cornwall england newspaper
1841 NEWS ARTICLE
APRIL
2 APRIL 1841, Friday
NOTICE. Kent House, Woodlane-terrace, Falmouth. An Auction will be held at Selley's Green Bank Hotel, Falmouth, on Tuesday, 20th day of April next, by Eleven, for Selling the above delightful Freehold Residence, with immediate possession, late in the occupation of Edwd. LAWRANCE, Esq., deceased. Particulars will be given in next week's papers. CORFIELD and SON, Auctioneers, &c., Penryn. Dated, March 29, 1841.
COUNTY OF CORNWALL. Parish Of Mabe. Valuable and Compact Freehold Estate; also, the Freehold in reversion of two other Premises adjoining. An Auction will be held on Thursday, the 22nd of April next, at Two o'clock in the Afternoon, at the Stone Mason's Arms, in the parish of Stythians, by CORFIELD and SON, for selling Little Halvosso, In one or more Lots, as may be agreed on at the time of Sale, the property of the late Mr. Thomas WILLS, deceased.
FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE. Tuesday, March 23, 1841. Partnership Dissolved, John VIGURS, Thomas FLIGHT, Louis VIGURS, John BROWN, John BATTEN, Pidwell BATTEN, T. JAMES, and W. GILBERTSON, of Cwm Avon, Glamorganshire, of London and of Trereife, Cornwall (so far as regards John Brown and Thomas Light).
CORNWALL LENT ASSIZES. Crown Bar, Tuesday, March 30. (Before Mr. Justice ERSKINE.) The Court was occupied nearly the whole day with cases of such a character as to be unfit for publication. The first was a charge of bestiality, against William BONE, of Bossiney, a married man, aged 60, with a family of twelve children, committed in July last, in Minster Wood. The only positive evidence against the prisoner was that a lad called DAVEY; and this witness was contradicted by a witness called PANTER, who was called for the defence; the chief point contested between the two witnesses being the assertion by Panter that Davey had said he would have made up the matter with Bone for five shillings. This, Davey positively denied; but admitted that he might have been disposed to make it up. The Learned Judge, in summing up, remarked in strong terms on this conflict of evidence, saying it was quite right that the inquiry should not terminate there, but that whichever witness had been speaking falsely, should be made to answer for that offence by being subject to a prosecution. The Jury Acquitted the prisoner. The trial lasted about four hours.
AWFUL DEPRAVITY. James JULIAN, 39, of Veryan, was charged with having committed a rape on Ann POLLARD, aged 14, his reputed illegitimate daughter, and living with him. After the prosecutrix, in her examination by Mr. M. SMITH, had stated the particulars of the alleged crime, the Learned Judge retired and consulted with Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN; and on returning into court, asked the prisoner if he had Counsel, and if not, if he wished to have any. The prisoner replied that he had none, but should wish to have counsel, if his Lordship pleased; on which his Lordship assigned the defence of the prisoner to Mr. SLADE, to whom his Lordship read over the evidence taken. On Mr. Slade's cross-examining the girl Pollard, the fact came out, at which every one in court shuddered, that for the last two years her father had carried on a criminal intercourse with her, under the most revolting circumstances; but that she had never disclosed this before that day in court, and had never complained of it to her mother, or her female neighbours, till on the occasion for which the indictment was laid, when they were discovered in a field in a position that left no doubt of what had occurred. The girl, in exculpation of herself, said that her father had always threatened to kill her if she told. The circumstances of the guilty act for which the indictment was laid, showed, however, that there was a possibility of the girl's escaping from her father; and, on the whole, the evidence was such that the indictment of rape could not be sustained. The jury, therefore, returned a verdict, Not Guilty; but every person present appeared to regret that the guilty conduct of a father, in thus polluting his own child, should pass unpunished.
SAMUEL SIMMONS. A powerful young man, was charged with a criminal assault on Mary Ann BINNEY, a young woman of weak intellect, on Denzelle Downs, in St. Eval, on the 22nd of March. The principal witness was, of course, the girl herself; and she gave ample proof of the identity of the prisoner, and of his being guilty of the charge laid against him. Her evidence was corroborated by two labourers on the downs, who came up, on hearing her cries, to her help; and by another witness who had previously seen the prisoner going on the same road as the young woman. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of a common assault only. Sentence Twelve Months' Imprisonment.
SHEEP STEALING. James RUSSELL and Henry COLLINS, two young men, were charged with stealing a sheep from Mr. John Williams ROBINS, a butcher, of Penzance; and in a second court with killing a sheep, with intent to steal the carcase. The prosecutor stated that he occupied land in St. Gluvias, and on Saturday evening last, had sixteen sheep there alive. On Sunday morning, he found but fifteen alive, and part of a dead one. The parts consisted of the skin, head, and a piece of the neck and ribs from which the flesh had been taken off. He brought home these pieces, and put this in pickle; after which he went, with three constables, to Collins house, in Mutton-row, in Penryn, where one of the constables there found up-stairs a bag with mutton in it. They then went to Russell's and found 30 or 40 lbs. of mutton in a tray. The parts found were those missing from the carcase. In the afternoon the constables went to the field, and compared the footsteps they found there with the prisoner Collins's shoes, and they matched exactly. William DAVEY, Thomas NINNIS, and Wm. COOKE, constables, corroborated this testimony, and produced the prisoner's shoes, the skin and remains of the carcase as found in the field, and the mutton found on the prisoners. The different portions matched exactly; and the skin was identified by particular marks sworn to by the prosecutor. Both Guilty. Sentence on each TEN YEARS' TRANSPORTATION.
JOHANNA OSBORN, 24, was charged with stealing, at St. Sampson's, a ham or leg of pork, from William PENROSE. The prisoner left the service of the prosecutor on the 11th of March, when Mrs. PENROSE missed a ham. John JASPER, a fellow servant of prisoner's walked with her about half-a-mile, carrying for her a ladies reticule, heavy, and large enough to put a ham into, ("to what base uses may we not return!"), but he had no talk with prisoner as to what was in the reticule. James HAWKINS, a constable of Tywardreath, stated that he searched the house of Mary WILLIAMS, where prisoner stayed, and found the ham upstairs, concealed under some clothes. The ham was identified by Mrs. Penrose. The Learned Judge, in summing up, said that the fact of the ham being found at Mary Williams's, did not show it to have been in possession of the prisoner. Verdict, Not Guilty. In this case, the Learned Judge refused to receive in evidence the deposition before the magistrates, unless it could be proved that it was read over to the prisoner; and his Lordship would not allow, in proof of such reading, the evidence of Hawkins, the constable, who was present at the examination before the magistrates, observing that Hawkins could prove only that something was read, but not that it was the identical papers produced in court. The court rose at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, LOVEDAY HOSKING was sentenced to Three Months' Hard Labour.
WILLIAM MARTIN JOLLY, was sentenced to Three Months' Hard Labour.
WILLIAM JENKIN, One Fortnight's Hard Labour, and to be once Privately Whipped.
JOHNSON GLANVILLE, was found Guilty of having stolen a quantity of whim-rope, the property of Peter STAINSBY and others, adventurers in the Redmoor Consolidated mines, in the parish of Callington. Six Months' Hard Labour.
The court was occupied the remainder of the day with the trials of Jabez Asher LUKE, Henry HARVEY, and William HALL, for wrecking. They were all Acquitted. We have a full report of Luke's trial, which we shall give next week, with the remainder of the cases tried at the crown bar.
