heard them talking; I could not hear what they said. I saw the child in the basket when he brought it down stairs. George and he went away with it together, and were absent about an hour and a half. Jose told me he tied a stone to a cord and put it round the child's neck, and threw the child into Pencalenick pond. He told me not to tell that he had been there with it. I told him I was sure it would be found out where he had thrown it, as the pond was near the road; he said he was sure it would not be found; if they went from here to Australia, he said, they would not find it. He told me not to tell; if I did, I should hang him. This happened on Thursday morning, and on Friday I left the house and went to my mother's in Kenwyn-street, Truro. On Saturday afternoon I again went to Ann Matthews's, and she wished me to come back to her house; I told her I should not. Her eldest girl, about nine years old, came in, and said, "Mother, there is a little baby found in the leat." Ann Matthews seemed hurried, and said that must be her child. I sent the little girl after James George. Ann Matthews told me she hoped I should never make it known what was done by it; if I did it would be a bad thing for her, and I should hang Jose. When George came I told him what the little girl had said. He said, if it was found he should be taken up for going with Jose; he said he never touched it or threw it in, and Ann Matthews began to cry, and said she hoped we should never make it known, and we both said we would not. I saw her again on the Sunday at 7 o'clock. Ann Matthews came to my house; George was there with with (sic) me, and we went into the street. She told me she hoped I should never make it known. She said the two doctors had that day been examining her, Mr. Painter and Dr. Bullmore. She said Mr. Painter had her up-stairs first, that he asked her if she had had a child, and she told him she had not. She said Mr. Painter asked her if she would allow Dr. Bullmore to examine her; he said two heads were better than one. She said Dr. Bullmore examined her also, and she told them she had not had child. She told me they were gone, and she did not think they would come any more. I asked her where Jose was; she said she left him home, and the last words she had from him were, he hoped you would not tell, either one of you; he said, if you do you will hang me. George and I promised again not to tell. She wished us to go again to live at her house. We did not. I did not see her again till I saw her before the magistrates on the following Wednesday. Cross-examined by Mr. Bevan.—George is a barber; he and I are engaged to be married. By Mr. Cole—l have been intimate with George twelve months; before that I lived at my grandmother's. I was working for myself. I was committed for trial for murder. A gentleman came to me on Tuesday to give evidence. I never told the truth when I was taken up first; I was hurried; I was bound not to tell. Policeman Woolcock came to me; I told him I knew nothing about it, except that when I got up on Thursday morning I saw a wet, place in the kitchen and Jose told me he had spilt a pail of water there. Jose told me to say so. Woolcock told me I could tell a great deal more if I chose. Woolcock told me George was in custody, and that from what he had said I could give material evidence. Mr. COLE—Did you not say to Woolcock, "I don't know who killed the child, Jose had it on the floor, but his back was towards me, and I could not see what he was doing to it?" Witness—I did not say so. Mr. COLE— Will you swear that? Witness—l told Woolcock Jose's back was towards me, but I did not say I could not see what he was doing. Mr. COLE—Did you go on to say at that time, that was all you knew about it? Witness—Yes, I did. Witness further said, Woolcock told me Jose had said George had put the bottle into the child's throat, and said that would do for it. I told the truth then. I told Woolcock I saw Jose with the child on the floor. On the night the child was born Jose knocked at my door loud enough to wake me; it did not wake George. When I came into the kitchen the child was behind Matthews on the floor. I was down three or four minutes before George came down. When George came down, Jose had his finger in the child's mouth, he was then going about it. It was after George had Ann Matthews round the waist, that Jose had his finger in the child's mouth. I told him not to kill the child. I did not touch the child; did not call George to come down and prevent the child from being killed. The child was not quite dead when he put it in the pan. I did not try to take it out; I could not; I did not call to George to come and take it out. I told Jose again not to kill the child. I could not touch a murdered child; a man is stronger than a woman. I did some work on the day the child was killed; could not eat any breakfast. I know l am to get out of it by giving this evidence; don’t know whether George will get out of it; it is not for me to say. Re-examined by Mr. STOCK—Woolcock came to me on the Monday, and I told him I knew nothing about it. Jose had before told me not to tell any one. Woolcock took a little jacket out of his pocket, and asked me if I knew it; I told him I could not swear to it. He then left my mother's house. On Tuesday Woolcock came again to my mother's house, and asked me if I knew anything about it. I told him the same as before, that I did not know any thing. He told me I should have to come to the Town-hall on Wednesday morning between 10 and 11. At 7 o'clock on Wednesday morning he came to take me up. He then said George was in custody, and that Jose had said George had put a bottle in the child's mouth, and that George had said, I knew more about it than he did. I told Woolcock then that I would tell the truth. Nothing more passed between me and Woolcock at that time. On Wednesday morning, 2nd of April, I was taken before the justices; I then told the truth. When George came down, Jose had Matthews round the waist, supporting her with his arms. I don’t think the child was quite dead before it was put into the pan of water. I don't know whether it was dead before he proceeded to wash up the floor; it was in the pan of water about a quarter of an hour before Jose washed up the floor. I did not wash anything of that; I did wash a sheet the next day. George Truscott—l am 17 years of age, was fishing in Pencalenick pond on Saturday the 29th of March. Saw a child in the water, and informed Samuel Snell of it. Samuel Snell lives at Truro; was passing in the road with a cart on the 29th of March. Saw the child in the pond with a rope round its neck, fastened to a stone of 29 lbs. weight. The water of the pond was lower than usual; the head and one hand of the child were appearing above the water. There was a garment about the child. I placed the child in the cart, took it to Truro and left it at the Union Hotel. Met Mr. Painter, surgeon, went with him to the inn, and showed him the body. Libby, the constable, afterwards came, and the landlord delivered the body up to him. Thomas Cavell, landlord of the Union Hotel, St. Austell-street, Truro, stated that he deposited the body of the child in the water closet in his house, and locked the door. Afterwards delivered it, with the rope and garment, to constable Libby, of St. Clements parish. Constable Charles Libby gave over the rope and garment to Mr. Nash, police superintendent. Mr. Nash produced the rope and garment. Ann Best, wife of William Best; lives next door to Ann Matthews, in Boscawen Row. We have been neighbours about two years. Jose had lived with Matthews about eight months before this happened. Before that he lived in a house the other side of me. Matthews has three girls; she has been a widow about three years. I have seen such a garment as this at Mrs. Matthews's about two years ago; her children wore this dress. Matthews told me it had been given her by Miss Holland, of Comprigney. (The garment was produced, it having been found round the child's body in the pond). I had observed that Ann Matthews was in the family way some time before this matter happened. On Saturday, 29th March, Eliza Burns spread a sheet to dry in my garden hedge; it had been partly washed; there was a spot in the middle. Cross- examined—I can swear this is the garment I saw on Ann Matthews's child twelve months ago. Miss Holland may have had another like it. Matthew George Painter—l am a surgeon at Truro. On the evening of Saturday, 29th March, I met Samuel Snell near the Union Hotel. In consequence of information, I went to the Union Hotel, where the body of a female child was produced to me, tied in the garment now produced. It had a large cord tied loosely round the neck. I examined the child. The external appearance, and more especially the countenance of the child was livid, and the lips were tumid and distorted as it from pressure. The whole surface of the body was livid, the small blood vessels congested. That was all I observed at that time. The umbilical cord and placenta were entire and still attached to the body. It was an unusually large child had arrived at its full time, and was perfectly healthy and well-formed. Afterwards, on the same day, I made a post mortem examination of the body at the coroner's request. I was quite satisfied the child was born alive. I have no means of knowing accurately how long the child had lived; my judgment was that it had lived about an hour, and had been born within three or four days. I arrived at the conclusion that; the child had died from suffocation, most probably from drowning. I have heard the evidence given by Eliza Burns of the way in which the child was killed. The placing of the child in a pan of water would produce such symptoms of suffocation as I observed in this case. I knew the prisoner Ann Matthews, have occasionally attended her; did not know before this time that she was pregnant. On Sunday, 29th March, I went with Nash and Woolcock to Ann Matthew's house; she was sitting in the kitchen. I told her there were rumours in circulation that she had been recently confined, and asked her if it was true. She said it was not. I then asked her if she would allow me to examine her, that I had been called on to do so by the police authorities. She at first refused, but afterwards consented, and proceeded up stairs and allowed me to make the examination. I was satisfied she had been delivered of a child within three or four days. I told her so, and that I could not otherwise account for her appearance. She still strictly denied having been confined. I asked her to allow me to send for Dr. Bullmore to examine her. He was sent for and came. A further examination took place, and we perfectly agreed that she had been delivered within three or four days. I heard Jose say before the magistrates the child had been poisoned. I was directed by the magistrates to examine the child to see if it was so. The body was disinterred, and brought to me by the police inspector on the 3rd of April. I examined the stomach of the child, and tested the contents for different kinds of poison, more especially for vitriol; Jose had stated that vitriol and brandy had been poured down the child's throat. I found none; found nothing in the stomach but about a teaspoonful of healthy mucus. The child had never swallowed anything. I examined the mouth. The lips were tumid and distorted, and there was a small quantity of bloody mucus in the mouth. I examined inside the mouth. The mucous membrane which covers the back part of the mouth and upper part of the throat was rubbed off, in such a manner as might be produced by the pressure of a person's finger. The abrasion was greater on the left side than on the right. I have heard the evidence of Eliza Burns; the appearance in the throat might be produced in the way she stated, by a finger in the child’s mouth. What she stated as to the position of the man was consistent with the injury produced. In my judgment it was done by the middle and fore- finger of the right hand. Cross-examined by Mr. Bevan—There was no such appearance in the mouth as would have been produced by corrosive poison, vitriol for instance.—The witness was then asked a great many questions by Mr. Cole, in cross-examination, and afterwards was re-examined by Mr. Stock. He said he would not swear that the marks in the child's throat were inconsistent with other means than Burns had stated. He had had fifteen years experience. When he examined the body at the request of the coroner, he satisfied himself that death was caused by suffocation; he did not then cut open the mouth to examine it and the throat. It was after the child was disinterred, in consequence of the statement that it had been poisoned, that he cut open the mouth, and found no effects of poison. A woman could not inflict such injuries as he saw in the mouth and throat, in self delivery. There was no water in the lungs; that would not be a necessary consequence of drowning. If the child had been partially strangled before it was put into the water, a spasm would probably take place, and prevent the water from entering. He should not expect placidity and calmness of features, as in most cases of drowning, if a child had been treated in the way described. He did not examine the vessels of the head, he saw enough besides to enable him to arrive at a conclusion. The heart was congested, with dark fluid blood, the right side especially. William Henry Bullmore—I am a Doctor of Medicine and Member of the College of Surgeons. Have had considerable experience in the practice of midwifery; held for twelve months an appointment as resident surgeon in the Dublin Lying-in Hospital. Have had thirty years experience since as a general practitioner at Truro. On the afternoon of Sunday, 30th of March, I was called by policeman Woolcock to go to the house of Ann Matthews, and found Mr. Painter there. I said to Matthews, there were rumours afloat that she had been recently confined. She denied it. I told her that in consequence of those reports she had better submit to a personal examination as the best means of refuting those rumours and establishing her character. She made many objections, but ultimately said she would consent to the examination being made. She walked up stairs. I followed closely after. As she walked on, I observed stains of blood upon the stairs, recent, and then in a fluid state. She went into bed, and I examined her in the presence of Mr. Painter. I made a very careful and minute examination, the result of which satisfied me and Mr. Painter that she had recently given birth to a child. From the same examination I was enabled to say that she had been confined within the last three or four days. (The witness here spoke of the state of the woman's garments and the bedding.) He turned the bedtie and saw that the seam of the tie had been ripped and the wet feathers removed, and it had been sown up by cotton which appeared to be clean and new. On the evening of Thursday the 3rd of April I was called to the house of Mr. Painter about half past seven. I inquired where he was, and went to his surgery, where he was examining the body of a female infant. Mr. Nash, superintendent of police, was there also. I observed that Mr. Painter had explored the chest and examined the stomach, and those organs being examined I wished to satisfy myself that the child had been born alive. I therefore recommended Mr. Painter to examine the bladder, as well as the lower part of the great intestine where it is about to terminate in the anus. I found the bladder empty, quite natural and healthy. I found that the first discharges of the infant had been evacuated, which could not have taken place by any means after death, because it is a natural function. I satisfied myself the child had been born alive. I had not previously had the opportunity of examination, and these were the only methods by which I could at this time test the fact of the child having lived. On the surface of the body my attention was arrested by the appearance of the mouth, and I directed Mr. Painter and Mr. Nash’s attention to it. The lips were swollen, and on passing my finger into the mouth I found the upper part of the gums give way before it, as though it had been crushed in. I traced marks of violence along the roof of the mouth extending backwards, involving the tongue, the upper part of the windpipe, and the gullet. The conclusion I came to was that if the child did not die immediately from suffocation, death must inevitably have followed from the severity of the injuries done to the parts affected. The injuries could not have been produced by a woman delivering herself. They might have been produced by a man putting his fingers into the child's mouth. I heard the evidence of Eliza Burns; the appearance, I observed, of the lips, and on the inside of the mouth and throat, would all be accounted for by her evidence. The witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Cole. He said when he examined the body at Mr. Painter's, and put his finger into the mouth of the child, putrefaction had not set in. The other questions he was asked were with reference to infants at the time of birth, and the injuries which might be caused to them. William Joseph Nash—l am superintendent of the Truro police. On Sunday the 30th of March, I went with Mr. Painter and Woolcock to the house of Ann Matthews, and got there between one and two in the afternoon. I observed a spot of blood on the staircase, recent blood. I observed a bedsheet with stains of blood, hanging behind the door in the kitchen. Next day Woolcock and I went to Best, a neighbour of hers. On Monday forenoon March 31st, I took Matthews into custody and told her she was charged with concealment of the birth of a child. She said she knew nothing about it. The same afternoon I took Jose into custody, and charged him with aiding Matthews in concealing the birth of the child. He said he knew nothing about it. He had been living with Matthews seven or eight months previous. I was in the prison at Truro on the night of Tuesday April the 1st, between ten and eleven o’clock. Saw Ann Matthews; she wished to be removed into another cell. I got her some tea; she said just before she got the tea, “I did not carry the child away." I asked her where she was delivered; she said down stairs in the kitchen. I then cautioned her to be particular as to what she said. She commenced crying, and spoke of her children and family. She also said she did not see the child. She repeated several times, “I hope they won't hang me." On the morning of Wednesday 2nd of April, we had James George in custody at the police station. He said to me he had seen Woolcock, and told him all about it. On Thursday morning he said, he was at Ann Matthews’s house, and he had gone to bed, and about four o’clock in the morning he was called by Jose to come down stairs. On going into the kitchen he observed Ann Matthews, Jose, and Eliza Burns standing in the centre of the floor; Jose asked him to help Mrs. Matthews up stairs. He took hold of Ann Matthews to lead her up stairs. He then saw Jose stoop down where the child was crying on the floor, and take hold of the child, and shove his two fingers into its mouth and kill it. He said, after helping Ann Matthews up stairs to bed, he went to bed also; and about eight the same day, after he came from work, he accompanied Jose to Pencalenick pond Jose carried the child in a basket. Jose found a stone at the water’s edge, and with a piece of rope tied the child's neck to the stone, and threw the child into the pond. He also stated that after the child was killed it was put into the cupboard till the evening it was carried away. Cross-examined by Mr. BEVAN—This conversation took place in my office. I did not caution the prisoner. Mr. BEVAN—Did you think it right to lead him into such a conversation? Witness—l did not. He had previously been brought in by Woolcock. As soon as I entered, without my putting any question, he said he had seen Woolcock and had told him all about it; and he then told me what he had told Woolcock before. I have never heard of anything against George before this matter occurred. Dr. Bullmore was here recalled, and, in reply to Mr. BEVAN, said he saw the state of the child's mouth, and there was no trace of any corrosive poison, no trace of vitriol. William Woolcock, police constable of Truro. On Sunday, 30th of March, I went with Mr. Nash and Mr. Painter to Matthews's house. Saw spots of blood on the floor in the kitchen from the chair to the staircase. Saw a sheet with a large spot in its centre, as if blood had been washed out. Found recent blood on the bed sheets and bed. Between the night of Tuesday, April 1st, and the morning of April 2nd, l saw Matthews in the prison. On one occasion I found her crying; she asked me if I thought she would be hung; I told her no; she asked if George was in custody; I told her no. She said he ought to be in custody too. She said she had been delivered of a child, and it was no use to deny it when the doctors would swear she had. She then said she got up about three o'clock in the morning of her confinement, came down and lit the fire, became much worse, and delivered herself of a child. She said she never killed the child nor touched it; she said they did it between them. She said she was led upstairs to bed afterwards, and she did not know anything further. On the following morning (Wednesday) I apprehended George, and brought him to the station- house. I did not say anything to induce him to make a statement. He said he was called out of bed about four o’clock in the morning of Matthews's confinement; he came down stairs with his trousers on. He heard a great noise, and when he came down Jose was holding up Mrs. Matthews. The child was lying on the floor crying. Jose asked him to help Annie up stairs. He said he saw Jose hold the child down on the floor with one hand, and push the fingers of his other hand down the child's throat. He put Matthews to bed, and then went to his own bed, where he lay till seven o’clock. He was called up shortly after he put Matthews to bed, by Jose, but refused to get up, he was too much hurried. He got up about 7 in the morning. He went to his barber's shop in Pydar-street, and returned home about 7 and 8 in the evening. He then saw Jose, who told him the child was dead, and was put into the cupboard. He said, in the evening, the child was put in a basket, and they both went to Pencalenick pond, about 2½ miles from Truro. Jose took a rope from his pocket, tied it to the child's neck, tied it round a stone he found on the bank, and threw the child into the water, and then they both returned to Truro together. The hearing before the magistrates took two days. On the evening of Wednesday, 2nd of April, Jose was in the cell at the station, and requested to see me and Mr. Nash. We went to him. By Mr. COLE—We had not been going from one prisoner to the other, and telling each what the other said. I did not tell Jose he had better tell all about it. By Mr. STOCK—Jose said in the cell: now George has said so much about it, and laid it all to me, I shall tell the truth. He said he called George up, he came down stairs, and the child was lying on the floor; that George then went to a cupboard, and took out a bottle containing some kind of drug, and poured the contents into the child's throat, and said that would soon do for it. The child died and was put into the cupboard, and they both went afterwards to Pencalenick Pond, and threw it into the water. Jose said the bottle contained some sort of a drug they had been giving to Mrs. Matthews before her confinement, to procure abortion. I think he said the bottle contained poison, and that George procured it. He said Mrs. Matthews had taken some of it, but she had a bad leg, and they were obliged to discontinue it. I afterwards informed George what Jose told me. He said the drugs in the bottle had been bought by Jose; what he had been giving to Mrs Matthews was vitriol and brandy. I think he said she had taken it twice a day, but she had a bad leg, and they were obliged to discontinue it. Cross-examined by Mr. Bevan—George denied that he had given any of the vitriol and brandy to the child.—By Mr. COLE: I did not go from one cell to the other telling each prisoner what the other had said. I did tell George what Jose had said. I apprehended Eliza Burns; I did not tell her what George had said; I told her George was in custody, and from what he had said she could give material evidence. She did say, “I dont know who killed the child; that Jose had it on the floor, and as his back was towards me I could not see what he was doing with it, and that is all I know about it.” Jose heard my statement of what George had said, when the case was first heard before the magistrates, and remanded. I do not see any harm in telling a prisoner in custody, that she could give material evidence. I told her she could tell more about it if she chose. The prisoners' statements before the magistrates were then read, as evidence:-Ann Matthews said, “I never destroyed the child; I delivered myself of the child on Thursday morning, leaving Richard Jose and James George, and the child alone when I went up stairs; I never saw it, nor heard it, nor touched it after” Richard Jose said—“I have nothing to say.” He subsequently added, “while I was holding the woman, George took a bottle from the cupboard and throwed it into the child's mouth, and the child was like a thing strangled before he left it." James George said—"I never touched the child; I am quite innocent of the crime. I saw Richard Jose killing of it with his fingers in its mouth. I then took hold of Mrs. Matthews and put her to bed, and left Jose down stairs with his fingers in the child's throat. I then went to bed, and Eliza Burns came up very much frightened. She said, he is killing of it, and it is not dead yet. She then went to bed." This concluded the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Bevan was about to address the jury on behalf of James George, for whom he appeared, when the learned Judge interposed and said, he did not consider there was evidence against George for murder. Mr. BEVAN said George was indicted in the second count, for aiding and assisting, and he should submit there was no sufficient evidence on that point. The learned JUDGE said he thought George must be considered an accessory after the fact. The assisting a man under such circumstances, in concealing a corpse, was certainly an unlawful act. Mr. BEVAN said, then he would leave the case as regarded George to his lordship, and would not address the jury. Mr. COLE then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner Jose. He besought them not to be influenced by any preconceived notions or reports; it was only yesterday, he said that the confessions of the prisoners had been cried about and sold in the streets at Bodmin. The evidence affecting the prisoners was of two kinds; first, the statements made by each of them, and then the direct evidence of the woman Burns. The learned counsel for the prosecution had cautioned them as to the reception of these statements, and he would also mention, that anything said by one prisoner against another was not of the slightest weight against that other, though such statements might be evidence against the parties who made them. As to the woman Burns, she was an accomplice, and her evidence was of no weight unless it was confirmed as to the facts. He submitted also, that unless she was absolutely confirmed as to the particular person charged, the testimony could not be relied on. In the Queen v. Stubbs, it was laid down that it was not sufficient such a witness should be confirmed as to the facts of the case which she may relate, but it must be of each particular party of whom she speaks, or it is no confirmation at all; for her story may be true as to its facts, but not as to a particular individual. There was, as he had said, no evidence against the prisoner Jose, besides his own statement and the statements of Burns. As to his own statement, that had been proved to be false; it had been proved that there was no foundation for the wild story he told, that the child had been murdered by George placing a bottle in its mouth. Then there were the statements of the accomplice, Burns; and he submitted that they bore falsehood upon the face of them, and were wholly unconfirmed. No woman could act as she said she had done. She had represented that when Jose was about to kill the child he called her down, and not content with her presence he had also called George down. Was not that a very improbable story? She had in fact come into court with the strongest of motives to conceal or misrepresent facts; she had come to clear her own character and to save her paramour George, from punishment, if she could do so. She said that she never interfered or made any outcry when Jose was killing the child, although she knew that George was within a few feet of her, and might have assisted her in rescuing the infant. Woolcock says she told him Jose's back was towards her, and she could not see what he was about. She now denies having said so. If they believed Woolcock, they must disbelieve her, and if they discredited her in one point, why not in others? He submitted that her story was false, and he then proceeded to comment upon the medical evidence, and disputed the conclusions the medical witnesses had arrived at. The probabilities of the case, he said, were these:—That this poor woman, Matthews, was confined in the night, and that through want of care the child met with some injury which produced its death. It might have been suffocated in the bed, or it might have received a fall in removing it, under the circumstances in which she was placed. But where was there any motive for killing the child? The prosecution had felt that difficulty, and alleged that Matthews had three children, and would lose, by having this child, the relief she had received from the parish. That was a very insufficient motive; and besides, it had not been proved that she was receiving relief from the parish. It appeared, on the contrary, that she was working for herself, and was living with a man who was in good labour, and was not likely to wish to get rid of this child because of its expense. Mrs. Matthews was, to all appearance, an affectionate mother to her children. This child was not killed to hide her shame, because it was known to the neighbours that she was living in adultery with Jose, and that she was pregnant. The child, however, having been born and died, there might be some reasons for concealing its birth. There might be, he would say, for in fact it was not sufficiently proved that the child the surgeons examined, was the child of Matthews. A garment was found upon it which a woman had sworn to; but she admitted it had been given to Matthews two years before, and she had not seen it for twelve months. How then could she swear to it; and were there not other garments like it? He then complained of the police for endeavouring, as he said, to extract statements from the prisoners; and, in conclusion, he said, the case was one terrible in its consequences to the prisoner, and should be proved by the clearest and most satisfactory evidence. He submitted that no such evidence had been laid before them; they might have suspicion, but that was not enough; there must be the most clear and satisfactory proof before they could find a verdict of guilty. The learned JUDGE summed up the case to the jury. He need not tell them that the case they had to decide was one of the most important in its character, for the lives of two people rested in a great measure upon their verdict. The jury would find their task was rather a difficult one, inasmuch as the case