NISI PRIUS. (Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN). Tuesday, March 30. LUKE, and OTHERS v. BAWDEN. Mr. M. SMITH, for the plaintiff, attorney Mr. P��.. attorney for the defendant, Mr. TIPPET. This was an undefended action of debt, in which the plaintiffs were brewers at Penzance, and the defendant was an innkeeper. The action was brought to recover �36. 10s. for goods sold and delivered, and for money lent. A clerk in the employ of the plaintiffs was called, who proved that the amount said to be due, was stated to the defendant, who acknowledged the debt. Verdict for the Plaintiff for the amount named.
PENTREATH and Another v. BAWDEN. A similar action brought by the plaintiffs, who are partners in the previous firm, but carry on a distinct business as spirit-merchants. An acknowledgment of the debt was proved, and a Verdict for the Plaintiff for �24. 9s. 3d, was returned.
AVERY v. GRANGER and Another, Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS, and Mr. M. SMITH for the plaintiff; attorney, Mr. PEARCE. Attornies for the defendant, Messrs.
WOOLLCOMBE, SQUARE, and STEPHENS. This was an undefended action, upon an award which was made by the arbitrator to whom a case was referred, and in which he awarded for the plaintiff the sum of �440 damages. This entitled him to costs, which, having been taxed amounted to �506. 7s. 6d. The jury found a Verdict for the Plaintiff of �946. 7s. 6d.
BERRY V. BULLOCK. This was an action in which Mr. Berry, who is an articled clerk of Mr. BRAITHWAITE, of Truro, was the plaintiff, and Mr. Bullock, an attorney, also of Truro, was the defendant. The action was brought to recover damages for a malicious prosecution for stealing a brief and 500 sheets of paper, which Mr. Berry was charged, and tried at the quarter sessions in July last year, and on which he was then acquitted by direction of the court. The case now excited the greatest interest, as it did on the former occasion, not only on account of the respectability of the parties concerned, but on account of the singularity of the circumstances, of their being connected with the legal profession, and well known in the county. Mr. ERLE and Mr. SMIRKE appeared for the plaintiff; attorney, Mr. BRAITHWAITE, Mr. CROWDER and Mr. GREENWOOD for the defendant; attornies, Messrs. SIMMONS, PASSINGHAM and SIMMONS.
Mr. Smirke having opened the pleadings, Mr. Erle stated the case. He appeared on behalf of Mr. Berry, the plaintiff in this case, a young man in the profession of the law, who was for some time employed by Mr. Bullock, an attorney in the same profession, and who ha offices for some years in the same house with Mr. Berry, at Truro. They were on terms of intimate confidence. Mr. Bullock had great respect for Mr. Berry, and they continued on those terms down to March 1840, when, in consequence of some words that passed between them, the relation which he had stated ceased to exist between them, and from that time Mr. Berry was no longer in the employ of Mr. Bullock. They both continued to reside at Truro, with some casual absences in going to London, and on the 27th of June, they having parted in March, Mr. Bullock took that step against Mr. Berry which had led to the present action. And a more serious injury no plaintiff in the cause list could have to complain of, than that of which Mr. Berry had to complain in the conduct of Mr. Bullock. When he stated that it was an attempt on the part of Mr. Bullock to destroy the plaintiff's professional prospects, to ruin his character for ever, to stamp him as a felon, and, therefore, to leave him for the remainder of his days as an infamous outcast of society; if he satisfied them that Mr. Bullock formed that design, and attempted that injury without any reasonable or probable cause, and attempted to injure him from a malicious motive, they would have great satisfaction in calling upon Mr. Bullock to make compensation for the wrong that he had done, and in awarding compensation to his client. The principal fact in this action would be established beyond all doubt; namely, that on the 27th of June last, Mr. Bullock went before the Magistrates at Truro, and made a charge against Mr. Berry that he had feloniously stolen some papers. They were copies of some briefs and other chancery proceedings, in a cause of THOMSON v. SEARS and others, together with some other papers which appeared in the indictment as 500 sheets of paper; namely, some copies of letters and old pieces of paper. Mr. Bullock went before the magistrates, made an oath against Mr. Berry that he had feloniously stolen the property of Mr. Bullock, consisting of the articles named, got a search-warrant, which he put into the hands of a constable, the premises, in which Mr. Berry lives, were searched by the officer in the same manner in which any premises would be searched belonging to a common felon, and every paper that could be found belonging to Mr. Berry was taken away. This was on a Saturday.
On the following Monday, Mr. Bullock appeared again before the magistrates, pressed the charge, made his statement about the felony, and Mr. Berry was committed to take his trial. He procured bail. The sessions were held on the following day. Mr. Bullock went then before the grand jury, next appeared before the petty jury, and attempted to make them believe that the plaintiff had been guilty of a felony. After he had been heard, and the statements sifted, the court was perfectly clear, the advocates for Mr. Bullock were perfectly clear, that the charge was an utterly unfounded charge that there was no pretence for saying that Mr. Berry had been guilty of a felony, and he was acquitted of the crime that he had been charged with. As to this outline of what the court did, there could be no doubt. But there were two other points which he was bound to prove; that Mr. Bullock made the charge in question without any reasonable or probable cause, that he did not honestly believe that he had a right to charge this felony against Mr. Berry; and he should also have to prove that Mr. Bullock made the charge from a malicious motive. The language of the law differed from that which was ordinarily understood. In common life, malice was supposed to be a mere spiteful attempt to injure, but it included any corrupt or bye motive whatever. In short any motive beyond the mere intention of carrying out the criminal justice of the country would be malice in point of law. It was therefore to these two points that he would direct their particular attention. The Learned Gentleman then went into the history of the transactions respecting the documents said to have been stolen by Mr. Berry, as it will be found detailed in the evidence of Mr. Thomson, contending throughout that the papers claimed by Mr. Bullock were given to Mr. Berry before Mr. Thomson was ever introduced to the defendant, and that all his subsequent transactions with Mr. Bullock had had reference only to obtaining money for carrying on the Chancery suit, the law work in that suit being left entirely to the management of Mr. Berry, who was to receive compensation from Mr. Thomson if the suit proved successful. In July, 1839, the suit came to a hearing, and owing to the success of an objection, the parties were sent back, and from that moment Mr. Bullock became sick of the speculation. In March, 1840, the transactions occurred which led to the charge against Mr. Berry. On the 12th of March, some words took place between the plaintiff and defendant about Rocks mine, and Mr. Berry and Mr. Bullock parted. At the time they quarrelled, Mr. Bullock wanted plaintiff to leave behind him the papers in the cause of Thomson v. Sears. Mr. Berry refused. On that occasion the plaintiff made an open claim of right to those papers, and after that the defendant literally sanctioned that claim by a letter under his own hand. They both continued to live in the same house. On the 14th of March the service determined. There was an attempt at a meeting on the 15th, which came to nothing; and on the 17th of March, letters passed between Bullock and Berry about the claim of Bullock to those papers.