was very different, as against each prisoner. With respect to the prisoner Jose, there was evidence for their consideration, as to whether he had murdered this child. With respect to the woman Matthews, there was some evidence against her, as to her participation in the crime, but he must say it was very slight evidence; it depended upon two expressions used by the witness Eliza Burns. With respect to the prisoner George, there was no evidence against him of the murder at all. It had been very properly said by the learned counsel on both sides, that what was stated by one prisoner was no evidence against another; and there was nothing to accuse George of the murder except the statement of Jose; there was therefore, no evidence against George of the murder. Any person, however, who did anything to aid a felon after the crime, was guilty of aiding in that crime; and it appeared to him, that as the body was taken to the pool with the concurrence of George, who went with it, that was enough to make him an accessory after the fact. If the jury thought Jose was not guilty of the murder, they might find him guilty of concealment of the birth. But if they found Jose guilty of the murder, and the woman not, they might find her guilty of two offences, either of concealment of the birth, in which she must have been involved, or of being an accessory after the fact, as well as George. He would recommend them not to trouble themselves with the latter alternative, but to consider whether she was not guilty of concealment of the birth. A great deal had been said about the witness Eliza Burns, that she was an accomplice, and that it was a practice of our law for Judges to advise juries not to convict upon the evidence of an accomplice unless that accomplice was corroborated. He was aware of the case Mr. Cole had mentioned, but he also knew that many persons did not approve of acting upon it. In this case he thought it was not necessary to do so, because he did not think the witness, Eliza Burns, was in the position of an accomplice at all. On reading the depositions, he considered there was no evidence against her, and on those depositions he should have directed the Grand Jury to have thrown out the bill, as against her; therefore, she was not in the position of an accomplice in the crime, requiring the same species of corroboration as an accomplice. But she was in the position of a person whose evidence they should pay great attention to, and exercise great care in receiving, because of the particular motives she might have for giving such evidence. Her evidence was open to suspicion in several ways. She was present at the transaction; she lent herself to the concealment of it, and no one could say that was not a reflection upon her. Again, she was interested in giving evidence in favour of George, he living with her and she with him, unmarried. A wife is not allowed to give evidence in favour of her husband, because of her supposed prejudice and feeling in his favour; and, under the same supposition, Burns, as living with George, might be presumed to go as far as a wife in trying to save him. There was another ground why they should look at her evidence with suspicion. For although he was of opinion that there was no case against her, it was by no means clear that she was herself aware of that; she had been in prison since April to take her trial for this offence, and she might now be well aware that she would derive benefit by getting into the box as Queen's evidence. She had therefore, no doubt, a strong motive to give evidence to relieve George, and to fix the crime upon Jose and Matthews. These were circumstances which ought to weigh with the jury, but they by no means justified them in excluding her evidence if they believed it true; these were only circumstances which should make them look after her evidence with care and caution, and see how far she was confirmed by other evidence in the case. He would, in the first place, call their attention to the evidence independently of the girl, Burns, and see what the ease would be without her evidence. The first fact to be satisfied of was, that there was a child born of this woman, Matthews on the morning in question. On that point, he apprehended there could be no doubt. The three prisoners had each spoken of it, and it did not rest only upon their statements, for there was the evidence of the two medical men who had examined Matthews, and of Ann Best, who had seen her in a state of pregnancy. The next point was, what became of that child. He apprehended there could be little doubt that the body was put into the pond. The three prisoners state it, and then there was Ann Best, who states that a peculiar garment was worn by one of Ann Matthews’s children, and that garment was found on the body of the child. Further, he thought there was no doubt that the body found in the pond was the same as that which was afterwards examined by the two surgeons. His Lordship then read the evidence of the surgeons, showing the appearances the body of the child presented, and their opinion of the cause of death. He had now read to them, he said, all the material evidence with the exception of that of Eliza Burns. If the evidence he had read were credited, he thought they would arrive at the conclusion that a child had been born of Ann Matthews, that it had been placed in the pond, and was afterwards examined by the medical gentlemen who found the injuries stated in its mouth. But there was, as yet, no evidence as to the persons who inflicted those injuries; with respect to that, they would find that the case rested entirely upon the evidence of Eliza Burns; the statements of the prisoners, exculpating themselves, and inculpating others, they could not consider of any weight. He had already told them that they should receive Burns's evidence with a great deal of caution, but he did not think they should discard her evidence because it was not confirmed in every point. He then read over the evidence of Eliza Burns, remarking that there were only two sentences of it for their consideration as tending to show the complicity of Matthews with the murder. One was, that when she got to the door she turned round and told Jose to stop her baby from screeching; it was for the jury to say, whether they thought she had then any violent means in her mind. There was no other evidence against her except that she told Burns when in her bed-room, not to tell any one what Jose had done by it. It was for the jury to say, whether these two points of evidence were sufficient to convict the woman Matthews of murder, for really that was the whole of the evidence against her of that crime. If they did not find her guilty of the murder, they might, as he had already told them, find her guilty of concealing the birth. The learned Judge having finished reading Eliza Burns's evidence, said, if that evidence was true, it fully completed, as against Jose, anything that might have been left wanting in the evidence of the previous witnesses. If they were satisfied that the crime took place as she had deposed, he need not tell them it was as foul a murder as ever was committed. He then read over the evidence of the police officers, again cautioning the jury that the statements of one prisoner were no evidence against another, and advising them to decide more by the evidence he had previously read than by what he was reading now. Alter concluding the evidence of the police, he repeated the statement he had given at the commencement of his summing up, as to the manner in which the evidence applied to each prisoner. The Jury, he said, would have to apply their minds to each case separately, and would give such a verdict as, in their consciences, they believed was a just one. Before the jury retired from the court, one of them, Mr. George Sealey, of Marazion, wished to ask the surgeon one question—whether a newly-born infant could live five minutes with a man's finger or fingers down its throat? Mr. Painter said that would depend upon whether the finger or fingers wholly excluded the air from the passage. If the air was only partially excluded, the child might live longer than that. Another juryman said it was important to have an answer to the question, whether a man's finger would stop the whole of the air or not? Mr. Painter replied that it was impossible for him to say whether in this case the whole of the air was stopped or not. Dr. Bullmore then stood up, at the request of the Judge, and said, in answer to the same juryman—if a finger is pressed on the upper part of the windpipe, so as to prevent the passage of the air, the child would die in two minutes. The Juryman.—Then is a man's finger long enough to go down and stop that? Dr. Bullmore.—Quite so, and even to pass beyond that. The jury retired from the Court, and were locked up at a quarter past five, and at a quarter to six, Mr. Tregonning, one of the sheriff's officers, brought in a note from the jury to the learned Judge. His lordship appeared to consider its contents for a time, and then left the court. On his return, he sent a written answer to the jury. At five minutes past six, the jury were sent for by the learned JUDGE, who said he supposed they could not agree, and they had better come into the court a minute or two. In a few minutes the jury entered the Court, after an absence of fifty-five minutes. The learned JUDGE then said: I do not know whether you are prepared to give your verdict or not; but what I wish to say to you is, that you must not be in the least influenced by any opinion of mine in the case. I am sorry that I wrote on that paper any opinion of my own. The verdict is yours to give, and not mine, and if your verdict is now in the least degree influenced by what I wrote, you must retire again, and give your own opinion.— The jury here intimated that they were prepared to give their verdict. The learned JUDGE—Are you agreed upon your verdict without being influenced by any opinion of mine? Several of the jurymen replied that they were. They were then asked, in the usual form, what was their verdict. The Foreman said they found Ann Mathews GUILTY of concealment of birth; James George GUILTY of being an accessory after the fact; and Richard Jose GUILTY of manslaughter. The Prisoners were then called on, in the usual form, to receive sentence; and the learned JUDGE thus addressed them:—Ann Matthews, James George, and Richard Jose; you have been convicted by the jury of different offences; and you, Richard Jose, have been found guilty of manslaughter. And as it is right that nothing which occurs in a Court of Justice should not be made publicly known, it is my duty to state to the public what that paper was which was put into my hands a short time ago by the Jury. Their question was whether they might legally find you guilty of manslaughter. I had some doubt about that; and I took the opportunity of consulting my brother Channell. My answer then was that if I myself was one of the Jurymen, I would either find him guilty of murder or acquit him, but that there was no legal obstacle in the way of finding him guilty of manslaughter. I can very well understand the view the Jury have taken. They think there was evidence enough in the case to satisfy them that you had a hand in the child's death; but they could not implicitly rely on the evidence of that young woman. I have not a doubt that what passed in their mind was, that they would not convict a man of an offence which would involve the loss of his life, except they felt satisfied it was a murder with malice prepense. I have already stated my opinion that if I had been on the jury, I should have found you guilty of murder, or not; but that there was no legal obstacle to a verdict of manslaughter. They have taken a most merciful view of the case. Your punishment will not be that of death; but it will be my bounden duty to inflict on you the most severe punishment the law enables me.—As to you, Ann Matthews and James George, the punishment I am about to inflict on you many may think too slight. But I must act in this matter, on the evidence laid before me; and I have no right to suspect, or surmise, or fancy, in what degree you are guilty. As far as I can make out, it may be that the statement is true which the woman made and which has been put in evidence more than once, that she did not know what was going on, except that she was privy to the concealment of the child; and therefore that the verdict is a just verdict, in that respect. Whether you had any thing to do with the death of the child, is best known to yourself. But the evidence of that is very slight indeed; depending on expressions of the young woman Burns, which may or may not be reported with perfect accuracy, even giving her credit for speaking the truth. The case seems to be perfectly established against you, that you gave birth to this child; and that you consented and agreed to the body being concealed; which is by law, an offence.—As to you, James George, the part you took in this transaction is a very disgraceful part; and I do trust and hope that the spectacle of you three persons and that young woman will have an effect on persons in the Court. There has been an enormous number of women present to witness this trial—both young and old; and I trust that they—the young ones especially, will take warning by what they have seen. They see a man abandoning his wife, and living in adultery with another woman; they see the natural consequence of that, in the birth of a child; they see the life of that child made away with, from the basest of motives. When young women are tried for child-murder, every person feels disposed not to press the law too hardly against them. But as to you, Ann Matthews, you had no shame in the matter; you were living publicly with that man, and all your neighbours knew it. If a young woman be pregnant, it may be thought desirable she should conceal it. You could have no such object; the only motive suggested is that some small allowance you had from the parish would be stopped.—As to you, Jose, your only object was to save yourself the expense of supporting the child which your lust and that of the woman had brought into the world. I need not say that a baser motive could not possibly operate on a man's mind; it is as foul a motive as could enter into the mind of a man.—As to you, James George, it seems you had promised to marry that young woman; but instead of married life with her, you chose to live in concubinage. I suppose no decent persons would allow you to live in their houses, and therefore you went to live with these people. It is really such brutish conduct that one can hardly find words too strong to apply to it. There is no reason why you should not marry that young woman; she is in the same rank of life as yourself.—As to you, Richard Jose, I have already stated that the jury having thought fit to act on the view of the case I have just stated, there is no legal obstacle that I know of to their doing so.—The sentence on you, RICHARD JOSE is that you be TRANSPORTED FOR THE TERM OF YOUR NATURAL LIFE; that you ANN MATTHEWS, be IMPRISONED FOR 12 MONTHS, and be kept to hard labour; and that you, JAMES GEORGE, BE IMPRISONED AND KEPT TO HARD LABOUR, FOR THE SAME PERIOD. The JUDGE then dismissed the Jury, telling them the country was much indebted to them for their services, and that he was sure they must have had a painful and a difficult duty to perform in dealing with this case. We may add that we were informed on good authority, that the wife of the prisoner Jose, who lives at Wadebridge, notwithstanding his conduct towards her in living with another woman, had sold off what little property she had, in order to raise money to employ an attorney and counsel to defend her worthless husband. This concluded the business of the assizes; and the learned Judges left Bodmin to proceed to Wells, to hold the Somerset assizes.