On the 17th Mr. Bullock wrote a letter to the plaintiff in which he said, "In addition to the accounts between us up to the end of your duties this year, I must beg a statement of accounts in re Thomson and Sears, and the liabilities incurred by me. I must also beg you to hand me this brief, and when I have a copy from my agents, I have not any objection to your having a copy, or indeed to making one for you." To this the plaintiff wrote in answer. "The demand of my draft brief in Thomson and Sears you cannot expect me to comply with. Your own agents have four fair copies of the whole of the papers, and I cannot consent to part with what I have got. You cannot really want the draft brief, and it is not improbable that if I let it go out of my possession, I should never see it again. I don't think it likely that you would instruct your agents to furnish me with a copy. In the compilation of it, I was not assisted by you with even a solitary suggestion or sentence, and considering that my friend, Mr. Sheldon, has five times as large a stake in the affair as you and your friends put together, and considering, too, that the whole burthen of getting up the voluminous case fell upon me, I must on these grounds most strongly object to part with the papers." After this, some correspondence took place respecting an interview between the parties, which came to nothing. Mr. Berry continued to lodge at Miss EDDY's till the 6th of April, when he gave notice that he was going to London for a month. Mr. Bullock's main object was to get Mr. Berry out of Truro, and if he could have effected that, they would never have heard anything of this matter. The Learned Counsel then stated the circumstances fully respecting the plaintiff going to London, and subsequently returning on the 9th of May with Mr. BRAITHWAITE, another solicitor, who then came to reside in Truro, and took the offices which Mr. Bullock had occupied, but which he had now given up; and some of the principal clients of Mr. Bullock were pleased to be dissatisfied with that gentleman, and to employ Mr. Braithwaite to conduct their affairs. While Mr. Berry was in London, Mr. Bullock wrote a letter to a friend of the plaintiff's, a Mr. Sheldon, who had some interest in the cork speculation, in which he said, "Mr. Berry has left me, and he is imagining I am, by reports and otherwise, endeavouring to injure him, (which I think, I need not assure you, is not the case, however I may think he latterly forgot himself in my employ) I do not wish to refer to the cause of one separation, I am surprised, however, that he has not been with you, because he declined giving me information which he possessed upon the subject of the cork affair, on the ground of your great interest in the matter. Now with the view of allowing him to keep documents which would serve you, I let him leave this with papers which I think he should have given up to me." This letter Mr. Sheldon sent to the plaintiff when he heard of the prosecution. On the return of the plaintiff with Mr. Braithwaite from London, Mr. Bullock conceived a determination, if possible, to rain him, and he should show that at the latter end of May, or the beginning of June, the defendant called upon an innkeeper at St. Austell, and in the course of conversation, said, "By God, I will crush that fell." Not a word was said to Mr. Berry.
The sessions were to be held on the 30th of June. Mr. Bullock, the attorney, who knew very well what was right in point of law, and knew how to run his adversary up into a corner. Mr. Bullock, who knew very well what had taken place months before, on Saturday, the 27th of June, as the sessions were to be held on the 30th, went before the magistrates at Truro, and swore that the plaintiff had been guilty of a felony, in stealing these papers, got a search warrant, had his lodgings searched, his boxes broken open, and on Monday the plaintiff appeared before the magistrates, and was committed to take his trial on the Tuesday. It was apparent to everybody that there was no reasonable or probable cause for swearing that that which had been done openly, and under a claim of right from the beginning, amounted to the crime of felony. Mr. Erle then spoke of the value of character, especially to a young man in the situation of the plaintiff, who would have been ruined for life if the defendant had succeeded in establishing his charge of felony against him, and called upon the jury, if they found a verdict for the plaintiff, to give such damages as should in some measure compensate the plaintiff for the injury which the defendant attempted to inflict upon him.
Witnesses called were Mr. Edward COODE, clerk of the peace for Cornwall, Henry Lanyon PENPRASE, clerk for Mr. Bennallack, the Justices' clerk at Truro, John Ferris BENNALLACK, clerk to the mayor and justices of the borough of Truro, William ROWE, constable of Truro, Mr. Philip Prothero SMITH, junior advocate for Mr. Berry, Elizabeth EDDY, lodging house keeper, Mr. Keith Norman THOMSON, patentee for the discovery of a new mode of cork cutting, Charles Kenneth VIGERS, managing agent to the firm of de Tastet and Company at Truro, Jacob BORLASE, solicitor of Truro, Thomas BELL, kept the Queen's Head Inn, in St. Austell. The defendant being the prosecutor, seemed to be the only person who could speak to the facts of the case at the trial, and the case was not stopped till he had been examined; therefore, taking the whole of the case together, it would be for the jury to say whether there was such a want of reasonable and probable cause for that prosecution as to induce them to say that the defendant acted without it. His Lordship then referred to the other point respecting malice, and said if they would agree in both these points in favour of the plaintiff, it would be for them to say what damages should be given, and in that they should be careful to deal temperately and as the justice of the case required. If, however, they should find that he had either reasonable and probable ground, or had not been influenced by any malicious motive, their verdict must be for the defendant. The jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages �5, and the papers in question were handed over to Mr. Berry.
CLARKE v. WOOLCOCK. Mr. ERLE, and Mr. ROGERS for the plaintiff; attorney, Mr. P. WALLIS, Attorney, for the defendant, Mr. C. WALLIS. In this case, the parties had agreed that a verdict should be given for the plaintiff, subject to a reference.
SWEET v. ELFORD. Mr. ERLE and Mr. LOUIS for the plaintiff; attornies, Messrs. ROBINS and SON, Mr. CROWDER and Mr. ROWE for the defendant; attorney, Mr. WALTERS. Mr. Louis opened the pleadings, which stated the action to be an action on a promissory note, given by Hannah Elford to the plaintiff, for �111. 14s. 6d. The defendant pleaded that she accepted the bill without consideration. Mr. Crowder said he appeared on behalf of the defendant, Mrs. Hannah ELFORD, whose business it was to state her case to the jury first. The plaintiff was a sheriff's officer, and Mrs. Hannah Elford, who had lately been married, was the acceptor of the bill. The bill was drawn by Richard Walters, an attorney, upon her, she having received no value for it, and in order to accommodate him, and for the purpose of obtaining a loan of money. With this bill she went and borrowed of the sheriff's officer, the sum of �80, for which Walters agreed to give him �10. In truth this �80 and the �10 had been paid, and there was not a farthing due on this bill. Mr. Mrs. Elford, against whom the present action was brought, was placed in rather singular circumstances. At the time that bill was accepted by her, she was then Mrs. Elford. Since that time, she had intermarried with Richard Walters, so that he could not put him in the witness box, because it was a rule of law that a husband could not in an action of this kind give evidence on behalf of his wife. All he could do, therefore, was to call a person of the name of Neck, who would prove that Mr. Walters had paid the amount of which he (Mr. C.) had spoken, into the bank. John H. NECK was then examined by Mr. Rowe. I am the manager of the Western District Banking Company, at Plymouth. I am acquainted with the plaintiff in this suit. He keeps an account at our bank, and has for many years past. I know Mr. Walters, the attorney, at Tavistock. On the 23rd of January, �90 was received of Walters, and applied to the credit of Sweet. I have seen many transactions between the plaintiff and Mr. Walters. I know nothing about �80 being lent by Sweet to Walters, or to a person called MICHELL. I know that Sweet had lent money to Walters, because we had discontinued the three bills. I know nothing more of it. Here there was a hitch in the evidence, and Mr. Crowder said he was afraid he could not go further but the plaintiff had no right to more than the �90. Mr. Erle � Gentlemen of the jury, my Learned Friend is performing a farce with a very grace face. Mr. Crowder � No I am not. Mr. Erle � Well then, gentlemen, he is laughing at you (laughter). We will admit that we have had �90, and you will be good enough to give us a verdict for �21. 14s., and we will contrive to get that sum from Mr. Walters. The jury immediately gave the verdict required.
PALMER v. GRAY. Mr. ERLE and Mr. SMITH for the plaintiff; attornies, Messrs. ROBINS and Son. Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS for the defendant; attorney Mr. MOONE. This was a suit in which the plaintiff sought to recover �91 for a quantity of currier's goods, supplied to the defendant, Mr. Samuel Gray, to his nephew James, a young man and an infant, for whom the uncle had at one time felt an interest sufficiently strong to give document, of which this is a copy. "June 23(?), 1837. I promise to pay Mr. Palmer for the goods James Gray may take up, (signed) Samuel Gray." The nephew proved that he acted upon the generous offer of his uncle, and "took up" plenty of goods to the amount of �154. Towards these, he paid �68, and left his uncle to pay the remainder. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff on the first and third issues, with �90 damages. For the defendant on the second issue, namely that he was an infant, with leave to the defendant to move to enter a verdict on the other issues on a point of law reserved.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, DOE dem. PHILLIPS and Others v. RUNNALS. Verdict for the Plaintiff.
NIBLETT and Wife v. HARRY, Verdict for Plaintiff �38. 11s.
GLANVILLE v. PETER, Record withdrawn.
SNELL v. VARCOE, Verdict by consent for �39.
EDMONDS v. FREAN, Verdict for Plaintiff for �37.
THE DUNSTANVILLE CHARITY. On Wednesday last, the trustees of this charity met at Truro, when David SODDY, of Camborne, who lost both eyes and both arms by an accident in a mine 13 years ago, was elected as an annuitant in the room of James BUZZA.
ORDINATION. On Sunday last, the Right Reverend, the Lord Bishop of Exeter held an ordination in the cathedral, when the following gentlemen, among others were ordained: Deacons; William ROGERS, B.A., Exeter College, Oxford; Henry Thurston THOMSON, B.A., Magdalen College, Cambridge. Priests; Gerald Pole CAREW, B.A., New Inn Hall, Oxford; Charles Alexander JOHNS, B.A., Trinity College, Dublin; Edward Morris PRIDMORE, B.A., Clare Hall, Cambridge.
HER MAJESTY'S LEVEE. We perceive our borough member, Mr. TURNER, attended the last levee, after which he had the honor of meeting a party of noblemen and gentlemen, at Lord Melbourne's private residence, South-street.
PENZANCE UNION. We understand that the Board of Guardians have elected a Mr. Joseph ROBERTS, and his wife, to fill the offices of Master and Matron of the Union Workhouse. They lately resigned similar situations in the Williton Union, in Somersetshire, where they are said to have given much satisfaction.
CHACEWATER. On Friday last, M. MOYLE Esq., attained his 93rd year, on which occasion 93 old people, whose united ages amounted to near 6,000 years, were bountifully supplied with beef and beer; after which, a party dined together at Martyn's Hotel, where an excellent dinner was provided. Mr. GILL ably filled the chair, and Mr. BORLASE, of Truro, with his usual conviviality, did the duties of vice-president. The evening was spent in the greatest harmony.
FOWEY. On Thursday, the 25th ult., a schooner, per old admeasurement 187 tons, and by the new 157, and supposed to burthen 269 tons, named the "Touch me Not," to be commanded by William TADD, was launched from the building-yard of Mr. W. BROKENSHAW at this place. She is intended solely for the foreign trade, for which purpose she is well adapted, being most faithfully built, and of a model likely to ensure every good sailing quality. She glided most majestically off her ways, amidst the cheers of a large assemblage of spectators.
WRECK. The schooner "Xanthus," BENNETT, master, of and for Liverpool from London, with a general cargo struck on the Stag Rocks, off the Lizard point, about half-past three o'clock in the morning of the 26th ult., and immediately sunk. The crew was saved in the boat, and landed at Falmouth.
FORTUNATE ESCAPE. On Tuesday, the 23rd ult., as a man named John HOCKIN was at work at Wheal Owles(?) mine, and had prepared a hole for blasting which did not ignite, after waiting the usual time, he returned to ascertain the cause, when, as he was preparing to clean out the hole again, it instantly exploded, but fortunately without doing him any other harm than throwing him into fits. The poor fellow, however, before any assistance reached him, had injured himself very much by his convulsive struggles.
CAUTION TO PARENTS. On Thursday the 25th ult., a child, about eight months old, belonging to a man named Sampson MURRISH, of Trewelland, was in the cradle, in the absence of its sister, who was housekeeper, a pig belonging to the same man entered the house, and so dreadfully bit the child's hand, that great fears are entertained that amputation will be necessary.
DISTRESSING ACCIDENT. On Monday last, a young man driving a train on the Devoran Railroad, near Point, got off the carriage to attempt the removal of some obstacle on the rail by giving it a kick; but he miscalculated the time, and before he could withdraw his foot, the wheels were upon him, fracturing his leg and thigh in a dreadful manner, and otherwise injuring his body in such a way as to make him a shocking spectacle. He was brought to the Infirmary, where his leg was amputated the next morning, and we are glad to hear that there is a hope of his recovery. This should serve as an additional caution to the drivers, as all the accidents brought to the infirmary from this rail-road have been clearly traceable to carelessness.
CORONER'S INQUESTS. On Monday last, an inquest was held by Wm. HICHENS, Esq., at St. Buryan, on the body of James MADDERN, aged about a year and nine months, who accidentally set fire to his clothes on the preceding Friday, in the absence of his mother, who had gone to a well a short distance from the house for water, and was absent but a very few minutes. The child was so much burnt, that he died on the following day. Verdict; Accidental Death. An inquest was lately held at Ash-water, on the body of Mrs. BROWN, of the parish of Clawton, who was killed by being thrown out of a gig, at the door of her only daughter, where she was going on a visit, with her husband. The bridle, being too large, fell over the head of the horse, which ran off, and caused the fatal accident. Verdict: Accidental death.
TRIALS OF PRISONERS. John TRUSCOTT, 30, was charged with stealing a bar of steel, and a shovel-plate, from William MARTYN, merchant, at Trevemper Bridge, in Lower St. Columb. The prisoner, apparently a man in good circumstances, and possessed of money, purchased of the prosecutor, at his stores, on the 9th of March, four shovel-plates and a bar of steel; and then, when Mr. Martyn went into his counting house, helped himself from other parts of the stores to another shovel-plate and to a superior bar of steel, in exchange for the one he had purchase. He then went to the prosecutor's servant and desired him to put five shovel-plates and the bar of steel in his cart, which was done, and he drove off. But his proceedings had been watched by the prosecutor through a 'hold in the wall' between the counting-house and warehouse; and also by a constable, whom the prosecutor had in attendance, having previously suspected the prisoner. The prosecutor and the constable followed the prisoner, and on their speaking to him, he admitted he had taken the bar of steel, and expressed a hope that Mr. Martyn would not bring him to shame and disgrace for such a thing, offering �200 to make it up. Guilty, Six Months' Hard Labour.
JOHN PASCOE, 55 and JANE PASCOE, 45, were charged with stealing potatoes from John GOVETT, of St. Cleer. The prisoners were man and wife. The husband pleaded Guilty; the wife pleaded Not Guilty, and the Judge directed a verdict of acquittal for the wife, as all she did was in the presence, and, as the law presumed, under the control of her husband. Mr. ABRAHAM, with whom the husband had worked nearly three years; and Mr. B.H. LYNE, attorney of Liskeard, gave him a good character for previous honesty. Sentence, One Fortnight's Hard Labour.
HENRY JAMES ROSEWARNE, 16, was charged with stealing a sieve, or griddle, from William and James CORNISH of Gwennap. The griddle, was lost on prisoner's leaving the prosecutors' service in November; and was shortly afterwards found at his father's house; but there was no evidence to prove it had been in the prisoner's possession. Not Guilty.