======

Royal Cornwall Gazette, 17th October

6. Michaelmas Sessions These sessions were opened at Bodmin, on Tuesday last, at the County Hall, Bodmin, before the following magistrates:— J. KING LETHBRIDGE, ESQ., Chairman Lord Vivian. C.A. Reynolds, Esq. Sir J.S. Graves Sawle, Bart. S. Davey, Esq. Sir S.T. Spry. T.R. Avery, Esq. T.J. Agar Robartes, Esq., M.P. T.S. Bolitho, Esq. N. Kendall, Esq., M.P. J.B. Messenger, Esq. C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P. D.P. Le Grice, Esq. J. Tremayne, Esq. — Usticke, Esq. J.S. Enys, Esq. W. Peard, Esq. G.W.F. Gregor, Esq. J. Borlase, Esq. R. Foster, Esq. J.F. Trist, Esq. F. Rodd, Esq. R. Johns, Esq. W. Hext, Esq. F.M. Williams, Esq. C.G. Prideaux Brune, Esq. W.C. Potter, Esq. J.S. Trelawny, Esq. W.R. Gilbert, Esq. J. Jope? Rogers, Esq. A. Coryton, Esq. H.? Thomson, Esq. Rev. Uriah Tonkin. F.J. Hext, Esq. Rev. T. Pascoe. E. Stephens, Esq. Rev. C.M. Edward Collins. R. Gully Bennet, Esq. Rev. John Thomas. H. Willyams, Esq. Rev. R.B. Kinsman. W. Williams, Esq. Rev. R. Buller. E. Coode, jun., Esq. Rev. E.J. Treffry. J.P. Magor, Esq. Rev. A. Tatham. W. Moorshead, Esq. Rev. Vyell Vyvyan. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. Rev. J. Glanville. Neville Norway, Esq., of Trebyan, qualified as a magistrate. The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury:— Mr. John Lakeman, Egloshayle, foreman. John Andrew, St. Merryn. John Brimacombe, Kilkhampton. Nicholas Broad, St. Keyne. George Pearn Brokenshaw, Lanteglos by Fowey. John Clements, St. Minver. George Coath, Lansallos. Peter Davis, Probus. Daniel Doble, Whitstone. James Hawkey Elvin, St. Enoder. John Gill, Maker. Thomas Dennis Gilbard, South Petherwin. James Glanville, Colan. Melchizedek Hotton, Colan. George Isbell, St. Veep. Gregory Mably, St. Minver. Thomas Martin, Newlyn. Thomas Olver, St. Mabyn. John Palmer, Morval. James Rowe, St. Minver. Robert Rowe, St. Pinnock. Henry Symons, St. Minver. John Tom, Maker. Mr. Thomas Warne, of St. Mabyn, also answered. After the customary preliminary business, the CHAIRMAN delivered his Charge to the Grand Jury: [not transcribed] VISITING JUSTICES’ REPORT.—The Visiting Justices Report, dated October 13th, and signed by Mr. Kendall, Mr. Thomson, and the Rev. C.M. Edward Collins, was as follows:— We, the undersigned visiting justices of the County Prison, have much pleasure in reporting the satisfactory state of discipline maintaining amongst the prisoners, and the cleanly condition of the wards and dormitories. We regret that the condition of the Gaol has been less healthy than usual during the last Quarter; but it is at present much improved, as will be seen by the Surgeon’s Report.—The Governor having directed our attention to the want of care shewn by some of the Contractors for the conveyance of prisoners to the gaol, we submit that they should be ordered to use more caution in securing those placed under their charge.—A vacancy having occurred by the death of one of the warders, Thomas White, we recommend as his successor his son Thomas White, who has for 18 months acted as Assistant Warder, and who has in that capacity discharged his duties to the entire satisfaction of the Governor. SURGEON’S REPORT.—Mr. WARD, the Surgeon of the Gaol presented the following Annual Report:— I have the honor to report that during the first nine months of the year ending September 30 1856, the health of the prisoners in the Cornwall County Gaol was generally speaking good. There occurred at first the average number of ordinary cases for treatment, the diseases being unimportant in character, and requiring no special mention. During this period two deaths took place—one, of a man who was brought in in a most deplorable state of destitution and exhaustion; the other was a youth who had been long the victim of extensive mesenteric disease. I regret however to have to state that during the last three months, there has been a great amount of sickness in the Gaol, chiefly owing to the prevalence of Dysentery and Diarrhoea; of the former, 8 cases have occurred, and of the latter 23; but although many of the cases were severe, no very serious results have arisen. Three deaths only have taken place, and two of these were in the persons whose health had been previously much impaired. The above-named diseased attained their maximum about the end of August, and I am happy to say have now so far declined as to enable me to report favourably of the present sanitary condition of the Gaol, the Sick List being reduced to the usual number of ordinary cases. From a table appended to the Report, it appeared that the total number of cases during the year had been 247 Males, and 46 Females; of which there were, of Infirmary Cases, 13 males and 5 females; and of slight indisposition, 234 males, and 41 females. The greatest number of cases at any one time was 9 males and 3 females. [ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHAPLAIN OF THE COUNTY GAOL.—not transcribed] [CORONER’S BILLS. - not transcribed] In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. HICHENS said there had been in his district a more than usual number of mine accidents, and several cases of drowning.—In reply to Mr. Thomson, concerning the wreck of the French chasse-maree, on Godrevy, Mr. Hichens said he had yesterday held an inquest on one body supposed to be a Frenchman drowned in that wreck, and he was that day (Tuesday) to hold an inquest on another body washed ashore; both those bodies were supposed to have come from that French vessel. He had heard nothing concerning the number of the crew. GOVERNOR’S REPORT.—Mr. EVEREST, the Governor, reported as follows:— My Lords and Gentlemen:—I have much satisfaction in being able to make a more favourable report of the behavior of the prisoners than I was at the Last Michaelmas Session, although the demoralizing system of association still continues. I can therefore only attribute the slight improvement in their conduct to their being somewhat less depraved than those who were in the prison during the preceding year.—Under the sanction of the Visiting Justices, I have employed some of the prisoners in excavating the ground, and getting in a considerable length of the South boundary wall, as well as in raising a large quantity of stone ready for the contractors to commence the buildings.—I have to report the death of Thomas White, one of the prison warders; he was an old and faithful servant, having filled the office upwards of 28 years, and, I am sorry to add, has left a widow and family in indigent circumstances. Attached to the Governor’s Report was his certificate that the rules and regulations for the government of the prison have been, as far as practicable, complied with; and that several of the airing yards and passages require repaving; that most 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 state as before reported. [GAOL EXPENSES FOR THE QUARTER - not transcribed]. The Comparative Statement of the number of prisoner for trial at the commencement of Michaelmas Sessions, 1855 and 1856, showed in 1855 a total of 38; and in the present year 16, besides which there were 8 prisoners, committed under the statute 18th and 19th Victoria, cap. 126, since the last assizes. VACATING A CONTRACT.—Mr. THOMPSON (sic)asked the governor of the Gaol a question respecting the circumstances of the escape of a prisoner from Dawe, constable of Liskeard, contractor for the conveyance of prisoners from Liskeard to Bodmin; but the Governor said he knew nothing of the circumstances, except from Dawe’s own statement—that the prisoner though handcuffed to Dawe, managed to get way and beat Dawe severely. The CHAIRMAN then read a letter on the subject, which he had received from Mr. Tucker, the County Magistrate, who had committed for trial, on a charge of sheep-stealing, the prisoner, James Piper, whom Dawe allowed to escape. Mr. Tucker stated that within the last three months many sheep and poultry had been stolen in the parish of St. Stephens, and at last, after long watching, James Piper was seen to catch and kill a sheep, and was taken with the warm carcase (sic) on him. He (Mr. Tucker) committed him for trial, and as he was a stout active fellow, in good working condition, he sent two constables with him to Torpoint, with strict injunctions to the contractor Wills. Wills, it appeared, delivered the prisoner to Dawe; but Dawe, not having any horse to enable him to convey his prisoner in conformity to his contract, walked by the side of his prisoner handcuffed, towards Bodmin; but, when near Glynn, Dawe, listening to some simple application from the prisoner, loosened one of his hands. Dawe was then mastered by the prisoner, who disengaged himself and made off. Dawe’s folly (said Mr. Tucker) did not end there; instead of going after the prisoner he went to the very place where the prisoner said he was going and finding he was not there, wasted further time by going to him, (Mr. Tucker) to complain that Piper had got away from him. The CHAIRMAN also read a letter on the subject, from Mr. Cleverton, from which it appeared that the parish of St. Stephens were “up in arms” about this escape of the man who it was believed, had been plundering sheep and poultry there. In reply to Mr. Le Grice, the CHAIRMAN said Piper had not been re-captured; and expressed his opinion that the Magistrates ought to determine Dawe’s contract, and advertise for a new contractor in his place. DAWE, after some time, appeared in Court, and partly, by word of mouth, and in part by a written statement handed in, and read by the CHAIRMAN, made the following defence. He was going to Torpoint with his wife, and was about 7 miles on the Torpoint Road from Liskeard when he met Wills and another constable with the prisoner Piper. Wills delivered the prisoner to him (Dawe), who at once took him on to Liskeard, locked him up for that night, and at half-past 5 next morning took him on to Bodmin Gaol. He secured the prisoner to a cart (a donkey cart it appeared), and also handcuffed the prisoner to himself. On the road, the prisoner complained several times of diarrhoea, but Dawe told him it was a sham; but when about two miles from Bodmin, he became importunate and begged to be allowed to enter a field. Dawe refused once, but on getting to a gate, he eased the handcuff; Piper seized hold of the gate; a struggle ensued; he overpowered Dawe, knocked him down, kicked him, knelt upon him, wrenched the key from him, and set himself free from the handcuff, which was afterwards found in the field. Dawe added that he afterwards offered £5 for the apprehension of Piper, and that though he had been in the service of the magistrates 14 years as a contractor, this was the first prisoner he ever missed. He also stated that, in his struggle with Piper he cut his wrist with a knife and cut off a piece of his wrist-band, which was afterwards found, with the handcuff in the field. He had his constable’s staff in his hand, but had no power to use it.— The CHAIRMAN blaming Dawe for presuming so much on his prowess as to take on the prisoner without assistance, after receiving him from the custody of two constables, Dawe said that he had a young man with him to drive the cart; but it proved afterwards that this young man was only between 13 and 15 years of age, and that when the affray took place, the lad ran to a house at some distance to get assistance.— Dawe stated that his age was 54 years, and that the prisoner was about 5 ft. 6 in. high, and muscular. He further stated that on the road, Piper told him he was going to plead guilty, and talked of his poor wife and children. He was blamed for accepting the prisoner on the turnpike road between Liskeard and Torpoint, his own contract being for conveyance between Liskeard and Bodmin; and, after some considerable questioning by various magistrates, he was told by the Chairman that his contract was vacated, and that, with respect to a sum £8 10s. 0d. due to him, the Bench would consider in what portion of this sum they would mulct him for his misconduct; his was a very serious offence indeed, allowing the course of justice to be thus hindered, especially where there had been so much property plundered. BRIDGES. EASTERN DIVISION.—Mr. Sylvanus W. Jenkin, the surveyor for the Eastern Division, reported as follows:— Trekerner Bridge.—There is an accumulation of sand above this bridge, which requires to be removed in order to allow the water to flow in its proper channel; the cost of this will be about 1l. Seaton Bridge.—The road at the eastern end of this bridge is frequently overflowed with water, and during the late floods continued so for several days, and a complaint of it has been recently made to me by the waywardens of St. Germans parish. The only cure for this will be to raise the road at this point, to continue the present wall about 54 feet further to the county boundary, and to divert the channel below the bridge for about three chains in length. The cost of building the additional wall and raising the road, I estimate at about 6l., and the cost of diverting the channel at about 6l. more. Sowden Bridge.—The culvert over the mill leat at this bridge has fallen in and must be repaired; I estimate the cost at about 9l. Wadebridge.—This bridge requires a fresh coating of stone over its whole length, and I think it desirable that the present outlets for the water should be lowered at the same time, as they do not now do their work properly. The cost of this will be about 22l., but a part of it should, I think, be borne by the contractor. I would suggest that the magistrates should vote 15l. towards it. St. Austell Higher Bridge.