WILLIAM JENKIN, 13, and WILLIAM MARTIN JOLLY, 11, were charged with stealing three fowls from Mr. KENDALL, a farmer at Bodrugan, in Goran. On the evening of the 15th of March, the boys were seen coming from the prosecutor's linhay, and on their being followed by a man-servant, Jenkins dropped a fowl. He was taken at the time; and Jolly was taken at home in bed. When brought together into the prosecutor's presence, they confessed their guilt, accusing each other of being the principal. As one means of concealing their prey, it appeared that the lesser boy had put on the bigger boy's jacket, in order to cover two of the fowls. Both Guilty, Sentence deferred.
CAUTION TO MAGISTRATES. On returning an ignored indictment against James GREY, for burglary and robbery, at Penryn, Sir W. TRELAWNY stated to the Judge that the Grand Jury thought the case had been unnecessarily sent up, with 12 or 13 witnesses who had nothing to say; thus putting the county to great expense. The learned Judge said he could do nothing in the matter; but hoped that magistrates would be careful not to bind over more witnesses than were necessary in a case.
JOHN SEDGMUND, 50, was charged with stealing two hand-saws, from the workshop of John MICHELL, a shipwright, at Penryn. Guilty, Three Months' Hard Labour.
GEORGE HOCKADAY, 21, was charged with stealing 3 lbs. of beef, from the standing of Walter COUCH, a butcher, at Launceston market, on Saturday evening last. The proof was unsatisfactory, both of the identity of the prisoner, and of the beef. Not Guilty.
JAMES MATTHEWS, 37, Was charged with stealing at Perranzabuloe, a chesnut pony, the property of Thomas HARRIS. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. C. BULLER, the member for Liskeard. On the 26th of September, the pony was turned out on Penhallow Common, and missed a few days afterwards. On the 29th of September, prisoner was seen by Mr. PETERS, of Probus, offering the pony for sale at a blacksmith's shop; and Mr. Peters "chopped" a cart-mare for it. Prisoner then said his name was James Williams, of Short Lane's End. About a fortnight after that, Mr. Peters let Mr. BREWER, of Probus, have the pony in exchange. At Mr. Brewer's, it was claimed by the prosecutor, who went there from Liskeard, with DAW, the constable. The proof was clear throughout; and the only defence which the prisoner attempted was the handing in a paper from some person, whose name did not transpire, alleging that he was of weak intellect. The turnkey of the prison, however, strongly denied that such was the case; and the prisoner's manner did not warrant any suspicion of unsound mind. Verdict � Guilty, TEN YEARS' TRANSPORTATION.
LOVEDAY HOSKING, 60, a respectable looking widow, carrying on a farm in St. Just in Penwith, was charged with stealing a gallon of wheat, and 10 lbs of straw, from Charles FRIGGINS, a neighbouring farmer. The prisoner was, late in the night of the 13th of March, caught by a brother of prosecutor's, carrying off from a stack, four sheaves of wheat; and when accused of the theft, she replied that her stack had also been robbed! Mr. MOODY for the defence, took an objection to the indictment, on the ground that the property was not correctly described in it. Indeed the indictment has not been proved, inasmuch as the property was not correctly described. The property alleged to have been stolen was sheaves of wheat; while the property described in the indictment was 10 lbs. of straw and one gallon of wheat. The proof was that there was no wheat separated from the straw; and no straw separated from the wheat. It was a general principle that things should be described correctly. Mr. Moody referred to an analogous case, in which a party was charged with stealing sundry quantities of oats, sundry quantities of chaff, and sundry quantities of barley; the fact being that these articles were mixed together for horses' food. It was objected that the party had not stolen sundry quantities of each, but a certain mixture, consisting of three articles together. The case was an anonymous one, in 3, Chitty, Criminal Law, 947; but the objection was held to be even stronger. In talking of a gallon of wheat, every one would understand it to be wheat separated from the straw; and of the straw, so long as there was wheat in it, it was not straw. The Learned Judge said he should take a verdict on the facts, and reserve the legal point to be submitted to his Learned Brother WIGHTMAN. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty. Mr. Henry GILES gave the prisoner a good character; and several certificates were handed to the Judge. Of course, no sentence was pronounced.
WILLIAM HENDY, 60, pleaded Guilty of stealing a piece of bacon, from John CARDELL, of St. Columb. Six Weeks' Hard Labour.
JAMES BARRETT and EDWARD KENDALL. two lads, were charged with stealing fowls from Richard WILLIAMS, of Trekenning, in St. Columb. Both Guilty. Two Months' Hard Labour.
DOE dem. LITTLETON and OTHERS, v. HOCKIN and ANOTHER, Mr. BUTT for the plaintiff; attornies, Messrs. COODE, Sons and SHILSON. This was an undefended action of ejectment, in which no parties appeared. And the grounds of the action did not transpire. The defendants were called, and not answering, a verdict was given for the plaintiffs.
JACKSON and ANOTHER, v. HOSKIN, Mr. OXENHAM for the plaintiffs; attorney, Mr. PRIDEAUX. This was an undefended action, in which Samuel P. Jackson and Richard ANSWORTH were plaintiffs, and William Hoskin defendant. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, the drawers, against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, for �40. 15s., which, together with interest, amounted to �41. 12s., for which sum a verdict was given.
DOE on the dem. of TRESIDDER and OTHERS v. TRESIDDER, Mr. ERLE and Mr. SMIRKE were for the plaintiff; attornies, Messrs. GRYLLS and HILL, Mr. SMITH for the defendant; attorney, Mr. ROGERS. This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of some premises known by the name of Carn Kye, in the manor of Helston, in the parish of Wendron, of which the defendant had obtained possession. The case presented nothing to interest the public, and a verdict was given for the plaintiffs on the first and third counts, damages one shilling, and for the defendant on the 2nd and 4th counts.
HARD SWEARING. ROSCORLA v. THOMAS. Mr. ERLE and Mr. BUTT for the plaintiff; attorney, Mr. PASCOE. Mr. Seargeant BOMPAS and Mr. SLADE, for the defendant; attorney, Mr. E. LYNE. Mr. Butt opened the pleadings, Mr. Erle state the case. The plaintiff in this case was Mr. John Roscorla, a solicitor, residing at Penzance. The defendant was a horse dealer, living in Bodmin, and the action was brought to recover from the defendant the damages which the plaintiff had sustained by reason of the breach of a warranty in the sale of a horse. The defendant, William Benjamin Thomas, lived with his father, or step-father, Peter COUCH, who recently kept the public-house in Bodmin called the London Inn. The defendant occupied stables belonging to the public-house, and carried on there the business of a horse dealer. Mr. Roscorla, who lived a long way off, wanted a horse, and a communication was made to him about there being a horse likely to suit him at the defendants. Mr. Erle then proceeded to state the circumstances under which the horse was purchased, as they will be found detailed in the evidence. The horse was warranted to be perfectly quiet and not more than five years off, and the price was to be �30. When, however, they came to put a saddle upon the horse after he was brought home, they found that it was much more agreeable to him to stand in the stable and eat his food than to do any work. The first purpose of the horse was, when any body got upon his back, to get rid of him as soon as possible. When the groom got upon him there was great difficulty to get him to go at all, and the horse threw him off. But he supposed that it was a point of honour among grooms not to be beaten, and he got on him again, but was very soon treated in a harsh, and by no means an agreeable manner. What showed the horse to be a pretty good professor was, that if he did not get rid of his rider by kicking and plunging, he would look round and get to a wall, and then damage his rider against it. Mr. RODD, a gentleman accustomed to riding, also attempted to ride the horse, but he declared that he never met with a more determined kicker, or a more cool vicious animal. The question for the jury to consider was whether the horse was free from vice. He thought that they would be satisfied that he was a horse of an extraordinary determination to fight the rider, and not to be broken in. James WOOLCOCK examined by Mr. Butt. Last year I was in plaintiff's service. In September, I came to Bodmin to buy a horse for him. I went to the stables of Mr. Couch at the London Inn. I saw the landlord, Couch, and his step-son, the defendant, together. The defendant was there. I there saw this horse; he was very wet. I asked them how the horse was so wet. Couch said the horse was just brought in from grass. Thomas said the horse was very quiet and perfectly sound. When it was brought into the yard, Couch said the horse did not belong to him, but to his step-son. We came to an agreement for �30. I said to him that I had no money to pay for him till the return of post; and Couch said to me he wished I could get it, could not I borrow it, as his step-son was going to a fair eastward. I could not get the money, and came back and told them so. Then Couch asked me to give him an order, as his son was going to Long Barn fair, near Penzance. They wrote a paper, and I signed it. They took it. Upon that, the defendant gave me half-a-sovereign. After this the horse was saddled, and I got upon him. The horse went very steadily with me to Truro. The defendant rode with me about 12 miles, and I then went on to Truro. I put up the horse at the Red Lion and fed him. Next morning I remounted him to go on; he plunged there two or three times and kicked. I went then to Penzance, and the horse was there rested from the 23rd of September, when I got home, to the 1st of October. Upon the first of October I took the horse out to exercise him. I got on him, and he plunged and kicked with me and threw me off. I was not on him more than a minute and a half � he was plunging and kicking at the same time. I got on him again when he kicked and plunged for five or ten minutes, after which I got off. I could not get him to leave the stable. I had no difficulty in getting off, for he stopped at the stable door when I came to it (laughter). On the day after, I took him out again alongside of another horse. I let it at that time till the 5th, when he was lent to Mr. Rodd, a gentleman who hunts, and is a very good rider. On the 8th, I was desired to try to break him of the trick he had got. I got a person of the name of White to hold him; I got on him, and he rose on end; he rose and plunged and got me up against the side of the stable (laughter). By flogging him, I got him in the road for about a mile and a half. He got me against the wall � he kept banging up against the wall (laughter). It was after that I got off. After the walk, I brought him back to the stables. I rode him afterwards, on the 8th, 9th, and 10th. He was exactly the same on the last day as on the first, and quite as disagreeable (laughter). I got a person, George WHITE, to take the horse back to Bodmin.
Witness called were Wm. RICHARDS, Clerk in the office of Messrs John and Rodd, George White, Mr. Charles COODE, attorney, W. Harry HOCKING, farmer, Samuel TRELEAVEN, a colt breaker of Camelford, Francis COUCH, brother of Peter Couch, James OLVER, farmer at St. Columb. Learned Judge, in summing up, said it seemed quite clear that the defendant warranted the horse to be quite free from vice � whether he warranted him as an agent, or for Mr. Hocking, or for his step-father, was quite immaterial, because he was the person who entered, directly and unqualified, into the undertaking by which he said "I have this day sold Mr. Roscorla a bay nag for �30, which I warrant not to exceed five years off, and to be sound in wind and limb, perfect in vision, and free from vice." So that as far as that part of the case was concerned, he thought that they would agree with him, that there was no doubt that the defendant did undertake that the horse that was sold to the plaintiff was free from vice. But the question they would have to consider was, whether the horse was free from vice or not; and in considering that question, they would have to determine what was vice. The defendant's witnesses seemed to consider that nothing amounted to vice but biting and kicking, and the witnesses on both sides agreed that the horse had a great tendency to dislodge his rider. In point of moral delinquency it was one of the greatest crimes for a horse to try to get his rider off. But it would be for the jury to consider from the evidence whether the horse was vicious or not. And here he would observe, that the question was not whether a rough-rider or a breaker-in was enabled to ride a horse, but whether for ordinary purposes the horse was free from vice. That was the mode in which the question should be considered, and not, whether one of the best riders in the county of Cornwall, or one of the colt-breakers of the county, who are used to tame these animals, could ride him, but whether this was one of those horses which a gentleman might ride without feeling that he is constantly at risk of being dislodged by the attempts of the horse to throw him off. The Learned Judge then went carefully through the evidence, and commented on it as he proceeded. The Jury immediately found a Verdict for the Plaintiff. Damages �30.
MARTIN v. BUNT. Mr. BUTT for the plaintiff; attorney, Mr. JEFFERY. Attornies for the defendant, Messrs. COMMINS and SON. This was an undefended action on a promissory note for �40, with �3. 19s. for interest. A verdict was given for the full amount.
SERJEANT(?) v. BENJAMIN and ANOTHER. Mr. ERLE and Mr. BUTT for the plaintiff; attorney, Mr. SARGEANT. Another action for �100 on a promissory note. No one appeared on the part of the defendants, and the note having been proved, the jury gave a verdict, under direction of the Court, for the amount claimed.
HARVEY v. PITTS. Mr. ERLE and Mr. BUTT for the plaintiffs; attornies, Messrs. PAYNTER and WHITFORD. Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS for the defendant; attorney, Mr. DAVENPORT. Mr. Butt for the plaintiffs; attornies, Messrs. PAYNTER and WHITFORD. Mr. Sergeant Bompas for the defendant; attorney, Mr. Davenport. Mr. Butt opened the pleadings, and Mr. Erle stated the case. The plaintiffs were Messrs. Harvey, the iron founders at Hayle; and the defendant was Mr. George PITTS, of Liverpool, who was one of the directors of Wheal Elizabeth mine. The action was brought to recover �58. 8s. 3d., being a balance remaining due to the plaintiffs, for goods supplied from their foundry to the mine in question. The total of this bill was �155, but the mine had been sold, and a dividend had been paid, by which the plaintiffs' demand had been reduced to the amount claimed. The defendant said he was never liable at all, and had never promised to pay for any part of these goods. That was the cause of action. He should show that the defendant was a director of the mine � that he knew that debts were being contracted from the information of Mr. STEPHENS, the manager of the mine � that debts were due to Messrs. Harvey, and that they had refused to supply some of the things without the defendant's express authority. The Learned Gentleman then called Henry Fowell Stephens. I was the managing agent of Wh. Elizabeth. I knew the defendant. I was agent in August, 1838. The defendant acted as a director. I was appointed by Mr. PITTS, and the other directors. [The paper, signed by Pitts, was then read appointing the witness as agent.] I was manager of the mine before the defendant became a director in it. I continued the manager of the mine till July or August, 1839. I know the plaintiffs, they supplied materials for various parts of the mine; they were brought and applied. I have seen the defendant on the mine. He has acted as a director. He used to send money monthly for the pay. He gave me this paper for the materials, and I wrote to Harveys and told them I had such a document. [The paper, which was as follows, was then read: "James Stephens, I will engage to see Messrs. Harvey and Company, of Hayle, paid for the castings now to be delivered for the bottom lift in the Wheal Elizabeth mine, for the 40 fathom level. Signed, George Pitts, director, and dated Liverpool, 13th August, 1838.] There were goods for that purpose supplied. From �50 to �60 worth of the things supplied were for the 40 fathom level. The charges for the things were usual and fair charges at that time. The defendant knew that the things supplied were from Messrs. Harvey. Cross-Examined by Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS, think the defendant was at Truro a fortnight before he signed that paper. I was present when this was signed. I had been manager of the mine from the commencement. I received monies from Pitts by documents. I saw the defendant at Devonport, the beginning of 1840. The greater part of the last four items in the bill were for the 40-fathom level, I will not say that more than the last two were used. By Mr. Erle. All these goods were had while I was manager. The defendant told me that he had shares in the mine also, and that he regretted it. Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS addressed the court for the defence, urging that the claim of the plaintiffs upon the defendant had already been covered by the dividend which they had received from the sale of the mine. If the jury did not think this, he then contended that the defendant was only liable for so many of the goods supplied as were used in the 40 fathom level, and they, according to the witness's evidence, taking them at the outside, would amount to only �38. 2s. 3d., the other goods being used on other parts of the mine. The Learned Judge, in summing up, said that he apprehended a shareholder or director in one of these mines was liable for any supplies that were either ordered by himself or by one of his co-directors or partners, but not by any agent of theirs unless he showed some authority to bind them. In the present case, he did not find any power given to the agent to order any goods himself, and he did not find any authority to order goods for the mine except that which had been read. It would be for the jury to say whether the greater part of the four last items, which amounted to �75. 10s. 11d., were obtained under the authority of the letter from the defendant to the witness, and whether they were actually used in the lower level or not. They seemed to be all of the same character, therefore one would imagine that prima facie they were the goods intended for this 40 fathom level. But it was purely a question for the jury; for though the witness never went down into the mine to see, yet he believed that the greater part was used for the 40 fathom level. The jury found for the Plaintiffs, Damages �38. 2s. 3d.