—The contractor will require 16l. more on account of the repairs of the parapet and crossing of this bridge. Rilla Mill.—It has been found necessary to make some slight alteration in the piers of this bridge, to prevent injury to the new coping, the cost of which has been 30 shillings. We understood that the various sums applied for were granted. WESTERN DIVISION.—Mr. HICKS, surveyor for the Western Division of Bridges, reported as follows:— Tregony.—My attention has been called to the removing of the sand by the side of the Tregony river, below the bridge, which, if not prevented, will cause the river to break through the embankment and do serious damage to the road leading to Ruan. I beg to lay before you a plan shewing where the sand has been removed. Tresillian.—I also lay before you a plan of the road over this bridge, and would call your attention to the dangerous state of the road on the south side, where there is a road leading from the bridge down by the side of the river, and quite unprotected against accidents. I would recommend taking down the end of the present guard-wall, and extending it about 22 feet, and placing a gate across the said road; which will cost about 2l. 4s. Some small repairs were reported as necessary at the bridges at Cornelly, Grampound, Calenick, Bissoe, Higher Carnon, Lower Carnon, Perran, Sticker, Ponsanooth, Mylor, and Godolphin;—and Mr. Hickes (sic) concludes by stating—I am sorry to find the different bridge-roads under contract are not in that state of repair I should wish to see them; I have written to the contractors and hope to report more favourably at the next sessions.—P.S. I shall require one levy at the next sessions. The various sums applied for were granted; and with reference to Tregony Bridge, we understood Mr. Hickes was instructed to write to the way-warden of Tregony. THE NEW COUNTY GAOL.—The CHAIRMAN said the first thing in the agenda, was to take into consideration the Report made by Mr. J.B. Everest and presented at the last Quarter Sessions, on the state of the Gaol and House of Correction, and the necessity of erecting a new gaol. Mr. KENDALL said he believed it was necessary, as a matter of form, now that they had succeeded in obtaining the offer of a loan, that Mr. Everest should make his Report, and that the Magistrates should receive that Report; and that Report was now submitted. The following resolution, read by the CHAIRMAN, was then agreed to nem. con.:— “The Justices present, having taken into consideration the Report made and presented by Mr. John B. Everest at the last Quarter Sessions, of the actual state and condition of the Gaol and House of Correction, and of the number and description of the prisoners confined therein, and it appearing to the Justices that the Report or Presentment is well founded; and further, that the amount of the estimate approved by the Justices for the new building a new Gaol and House of Correction exceeds one-half of the amount of the ordinary annual assessment for the rate of the County (such ordinary assessment being taken on an average of such rate for the last seven years preceding), it is ordered that the several sums of £5,000, £20,000, and £3,000 (making together the sum of £28,000) heretofore granted by the Justices for the purpose of building such new Gaol and House of Correction, be forthwith raised by negotiating a loan with the West of England Assurance Office for that sum on mortgage of the County Rate, to be repaid by 30 equal yearly instalments; and that the Clerk of the Peace take the necessary steps accordingly. PARISH OF ST. TEATH.—On proof of due notice and of compliance with all necessary forms, it was unanimously resolved that the parish of St. Teath be transferred from the Hundred of Trigg to the Hundred of Lesnewth. MILITIA STORES.—The CHAIRMAN brought before the court the following notice given at the last Sessions by Sir William Trelawny:—“That the present lease of the Store-house at Bodmin expiring in April next, and not being likely to be renewed, he shall move that a committee be appointed to arrange either for the purchase or lease of a new site, and for building thereon, in compliance with the provisions of the statute.” The CHAIRMAN stated that Sir William had also given notice for taking into consideration, at these sessions, the renting for 14 years, more or less, from November next, at a rent not exceeding £40, premises for stores at Launceston for the 2nd regiment. The CHAIRMAN said that, feeling at the last sessions and also at previous sessions, that there was some discordance with regard to those two regiments, in consequence of their not having been able to get from the authorities that direct notice they wished, as to whether one or both regiments should be kept up, or whether one of them was to be abandoned, he took the liberty of writing to Lord Panmure on the subject on the 12th July; and on the 25th of that month, he received the following reply from the War Department, and signed John Croom:— Sir, I am directed by Lord Panmure to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, relative to the provision of store-houses for the 1st and 2nd regiments of militia in Cornwall, and to inform you that there is no intention on the part of Her Majesty’s Government to amalgamate any of the corps of militia in the county of Cornwall. As the quota to be raised was fixed by Order of Council in relation to the population of the county, in the same manner as in other counties, and as Lord Panmure does not abandon the hope that the full quota will be enrolled at the next period of training, his lordship is of opinion that the question of reducing either of the corps cannot be properly considered till that time arrives. Mr. J.L.S. TRELAWNY then, on behalf of his father, moved the first resolution; stating that he should defer moving the second resolution until the magistrates had decided what they would do with the first. He said it was absolutely indispensable that some steps be taken to provide a proper store-house for the 1st Corps. In his own judgment, he should have preferred a different course from that which his father had adopted; he should have wished that this County should build proper stores and guard-room, and provide proper parade ground and all other things such as were usual, and were provided in other Counties for a well- ordered militia. But in this county they were not prepared for such expense. His judgment had been overruled by his father, to whose opinion he deferred. Lord VIVIAN said, if his friend would allow him to read the correspondence that had taken place between himself and the Secretary at War, he would probably have felt the propriety of delay till some further communication had taken place. He admitted there had been indecision in the case; and that had led the magistrates into difficulties. Having been requested, with Mr. Robartes and Mr. Kendall, to communicate with the Secretary at War, and having listened to the discussion at the last Sessions, on this very question, in which it was very evident that one communication of a certain kind had been made to them (his Lordship, Mr. Robartes and Mr. Kendall), and another communication of a somewhat different nature to the Lord Lieutenant, he thought it desirable, soon after the last Sessions, to write to Lord Panmure; and he would trouble the Court with letters that passed between them, in order to show the Court that he had accurately stated what the state of things was, and what had been Lord Panmure’s statement. Lord Vivian read many letters, inclusive of the following:— War Department, 25th July, 1856. My dear Lord, I gave my opinion, that provided the stores of the 2nd Cornwall Rifles were properly secured, there was no necessity at present for building a store-room for the regiment at Launceston; but I cannot further interfere. I was glad to hear that £40 had been voted for hiring the necessary accommodation for the present year. The question of amalgamating the 1st and 2nd Regiments of Cornwall Militia is one which I cannot take into consideration until after the two regiments have assembled for their next Training; and should it then be decided that they are still to remain distinct corps, it will rest entirely with the Lord Lieutenant, aided by the advice of the Commandant of the regiment, to fix where the store of the 2nd Cornwall Rifles shall be built; but should they be amalgamated, I think Bodmin the best place for the store. Yours very truly, PANMURE. To Lord Vivian. ______Glynn, Bodmin, July 27th, 1856. My dear Lord, I regret again, to trouble you on the subject of stores for the Cornish Militia; but in the multiplicity of your labours, you have lost sight of the circumstances which I detailed to you in my letter of the 5th inst., viz., that the leases of the houses now rented for the use of the two regiments expire, at Launceston in November next, at Bodmin in the following April; and in neither case are we likely to get a renewal of the lease. £40 were voted for one year for the Launceston regiment, on the ground that before the expiration of that period, some other arrangement, under your authority, should be made for the custody of the stores of the 2nd regiment. You will observe then, that the discussion as to whether or not the county must provide two storehouses for the two regiments cannot well be adjourned until after their next training, which I conclude will not take place until the summer of next year. I confess that, to me, and I know to others of the magistrates, the building or hiring of two stores appears an entirely useless expense, and one from which, apart from other objections, we would gladly spare the county rate-payers, already highly taxed for public works. I enclose the copy of a letter which I addressed to the Chairman of our Quarter Sessions directly after my interview with you in July of last year. Yours very truly, VIVIAN. To Lord Panmure, ______War Department, 14th August 1856. My dear Lord, I have to acknowledge your letter of the 27th ult, and its enclosure relative to the stores of the Cornwall Militia. I can see no objection to accommodation for the stores of the Second Regiment as well as the First being provided at Bodmin, pending the settlement of the question of the amalgamation of the two Regiments; and you should put yourself in communication with Sir William Trelawny on this point. The question of the consolidation, or otherwise of the two Regiments must remain open until the next Training, which the Lord Lieutenant can recommend at as early a period in the year as he may deem convenient; and if it be decided that the Regiments shall remain distinct, it will be for him, in conjunction with the Commandant of the corps, to select the place where the proper store accommodation shall be hired or built by the County for the 2nd Cornwall Militia, as provided by the 106th Section of 42nd Geo. 3rd cap. 90, and 2nd sec. of 17 and 18 Victoria, cap. 105. Believe me, Yours very truly, PANMURE. Mr. TRELAWNEY (sic) then addressed the Court at some length in support of his proposition in respect of the 1st. regiment, distinct from any question of amalgamation or non-amalgamation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Le Grice. A lengthy and irregular discussion followed, in which Lord Vivian, Mr. Trelawney, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Sawle, Mr. Willyams, Mr. Robartes, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Le Grice, and Mr. E. Coode jun., took part. In the course of the discussion, Mr. THOMSON said, he thought the real question for the consideration of the Bench was, whether it ought not to petition the Government for the removal in toto from amongst us of the 2nd Cornwall Rifles, which it created for the first time at Launceston during the last war—a burthen on the resources and the expenditure of the county—uncalled for, unnecessary, and, from the distinctive character of our population and its pursuits, and with the efficiency of the 1st Cornwall Rifles, and the Miners’ Artillery, amounting together to between 14 and 15 hundred rank and file—I firmly believe the raising of this 2nd Regiment quite unattainable by voluntary enlistment; and even were it obtained by the ballot, it would seriously affect the labour and interests of the county, which are already suffering, and I believe severely, from emigration alone. Therefore, the Bench will, I hope, apply for the removal of this Regiment, whose creation by the Government astonished, and still does astonish, the county; and which is become now more than unnecessary, since we are to have established amongst us a police force. Eventually, the discussion was closed by the adoption—by a majority of 26 to 16—of the following amendment moved by Mr. E. COODE, Jun., and seconded by Lord VIVIAN:—That the Militia Committee be instructed to rent for one year, such accommodation at Bodmin for the 1st Regiment, as may be deemed necessary, in order that time may be afforded Government to determine on the course to be adopted with reference to the two regiments. Mr. TRELAWNY then moved, on behalf of his father, the resolution of which notice had been given—“To rent for 14 years, more or less, from November next, certain premises at Launceston, for the 2nd Regiment Store-rooms, at 40l. a year. Mr. MOORSHEAD seconded the motion. Mr. E. COODE moved an amendment—“that the premises at Launceston be taken for one year, at such sum as the committee may agree on. Lord VIVIAN seconded the amendment; which, on division, was carried by a majority of 29 to 6. Mr. TRELAWNY then gave notice that at the next sessions he will propose that proper steps be taken towards building further accommodation at Bodmin for the 1st Regiment, in a manner suitable to the county. Mr. Trelawny said he should postpone any proposal with regard to the 2nd Regiment until the Government had declared their intentions on the subject. Lord VIVIAN moved that the Chairman be requested to forward the resolutions arrived at this day on the Militia question to the Secretary-at-War; pointing out the grave inconvenience that has arisen and still exists, as the result of indecision whether the two Regiments are to be amalgamated; and requesting his immediate decision. Mr. SAWLE seconded the motion; and it was agreed to. Mr. E. COODE, jun. moved, seconded by Lord VIVIAN—that the Militia Committee be renewed, and that the names of Colonel Coryton and Capt. Trelawny be added.