9 APRIL 1841, Friday.
FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE. Tuesday, March 30. Partnership Dissolved. William P. WILLIAMS, and Richard WILLIAMS, of Penryn, Cornwall, tallow-chandlers.
CORNWALL EASTER SESSIONS. These sessions commenced on Tuesday last, before John Hearle TREMAYNE, Esq., and other county magistrates. We regretted to hear that John King LETHBRIDGE, Esq., who usually presides at the sessions, and is pre-eminent for his legal ability and unceasing attention to the duties of the chair, which he has often filled with the greatest credit to himself and the entire satisfaction of his brother magistrates, was suffering under so severe an indisposition as to be unable to attend. There were only four prisoners for trial, but there were several persons indicted for different offences who were out on bail. Among the magistrates present, we observed � Sir W.L.S. TRELAWNY, Bt., Sir J.C. RASHLEIGH, Bart., Sir J.S.G. SAWLE, Bart., E.W.W. PENDARVES, Esq., M.P., J.S. ENYS, F. RODD, N. KENDALL, F. ROGERS, T.J.A. ROBARTES, W. HEXT, T. PEARSE, W.H.P. CAREW, H.P. RAWLINGS, J. LYNE, and G.B. SAWLE, Esqrs., Revds. D. STEPHENS, R.G. GRYLLS, jun., W. MOLESWORTH, C. LYNE, R. BULLER, T. GRYLLS.
The following gentlemen were sworn on The Grand Jury. Thomas BOTTERS, of Lezant, farmer, George BENNETTS, of Calstock, mine-agent, Charles BENNETT, of Linkinhorne, yeoman, Richard BURT, of Lanteglos by Camelford, hatter, Thomas BISHOP, Jun., of Tintagel, farmer, John BAYLY, of Warbstow, farmer, T. BROAD, of St. Columb Major, china-clay merchant, Robert DAVEY, of Linkinhorne, yeoman, William GOLDING, of Callington, innkeeper, Walter GEAKE, of Egloskerry, farmer, Edward GEAKE, of St. Germans, farmer, William GEACH, of St. Columb Major, goldsmith, William HENWOOD, of Callington, farmer, W. HAMBLY, of St. Germans, farmer, J. HURDON, of Lanteglos by Camelford, druggist, W. HICKS, of St. Columb Major, draper, S. IVEY, of Quethiock, farmer, W. JENNINGS, of St. Breock, clerk, T. KEY, of St. Breock, farmer, R. LANDREY, of St. Ive, yeoman, J. MARTIN, of Tintagel, farmer, P. NORTHEY, of St. Columb Major, currier, W. OATEY, of St. Breock, iron-founder.
TRIAL OF PRISONERS. HENRY TAMBLYN, 27, was charged with having stolen eight candles, the property of Joseph ROWETT. It appeared that the prisoner had been working at the Fowey Consols, shortly before the 30th of March, and was intending to go to America. On that day, he was seen by the prosecutor taking candles out of his chest, in the prosecutor's changing house. The prosecutor immediately went to him and asked him what he was about? The prisoner replied "nothing." The prosecutor said "yes you are," and immediately put his hand into the prisoner's pocket and pulled out the candles. The prosecutor then went and gave information to Capt. PUCKEY, who followed the prisoner, and found him hidden in an outhouse under a sheaf of wheat. Capt. Puckey told the prisoner that he must go with him, and the prisoner then offered 20s., and then 40s. to make it up. The prisoner was given into the custody of a constable, and he told him that he took the candles. Guilty.
SAMUEL THOMAS, 22, was charged with stealing a fustion jacket, the property of James MANSELL. The prosecutor is in the employ of Mr. Joseph CARNE, at Truro. About the end of January last, he had a jacket which he placed in Mr. Carne's premises on a box. He did not see it again till Saturday week, when he was at St. Agnes, and saw the jacket on the prisoner. The prisoner said when spoken to about it, that he bought it for 3s. 6d. at a shop in Kenwyn-street, and thought it was prosecutor's, and said he should take it home with him. The prosecutor refused to take it home. The prisoner then said "I am coming to Truro on the Saturday morning, and I will go with you to the place where I bought it." Prosecutor then left him, and he did not come in as he promised. Joseph LETCHER, a carrier from St. Agnes, stated that he received a parcel directed to the prosecutor from the prisoner, which he gave to his man to deliver. William JAMES stated that he left the parcel in question at Mr. Carne's. Tristram POWNING said he had received the parcel, and put inside the counter till it was called for by the policeman the next day. FITZSIMMONS, a policeman of Truro, proved that he received the parcel now produced from the previous witness, and the prosecutor claimed the jacket in it as his property. Guilty.
JAMES SWIFT, 32, was charged with having stolen a silver watch, the property of William Cowling, of Liskeard. It appeared that on Thursday last, the wife of the prosecutor, who is a woolstapler, in the employ of Mr. SARGENT, left her house in Barn-street, to take her husband his tea, and on her return she saw the prisoner coming out of her house. When she entered the house, she saw marks of footsteps towards the dresser, and on looking there found that her husband's watch had been taken away. The prosecutrix immediately went out and gave an alarm, and the watch was afterwards found in a linhay near the prosecutor's house along with an umbrella, hid away in the roof. The prisoner was seen by two witnesses going towards the linhay with an umbrella under his arm, he was very shortly afterwards met by a constable on the road from Liskeard to Moorswater, and he then had no umbrella with him. Guilty. There was a second indictment against the prisoner for stealing the umbrella, which was laid as the property of Wm. GLENCROSS, but on this charge the prisoner was not tried. A former conviction of felony was put in and proved.