—The motion was agreed to.—Lord VIVIAN afterwards begged to withdraw his own name from the committee. VENTILATION OF THE HALLS.—The CHAIRMAN said, at the close of the assizes, the associate handed in a letter complaining of insufficient ventilation of the halls, and suggesting means of improvement; and it was agreed to refer the letter to Mr. Everest, the governor.—It is right to state that the associate said the courts were in other respects very convenient. Mr. WILLYAMS complained of the inconvenient arrangements of the court, as it was now used, for the transaction of county business by the magistrates; and gave notice that he would bring the subject before the court at the next sessions. COUNTY CONSTABULARY.—The CHAIRMAN introduced the next subject in the agenda—The steps necessary to be taken in reference to the County Constabulary Act. Mr. RODD then moved—that a Committee be appointed to take into consideration the steps necessary in reference to the County Constabulary Act, such Committee to have power to take all such steps as may be necessary fully to inform themselves of the condition of the Police Force in such other counties as have heretofore established them, with a view to advise the Court as to the numbers and organization necessary for this County. Further, that the Committee be requested to invite candidates for the situation of Chief- Constable; and that they be further requested to examine the testimonials and test the eligibility of such candidates, in such manner as to them may seem best; and that a special Adjourned Sessions be appointed, with the view of obtaining the Secretary of State’s approval of the scheme that may be sanctioned by the Court. Lord VIVIAN seconded the resolution; and it was agreed to nem. con. Sir SAMUEL SPRY, however, strongly expressed his objection to the Committee deciding on the eligibility of candidates; but it was explained to him by the CHAIRMAN and several other magistrates, that the course now proposed to be adopted was the same as had been pursued in all appointments by the county, and that the committee’s report on testimonials would not in any way fetter the independent action of any magistrate in public court, who might propose any candidate he thought proper. The Committee appointed, consisted of the Lord Lieutenant; the Chairman and Vice-chairman of Quarter Sessions; the Members for the County; and one magistrate from each of the Petty Sessions in the county, viz.:— Stratton Rev. J. Glanville. Lesnewth Mr. Avery. Pydar (East) Mr. Willyams. Do. (West) Mr. R. Davey. East (South) Mr. Carew. Do. (North) Mr. Rodd. Do. (Middle) Mr. Coryton Trigg Capt. Hext. Powder (East) Mr. E. Coode, jun. Do. (West) Mr. Gregor. Do. (Tywardreath) Mr. Foster. West Lord Vivian. Penwith (East) Mr. Magor. Do. (West) Mr. Le Grice. Kirrier (East) Mr. Enys. Do. (West) Mr. Rogers. The first meeting of the Committee was appointed for Wednesday the 29th October; an early day being appointed, as it is desirable so to expedite proceedings that the Secretary of State’s final sanction of the scheme to be sent up from this County may be obtained in time to allow the necessary appointment of officers to be made at the next Epiphany Sessions. In the course of the conversation on the general subject, Mr. T.S. BOLITHO more than once suggested the propriety of communicating with the boroughs in Cornwall, to know if they would amalgamate with the County for the purposes of the Constabulary Act. He referred to Truro, Penzance, and Falmouth, but said his suggestion particularly applied to Truro. Lord VIVIAN remarked that in several counties, and in the West Riding of Yorkshire, they were now organizing the constabulary under the old Act, in order to get rid of all control by Government. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. RICHARD MARTIN, 50, ironmonger's shopman, was charged with stealing a quantity of porter, a number of bottles and a bag, the property of his master, William Prockter, of Launceston, on the 16th of August.— Mr. Frost conducted the prosecution; Mr. Shilson the defence.—Amelia Pickard:—l am a straw-bonnet maker, living at Launceston, in Southgate-street; my shop is opposite the prosecutor's shop. About 9 o'clock on Saturday evening, the 16th of August, I saw the prisoner at Lane's Corner—the house adjoining mine; his wife was with him, and they appeared to be talking together. Mrs. Martin then went into the passage door—(the passage leading to the back of Mr. Prockter’s premises); and the prisoner crossed the street, and went into Mr. Prockter's shop. As Mrs. Martin went into the passage, I saw her open and close the door, and then open it again and go in; she had a shawl across her arm.—Catherine Prockter, wife of prosecutor:—My husband is a silversmith and ironmonger, and also sells porter and ale; we live in Southgate-street. On Saturday evening, the 16th August, about 9 o'clock, I saw the prisoner and his wife talking together at the corner of Lane's shop. Adjoining our front shop there is a back parlour which looks into a passage covered with glass, leading to an open court; the parlour is separated from the passage only by a window. At the extremity of the court, there is a porter-cellar; and near that cellar are folding-doors leading into a lane called Blind-hole. After I had seen the prisoner and his wife talking together at the corner of Lane's shop, I went into the back-parlour, and in a short time I heard Martin's voice in the passage; he was telling some one to "go and begin to close shop;" and I then heard him go into the court; I knew his footsteps. I then put on my bonnet and went through the shop into the street, and by the King's Arms into the lane, and I went as far as just above the doors, where the wall projects. I stopped there not more than a minute; and while I was there, I heard the doors unlocked and then immediately the doors were opened. I then saw Johanna Martin (prisoner's wife) come out of the doors and walk down the lane. I followed her, and when I came up to her, I could see the prisoner, who was near enough to hear what I said to the wife; at that time, the prisoner was standing within the double door, which was sufficiently open for me to see him distinctly. I said " Oh, Johanna, our suspicions are too well-founded; I insist on your giving me what you have there." I referred to a package which she was carrying against her side, and which I imagined to be porter. There was a shawl thrown over the package. When I asked her what she had, she said "What, mam?" I said "you know what, you hypocrite." She made no resistance; and I put my hand on the package and took it from her. I carried the package up the lane, and returned to the shop by the front door, and took the package into the back-parlour; I called in my husband, and opened it in his presence; it contained 6 quart bottles of porter, and on one of the bottles was one of my husband's labels. When I came back to the house, I saw the prisoner then coming up the court; I said to him "Oh Richard, how could you who have lived here ever since you was a boy, serve us in this way?" The prisoner has been in my husband's service 15 years to my own knowledge; he had keys of the cellar himself, and had access to other doors.—William Prockter, the prosecutor:—I have two cellars—one under my front shop, and the other at the end of my court leading into Blind-hole.—This witness I corroborated his wife's evidence as to many of the circumstances on the evening on the 16th of August, preceding and including the opening of the package in the back parlour He said his label was on the porter, and that the package consisted of a cork-bag, with some straw packing. He produced the package before the magistrates at Launceston, and gave it in charge to Sambells the policeman. The porter was sold at 7s. a dozen, and the bag was valued at 3d.—The key of the cellar hung in the passage; and he saw it there about 8 o'clock of the evening in question; and shortly before the discovery of the bottles, he saw that the key was not in its place. Shortly after the bottles were shown to him, the prisoner came from the shop, and witness saw him hang up the key in its usual place. I said to him, "I have lost all confidence in you"; he replied. " I don’t drink anything on the premises, and I thought you would not object to my taking some porter home.'' I also said to him he ought to have remembered that his sins would find him out; and I said my neighbours had watched him and had seen him in the act of robbing me. He said he was sure no one had ever seen him. During the time I was speaking to him, his wife came in; and she, seeing he was in a very excited state, begged I would overlook it and forgive him by Monday morning. The prisoner's wages were £51 a year, and he had occasional presents; and on market-days and fair-days he had his meals in the house. He had been in the employ of my father from my boyhood, and in my service for 15 years.—Cross-examined—The prisoner had been in the employ of our family altogether about 40 years. During the whole time he has been in my employ, I have given him my entire confidence. Previously to the 15th of June, I never had any suspicion of him whatever: I believed him to be a most faithful servant; his character had been very good generally; I had the highest opinion of him up to that period; he has had charge of my money, and has had command of the till; and with regard to money I have not the least suspicion of him at this moment. He is extremely temperate in his habits. It was his duty to deliver out?----- to customers from the cellar, as well as from the shop. There was a key hung up in the shop, and he carried a duplicate in his pocket. I saw him leave the shop this Saturday evening; he had not been out of the shop above 10? minutes when I saw him talking with his wife across the street; it was exactly opposite my shop; the wife had been in the habit of going to and fro my house for several years. Prisoner took a glass of ale on market-days, and when he had his meals at my house.—l was desirous this matter should be dealt with summarily at Petty Sessions and made request to that effect. When this was refused, the prisoner asked to be admitted to bail; but the bail required was, I believe, £400?; the prisoner could not get that, and had been in prison ever since. He was in the habit of selling porter to butchers and others until 9 o’clock; and there would be nothing in his having the key at that time.— Re-examined.— Between the 9th and 16th of August, I missed two dozen of porter that was not accounted for; that was, including the present 6 bottles. No ale or porter was ever had out of my house for the prisoner, with my knowledge; nor was my leave asked for that which was taken out on the 16th August. The reason why the case was not settled at Petty Sessions, was that the magistrates’ clerk thought the Criminal Jurisdiction Act was not applicable to a case of this sort.—Benjamin Sambells, policeman of Launceston, on Monday the 18th of August, apprehended prisoner. He asked me if I was come to take him. I said yes. He then said "I have been a good servant to Mr. Prockter and his family;" and on his way to the County Gaol, he said "I used to drink nothing at the house, and I thought it no harm to take home some porter to have a drink at night.” I attended before the magistrates when the prisoner was brought up; Mrs. Prockter produced the shawl, and Mr. Prockter the package, and gave them into my custody; and I now produce them.” (They were identified by Mr. and Mrs. Prockter.) For the defence, Mr. SHILSON ably addressed the jury, dwelling on the alleged harsh treatment the prisoner had received in being refused summary jurisdiction, and in having demanded of him bail to so large an amount as £400—virtually a denial of bail. He spoke much of the very excellent character the prisoner had maintained throughout life; and suggested that this ought reasonably to strengthen the doubt which must arise from the case itself, as to felonious intent in the prisoner. Very high testimony to the prisoner's character was given by Mr. Richard Wise, builder, and Mr. William Langdon, ironmonger. The learned CHAIRMAN summed up carefully. In the course of so doing, he said it was due to the Launceston Magistrates to say that the Act of Parliament which permitted summary jurisdiction would not apply to stealing by a servant. With regard to the amount of bail required—£100 from the prisoner himself, and £200 from the others,—he could not say how that was; it might be that the prisoner had saved money, and the bail was proportioned accordingly; but he could not say how that was. The jury, after long consideration in court, retired for further consideration; and after two hours consideration altogether, found a verdict of GUILTY, with a strong recommendation of the prisoner to mercy on account of his previous good character. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15. (Before J. K. Lethbridge, Esq.) JOHN THOMAS, 38, pleaded GUILTY of stealing a scythe, belonging to James John Treweeke, at Kenwyn, on the 4th of August. (Sentence: two months hard labour.) JOHANNA MARTIN, 55, was charged with stealing at Launceston, on the 16th of August, six bottles of porter and a bag, the property of William Prockter. Mr. SHILSON, for the defence, submitted that the prisoner must be discharged, upon two grounds; first, that the husband and wife were together at the time of the alleged felony, as had been proved yesterday at his trial, and therefore the law presumed that she acted under his influence and coercion; and secondly, it was the same offence as that of which the husband was yesterday convicted.—Mr. FROST, for the prosecution, quoted from Archbold to show that if there was evidence that the wife had acted voluntarily, and as a free agent, she might be found guilty; and he submitted there was evidence of that kind in the case. He said she was indicted separately, because her husband was a servant and she was not.—The CHAIRMAN said he was of opinion there was evidence given in the case tried yesterday, to show that the wife had acted under the influence and incitement of her husband, and if so, in the eye of the law she would not be guilty.—Mr. FROST said he should not then proceed with the prosecution.—The CHAIRMAN then directed the jury to return a verdict of ACQUITTAL, which was done accordingly. Mrs. Martin cried very much before her removal from the bar, and was obliged to be assisted away, appearing to be in a faint fit. SARAH DAWE, 27, was charged with stealing a purse containing a sovereign and three shillings, from the person of Robert Roberts, on the 11th of September. Mr. J.B. COLLINS for the prosecution; Mr. SHILSON for the defence. The evidence was that the prosecutor left Dawe’s public-house at Callington, in the afternoon of September 11th, and was overtaken by the prisoner, who, he stated, without saying anything came up and threw him in against the hedge, and instantly robbed him. A man called Pine came up and stopped her from going away, and she returned the purse and money. The defence was, that the prosecutor had been drinking, and gave the woman the money. Verdict GUILTY. (Sentence: four months h.l.) PHILIP HARVEY, 27, was charged with stealing a diamond for cutting glass, a tin case and a plane, belonging to Richard Spry, of Calstock.—Verdict, NOT GUILTY. FRANCES GLANVALL, 19, was charged with stealing a gold ring from the shop of Robert Crowle, of Camborne, on the 17th of May. Prisoner went into the shop and asked to see a locket, and was shown that and some gold rings. One of the rings was afterwards missed, and Mrs. Crowle saw prisoner wearing it. She was apprehended by police constable Ward. She said she had bought it of another person, who however denied that she had sold prisoner a ring. Verdict, GUILTY. (Sentence: three months h.l.) DAVID ROBERTS, 13, a sailor, was indicted for stealing a gun from David Davis, of Portreath, on the 14th of September. The gun was stolen from the prosecutor’s parlour, and the prisoner afterwards had it in his possession at Jose’s beer-house, Redruth. He was apprehended by constable Rodda, when very tipsy. Next morning he said he should not have done it if he had not been drunk.—GUILTY. (Sentence: three months h.l.) WILLIAM LARK was indicted for that he, being a clerk to Mr. Thomas Hitchens, merchant, of St. Austell, did receive and take into possession 6l., in the name and for the account of Mr. Hitchens, and did feloniously embezzle 4l. thereof. Mr. SHILSON for the prosecution, and Mr. CHILDS for the defence. From the evidence of the prosecutor it appeared that prisoner had been in his employ about ten years, and being a principle clerk, it was his duty to receive moneys from customers, which he had to enter in a petty cash-book, to make a similar entry in the general cash-book, and to post the entries into the ledger. Prosecutor had been in the habit of supplying Mr. John Stephens, carrier, of Mount Charles, with oats, for which moneys had been received on account from time to time. Two or three months ago, prosecutor discharged the prisoner from his employ, and having in consequence been making up customers’ accounts, an account was sent in to Mr. John Stephens, who afterwards came to prosecutor and presented him a receipt in prisoner’s handwriting, as follows:—“6th October, 1854, received of Mr. John Stephens, £6 on account.—William Lark.” On Mr. Hitchens referring to that date in his books, he found that the entry of money received from Mr. John Stephens was £2 instead of £6 as appearing by the receipt. Mr. Hitchens admitted that although it was the prisoner’s duty when in the office, yet in his absence other clerks would receive money from customers, pay it into the cash box, and enter it. He also admitted that he had many customers named John Stephens, and James Stephens, and there might be Joseph Stephens. Many other matters were deposed to, but the above were the main features of the case. Mr. John Stephens, of Mount Charles, was called, but could not swear that on October 6th, 1854, he paid £6 to the prisoner; his son might have paid it, but he was not now in attendance; his only evidence of payment was the receipt.—Mr. CHILDS hereupon submitted that the mere receipt was not sufficient in a criminal case to prove payment of the amount, and that there was no case to go to the jury.—The CHAIRMAN, however, decided that the trial should proceed.—Mr. CHILDS then addressed the jury in a zealous and able speech on behalf of the prisoner, in the course of which he complained of harshness on the part of the prosecutor, in not allowing the prisoner time to explain, after the discovery of an apparent discrepancy in the accounts. He also called as witnesses, who gave the prisoner an excellent character, Mr. John Hore, of the parish of St. Austell, Mr. Hodge, of St. Austell, who had been bail for the prisoner, Mr. Samuel Stripp, of Bodmin, and Mr. W. Stripp, of St. Austell. Mr. Childs mentioned that Mr. Elias Martin of St. Austell, had also been bail for the prisoner, and would have attended to give him a character if he had not been obliged to be absent that day.—The CHAIRMAN, in summing up, relieved the prosecutor from the imputation of harshness thrown upon him by defendant’s advocate, but some other of the observations of Mr. Childs he considered were of much weight. As to the production of the receipt without any further proof of payment, it might be sufficient if the case were tried elsewhere; but in a criminal charge, and after so long a period as 1854, he thought it would have been much more satisfactory if they had had the evidence of the person who paid the money. For it was quite possible, when there were a number of customers of the name of Stephens, and when payments were often made in sums of £3, £2, and so on, that a clerk might hastily give a receipt for £6 when he had not received so much. Or it was possible that through other clerks receiving money, there might be confusion and error. If the jury had doubts in the case, it was in such cases of doubt that the good character a prisoner had received would come to be considered.—The jury after a short deliberation returned the prisoner NOT GUILTY, and the court then rose. NO BILL.—The bill against John Brown, a soldier, for stealing £2 from John Nicholls, of Kingsand, was ignored by the Grand Jury. SECOND COURT. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15. (Before C.B. Graves Sawle, Esq., M.P.) ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, aged 15, pleaded GUILTY of breaking and entering the warehouse of Richard Hamlyn, at Redruth, and stealing therefrom 16 potatoes, the property of the said Richard Hamlyn. (Sentence: six months h.l.) HENRY FERRIS, 22, a seaman, was charged with stealing on the 3rd October instant, a gold ring, the property of Zadig Harris, at Falmouth.—Mr. T. Commins conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Zadig Harris, the prosecutor, deposed: I am a jeweller living at Falmouth. On the evening of the 3rd of October, I was at Radford’s beer-shop at the Quay, Falmouth; when I went in, the prisoner asked me if I had any ear-rings. I said yes, and showed him some; he asked if they were gold, and I said yes; he said they were not, and offered to bet me a dollar that they were not. I took out some money from my pocket for the purpose of betting with him, and in doing so dropped a sixpence; I stooped to pick it up, and after I rose from the ground, I missed this gold keeper-ring from my box; it was the only one I had of that sort; I had bought it of Mr. Jacobs, who is also a jeweller at Falmouth, and it had Mr. Jacobs’s private mark on it. I afterwards saw the ring in the hands of a man called Robert Vincent.—Samuel Jacobs—I am a jeweler and carry on business with my father at Falmouth. The ring now produced to me formed part of my father’s stock, and it has my father’s private mark; I made the mark myself.—John Caddy, policeman at Falmouth, proved that the witness, Robert Vincent, was too ill to leave Falmouth for the purpose of giving his evidence, and a certificate to the same effect was put in from Mr. Bullmore, surgeon.—Vincent’s deposition before the committing magistrates was then put in and read. It was:—“Yesterday morning I was at Mr. Lacy’s, in Falmouth; prisoner and another sailor came into the house, the tap of the Crown and Anchor; he ordered some ale and showed me a ring, which he offered to sell to me, and said he had brought it from sea with him; I looked at the ring and he offered to sell it for 5s. and a quart of beer; and I afterwards bought it for 4s. and paid for it. Soon afterwards, Harris came in and owned the ring, and then brought in the policeman Caddy and I gave up the ring to him.—Caddy, the policeman, stated that he received the ring from Vincent and had had it in his possession ever since. The prisoner told him he bought the ring at Constantinople.—The identity of the ring was clearly proved, and the jury found a verdict of GUILTY.—(On reading Vincent’s deposition, the chairman complained of the almost illegible way in which it was written; magistrates’ clerks ought to write depositions much more clearly.) (Sentence: three months h.l.) HENRY COCKING was charged with stealing a silver meat-spoon, the property of Charles Harvey, innkeeper, at Portreath.—Mr. T. Commins conducted the prosecution; Mr. Frost the defence.—Charles Harvey, the prosecutor, deposed: I am an innkeeper at Portreath; on the 28th July I engaged the prisoner as an assistant in my stables; he agreed to come the next day, but did not come for 8 or 10 days afterwards. On the 29th July I missed a silver table-spoon having seen it the day before in the little Mixing Bar. On the 10th of September, Hodge the constable brought me a silver spoon broken into 7 pieces; I knew it to be my spoon by the engraving, and by marks of initials that had been engraved on it by Mr. Williams of Pool.—John Marshall Thomas deposed:—I am a jeweller and watchmaker at Redruth; On the 10th of September, the prisoner’s wife came to my shop and offered me a silver spoon for sale; it was in pieces, which were defaced very much, and I detained them. I asked her name, and she said “Mills.” She expressed a wish to have the silver back again, but I refused, and afterwards went to Hodge the policeman, and gave the pieces to him. The value of the spoon before it was broken was about a guinea; it was a meat- spoon.—Thomas Hodge, constable, produced the pieces of silver handed to him by last witness. After I received them, I went to Portreath, to the prosecutor, who at once identified them as his property.— Charles Tregoning, constable of Redruth: On the 11th of September I took the prisoner into custody, and charged him, in Mr. Harvey’s presence, with stealing a silver spoon, from Mr. Harvey, and I also told him that his wife was in custody for offering the spoon for sale at Redruth; he said he found the spoon, and pointed to a place where there had been an old stamps; he said his wife was innocent, and if there was any charge about the spoon, it must come to him. The prisoner’s wife was examined before the magistrates, and discharged.—Martin Williams deposed that two or three years ago, he engraved six spoons for a Mr. Phillips, the father-in-law of the prosecutor; he engraved the letters H.M.P. Having put together the pieces of silver produced, the witness was perfectly satisfied that they formed part of one of the 6 spoons which he had engraved for Phillips.—Evidence of identity was given by other witnesses; and the jury found a verdict of GUILTY. (Sentence: four months h.l.) JOHN WILLIAMS, 37, clockmaker, charged with stealing a silver watch, the property of John Orchard, at Week St. Mary, on the 10th of September.—Mr. Shilson conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—John Orchard, the prosecutor, a farmer’s son, said:—I live at Week St. Mary. The prisoner is a watch cleaner, and was lodging at the Tree Inn, in Week St. Mary, some time since. About 8 or 9 weeks ago I told him I had a watch to clean; and the next morning he came to me at my father’s house and cleaned it there, and I paid him for it; he left the watch and went away. About 3 weeks afterwards I told him that the watch gained a little, and on the 10th of September he came to my father’s house again and looked at it; he said it was rusted, he supposed in consequence of his having handled it with damp fingers, and he must take it with him for a few days. He took away the watch, and I never saw it again till in the hands of the constable at Stratton.—Thomas Sandercock, another farmer’s son:—I live at Poundstock; on the 13th of September, the prisoner came to me where I was working in the field, he had before that cleaned a watch for me, and I told him it was not going fitty. I showed him my watch, and he took it, telling me when I should have it again. I wanted him to leave another watch with me meanwhile, and he said he had got with him one of his own, but he could not leave it because he intended to sell it to a farmer. He showed me the watch, and told me I should have it for my own watch and 15s. He left his watch with me, and called on me again the same day at my father’s house, and I exchanged with him, giving him 10s. and my watch for his watch. The watch that I took in exchange I had in my possession, till I gave it to the constable at Stratton on the 18th.—George Moore, police constable at Stratton:—On the 16th of September, in consequence of information I received, I went to Bradworthy, and thence to Hartland, in pursuit of prisoner; I found him at the Anchor Inn, in Hartland, in bed with a woman who called herself his wife. I charged him with absconding from Week St. Mary, with a quantity of watches. There were four watches then hanging up at the looking-glass; I took possession of them, and took the prisoner and the woman to Stratton. The next morning the prisoner said to me “about those watches, I wish to tell the truth; I told you last night that they 4 watches were the whole, but I sold two at Poundstock—one to a lad called Sandercock in exchange for half a sovereign and his watch, and another to a shoemaker called Armstrong”; and, he also said something about his having been hard up, because of scarcity of work, in consequence of people being all out harvesting. I afterwards saw the prosecutor and Sandercock, and received from Sandercock the watch which I now produce, and which has been in my possession ever since.—The watch was clearly identified by the Prosecutor and Sandercock.—Edmund Horrill, of Week St. Mary, proved that in September prisoner had been staying there 10 or 12 weeks, and left there on the 15th September.—In summing up, the CHAIRMAN directed the jury that as it was clear that the prosecutor parted with the watch voluntarily, they could not find a verdict of guilty unless they were satisfied that at the time the prisoner received the watch, he had made use of the statement about its being rusty, as a false pretence in order to get possession of it and appropriate it to his own use.—Verdict, GUILTY.—The prisoner was tried and found GUILTY under very similar circumstances, of stealing a watch, the property of Edward Moyse, at Jacobstow, on the 8th of September. (Sentence: six months h.l.) JOHN PEARCE, 15, and GEORGE MORRIS, 20, labourers, pleaded GUILTY of breaking and entering the dwelling house of Jacob Masselin, at Sheviock, on the 14th of August, and stealing a pair of boots, a coat, a waistcoat, a pair of trousers, a handkerchief, a shirt, a linen jacket, two capes, a shawl, a silver watch, a smelling bottle, two neckerchiefs, and a penknife. (Sentence: John PEARCE - six months h.l.; George MORRIS - eight months h.l.) MICHAEL BURKE, 23, mat-maker, was charged with stealing a purse, a gold brooch, two sovereigns, a half-sovereign, and three half-crowns, the property of John Brooking, at Maker, on the 30th of July.—Mr. E. Gilbert Hamley conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Maria Brooking:—I am the wife of John Brooking, and on the 30th of July was at Cremill with my husband and two children. Between 5 and 6 o’clock my husband and children were taking coffee; I was sitting on a form with the children, and there was a table close by. At that time I had in my pocket among other things, a purse containing two sovereigns, a half-sovereign, three half-crowns, and a small gold brooch. In about five minutes after, on leaving the table, I put my hand in my pocket and found my purse was gone.—William Francis Kitto, painter:—I was at Cremill in the afternoon and evening of the 30th of July; I saw the last witness at a refreshment-stall with her husband; and I saw the prisoner feeling the husband’s pockets; I also saw him put his hand between Mr. and Mrs. Brooking, and I then saw Mrs. Brooking’s dress lift from the ground.— Edward Hibberd, superintendent of police at Stonehouse:—I was at Cremill on the 30th July last, and from information I received I apprehended the prisoner and charged him with stealing money from Mrs. Brooking. He said that he knew nothing about the purse, but was willing to go with me; and he also said he had not been near the woman. I afterwards searched the prisoner and found on him 7s. 2½d. On the road to the station, I asked him what he had handed to Long, a man who was with him previous to this affair. He said, a ball and two pins. I had previously searched Long, and he had no such articles as that about him. (It appeared that nearly three quarters of an hour elapsed from the time of the alleged robbery, and the searching of the prisoner by Hibberd).—The prisoner cross-examined the witnesses and addressed the jury with much ingenuity and persistency; and succeeded in obtaining a verdict of Not Guilty. AUGUSTUS MORCKOM, tailor, pleaded guilty, on three several indictments, of stealing at Grambler and St. Aubyn Mines, on the 10th of September, a pair of boots and a pair of socks, the property of Thomas Phillips; a jacket and shirt, the property of James Quick; and various articles of clothing, the property of Henry Kinsman. (Sentence: six months h.l.) SAMUEL WILLIAMS, 62, carpenter, charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of Thomas Ball, at Zelah, in the parish of St. Allen, on the 29th of August, and stealing therefrom a gold brooch, a silver brooch, and two gold pins, the property of his daughter, Bethiah Ball.—Mr. Roscorla conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.—Bethiah Ball, single woman, deposed:—I live with my father, and keep his house at Zelah. On the 29th of August, about half-past 2 o’clock in the afternoon, my father being at his labour, I locked up the house and went away. On my return at about half-past 3, I found the door as I had left it, but the window was broken open, and all the things in the house were in an uproar; and up-stairs, the boxes and drawers that I had left closed were open, and out of my little chest there were gone a gold brooch, and silver brooch, and two gold pins. On Saturday, the next day, I gave information to the Truro Police, and on Sunday, I saw the articles in the possession of Woolcock.—Olivia Roberts, an intelligent little girl:—I live at Lane, near Thomas Ball’s. On the 29th August I was with a little boy, picking blackberries, in Mr. Carveth’s field, near Thomas Ball’s; and saw the prisoner jump over the hedge right before me, only a few steps from me. After he had jumped over the hedge, he went up the turnip-field; there was no roadway through the field; he had a chisel in his hand. Thomas Ball, grandson of the prosecutor:—I live at Zelah Lane. On Friday the 29th August I saw the prisoner about ¼ of a mile from prosecutor’s house, on the road towards Truro; he had a chisel with him.—Mary Jane Gummow, a little girl:—I know Elizabeth Williams, prisoner’s daughter; in the evening of Saturday the 30th of August, Elizabeth Williams came to me in my house and shewed me a white brooch and asked me if I would give twopence for it. I said “no, it is not worth 2 pence.” She afterwards gave it to me, and then showed me a yellow one, which she said was for Emma Jose, another work-girl. I wore my brooch on the Sunday, and on the Monday I gave it to Mr. Woolcock the policeman.—William Woolcock, policeman, at Truro. I apprehended the prisoner on Saturday night the 30th of August. I told him what he was charged with; and he said he had not been out of town on the Friday—and that the farthest he had been was to Comprigney Bar. From information I received, I went to the house of Thomas Gummow, on the Monday, and saw the little girl, Mary Jane, who gave me the silver brooch I now produce; and the little girl Williams, prisoner’s daughter, gave me another brooch, which I also produce. (These articles were identified by the witnesses Bethiah Ball and Mary Jane Gummow.)—William Joseph Nash, who was with Woolcock at the apprehension of the prisoner on the Saturday night, corroborated his evidence.—The prisoner’s statement before the committing magistrates was put in. It was:—“I found those brooches, coming down Kenwyn-hill Saturday afternoon.”—The prisoner was found GUILTY.—A former conviction was proved against him. At the Michaelmas Sessions 1847 he was convicted and sentenced to 4 months hard labour for stealing a batten from Messrs. Robert and Edward Michell, at Truro. Mr. Everest stated further that when he came to the Gaol 29 years ago, he found the prisoner then in Gaol. (Sentence: four years penal servitude.) The Jury in this Court were then discharged. DIVERSION OF ROAD.—Mr. SHILSON, on certificate by three justices, the Rev. J. Glanville, Cecil N. Bray, Esq., and the Rev. R.R. Wright, moved for an order of the Court for a diversion of the road leading from the Post-office Bridge, Bude, to Berry’s Corner, Stratton, and King’s Hill. The proposed new road will be both shorter and more convenient to the public than the old which it is proposed to stop up; the chief advantage of the proposed alteration being that it will get rid of a portion of roadway which, running along by the side of a tidal river, is liable to be flooded occasionally. The proposed new road will pass farther in from the river, through lands belonging to Sir T.D. Acland, Bart., the Rev. Lord John Thynne, and Mr. Oliver Davey, by all of whom the alteration was approved, and there was no objection from any other quarter. So favourable were Sir T.D. Acland and Lord John Thynne to the proposed alteration, that they had agreed to give the land for the line of new road as far as it passes through their property, and, further, gave £50 each to the cost of the improvement. Besides which, Lady Acland and Lady Thynne had given £5 each.—The formal proof of certificate and notices was given by Mr. E.N.J. Lang; and the court granted the application. This concluded the business of the Second Court. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16. (Before J. King Lethbridge, Esq.) The Court this morning passed sentence on the prisoners:—(see individual cases) In sentencing Richard Martin—a prisoner of very respectable appearance, who had been convicted of stealing porter from his master, Mr. William Prockter of Launceston—the CHAIRMAN, expressing himself with much emotion, said:—I cannot approach your case without feeling deep regret at your situation. You, certainly, have abused the confidence bestowed on you by a most excellent master, in whose service and that of his family you had been for 44 years; and you were greatly esteemed by them. It is astonishing that you should have suffered yourself to be overcome by a subtle enemy, and thereby at your age of 56 years, to have placed yourself in this painful situation. From what appeared before us, I am afraid this was not your first offence by many. You had acquired the entire confidence of Mr. Prockter, and were entrusted by him with every thing; neither money nor anything else was kept from you, and you were in communication with his customers. You were a man also who professed to be actuated by religious principle; I hope and trust that you will make good use of the opportunities of reflection you will have during the long term of imprisonment to which we feel obliged to sentence you. You have been recommended to mercy both by the jury and by Mr. Prockter; but we have a duty to discharge towards society as well as to yourself; and whenever we see such a case as this, however you may be recommended to mercy, we must mix mercy and judgment together.—The CHAIRMAN then passed sentence of six months hard labour. In sentencing Samuel Williams to 4 years penal servitude, the CHAIRMAN spoke of his having been under sentence of death in 1827, and of subsequent convictions and punishment; yet nothing seemed to have effect on him; he had grown grey in crime. Another species of punishment would now be tried on him; and it was to be hoped that he would now feel it was time to be preparing for another world, and would make good use of the opportunities which the sentence to be inflicted on him would afford, for self inquiry into his state of mind as before man and before God. In passing sentence on some other prisoners, the CHAIRMAN again took occasion to remark on the large proportion of crimes reported by the Chaplain, to be due to drunkenness; and also on many, in the case of females, due to a love of finery and ornament, unbefitting their station in life. This concluded the business of the sessions.

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