KITTING � WM GEORGE, 22, was charged with stealing, at East Wheal Crofty mine, in the parish of Illogan, 200lbs weight of copper ore, the property of William REYNOLDS and others, adventurers in the mine. Mr. John stated the case for the prosecution, and called Capt Nicholas TREDINNICK. I am an agent at East Wheal Crofty Copper mine, in Illogan; the prisoner with others took a pitch in that mine, the first Wednesday in March; his pitch was to run from the back of the 48 to the end of the 36 fathom level. They took it at 13s. 4d. in the �; they entered upon the pitch and proceeded to work; there was a pitch at the back of the 36, belonging to William WALLIS, which was to end at the 34; one was under the other and upon different parts of the lode; the lode divided in two branches in both pitches, and they might work in which branch they liked. There was a distinction in the prisoner's pitch, the best part of which had been worked away before he had it; Wallis's was a better pitch. On the 22nd of March, I was applied to by Wallis in consequence of which I went to the 48 fathom level. Wallis and his son and the prisoner, and James THOMAS and Capt. RUTTER went with me. On coming down to the 36, I saw a pile ore which the prisoner owned; that was to be got up from the 48th to the 36th. I requested the prisoner to examine it, and he said that there was no more ore put there then what he and his comrade had broken in their pitch. The pile was opened by Wallis at my request, and in the presence of the prisoner. On the opening of the pile, there was discovered stones of yellow ore scattered about in the pile in a dry state. The other ore was wet and dirty by different times removing. Ore, in Wallis's pitch, if brought from the place where he broke it, would not be wet and dirty. The prisoner pretended to show me the stone of ore which Wallis owned; I went to the place and found no stone at all like it. I examined the ore in Wallis's pile � there was yellow ore. I examined Wallis's pitch, and the yellow ore in the prisoner's pile was the same as I found broken in Wallis's pitch. I have some of the ore broken in Wallis's pitch, and also some from where the prisoner said he broke it. I have a stone of ore which was owned by Wallis. [The several pieces of ore were submitted to the jury for their inspection.] The stone of ore taken from the prisoner's pitch was like that in Wallis's pitch. Some other pieces were also produced which had been picked out dry from the prisoner's pile, and like that belonging to Wallis's pitch. I have been an agent for nine years. Mr. REYNOLDS is an adventurer. Cross-examined by Mr. BENNALLACK, James GEORGE and James THOMAS were the comrades of the prisoner. They were indicted with the prisoner, but the grand jury ignored the bill. If the ore was taken, it might have been taken by one of the prisoner's comrades. There was no place in the prisoner's pitch that produced ore like that found in the prisoner's pile. William WALLIS examined. I am a miner in Wh.Crofty. My pitch extends from the back of the 36. I had worked on it nearly two months. I broke it on the north part, and placed it in a stubb which me and my son had made for it. My son is not of age. That ore belongs to me. After the prisoner had worked his pitch, we thought that our pile had gone several times. There is no other pitch except the prisoner's and mine from that place to the adit. When I thought I had lost my ore, I remarked the appearance of it. (The witness then looked at a piece of ore produced, and found in the prisoner's pile, and claimed it as a piece which he left in his own pile on the evening of the 18th of March.) When I came on the 2?th, I examined my pile, and all the best was picked off and that stone among the number. My son and I went home together, we could not work without working together. On discovering my loss, I went and made a complaint to the agent, for I was a great deal troubled in mind about it, and opened my case to him. In consequence of what the Captain told me, I let it alone from the Saturday till the Monday, when we all went down together. The witness then corroborated the evidence of the last witness as to what took place in the level. We found a great quantity of stuff which I considered to be mine. This stone was not at the top but it was plaited(?) down so close that I felt sure my ore was there, and when I took up that stone I was regularly "struck upon the head," and was troubled in mind a great deal about it (a laugh). Cross-examined, Show me the mark. A.There it is. Q. Why that's the mark of Providence, not your mark. A. I know that, and you did not make yourself (laughter). All that I know of this stone is that there is a "peach" on one side, and a "vogue" on the other. William WALLIS, Jun., son of the last witness, said he was the last man that worked in the pitch on the Thursday evening; when I returned on the Saturday, I went with my father to the prisoner's pile, and my father put his hand into the pile and picked out that stone; he then put it back again, and went and told Captain TREDINNICK. I think that that is the same stone that my father handled in the prisoner's pile. [parts missing here]. All the ore raisen in the prisoner's pitch from the January setting day was of one kind, and contained no spangled ore. From the 24th of March to the 1st of April there was not a tub full of ore raised. The quantity broken by the prisoners in their pitch, at 13s. 4d. tribute, would not give them 40s. a month. But if they were paid for the four tons they showed as their own on the 1st of April, they would receive from �30 to �40 between them. Verdict, Both Guilty.
EDWARD NANKERVIS, 33, and THOMAS GAY, 29, were charged with fraudulently removing 2,000 lbs. of copper ore, of the value of �50., in Levant mine, the property of John BATTEN and others. A second count charged the prisoners with concealing the ores. Mr. John conducted the prosecution, and Mr. BENNALLACK the defence. Capt. Ralph GOLSWORTHY, agent at Levant, stated that the prisoners had for the last six months taken a pitch on a branch lode, from the 140 fathom level, 40 fathoms above, and 7 fathoms in length, at 13s. 4d. in the pound. The pitch expired on the 26th of March. On the 1st of April witness observed a pile of ore drawn by prisoners, and was convinced that it could not have been raised in their pitch. It was about 14 tons; and about half of it was spangled ore, similar to that raised in the 120 fathom level, which the adventurers worked, at 1s. 6d. in the pound. There were no ores in any other part of the mine like those in the 120. All the ores raised in the 120 are thrown down into the 130 through a scuttle, on a rail-road to the whim shaft. The pass from the 120 to the 130 was about 50 fathoms from the prisoner's pitch; and the railroad leads along by the side of the pitch. This witness produced stones of ore from the pile, and from the several places in the mine referred to. Capt John TRENEAR went underground on the 24th of March, to put a price on the prisoners' pitch. They had squared up for a new take. Witness examined the pile of ore in their pitch. Both prisoners were there and Nankervis said he would sell all they had got during the two months, for 40s. a month. There was about two tons in their pile then. It was not mixed with any spangled ore. There was a scuttle-hole in their pitch along side of the pile of ore, leading to the 140 level. Nankervis said it was filled with deads and witness therefore did not attempt to fill it. On the 25th, the prisoners were not at the mine; and on the 26th, Friday, the pitch was again set to them, at 12s., but they did not go down till the Monday. On the 1st of April, witness again went down into the pitch, and found that the scuttle-hole was quite cleared; but in the crevices were portions of spangled ores, like those of the 120 level. There was a great deal of spangled ore thrown down from the 120 into the 130, to be taken out on the tram-road that ran along by prisoner's pitch. All the ore raised in the prisoner's pitch from the January setting day was of one kind, and contained no spangled ore. From the 24th of March to the 1st of April there was not a tub full of ore raised. The quantity broken by the prisoners in their pitch, at 13s. 4d. tribute, would not give them 40s. a month. But if they were paid for the four tons they shewed as their own on the 1st of April, they would receive from �30 to �40 between them. Verdict, Both Guilty.
TRIALS RESUMED. SUSAN VIVIAN, 27 and ANN BROWN, 19, were charged with stealing a bed, bed-sheet, and bolster-slip, a table cloth, and some other articles, from William HAWKE, of St. Austell. The prosecutor kept an inn, at which the prisoners lodge for some time. On the 22nd of March, Mrs. Hawke, being about to change houses, told the girls she should no longer be able to accommodate them. On that day, they assisted in packing up some of her goods for removal. On the 23rd, Mrs. Hawke missed the articles in question, and next saw them on Monday last, in possession of Benjamin SAVAGE, a carrier, who had carried them from the prisoners to Charlestown. MICHELL, the constable of St. Austell, apprehended Brown in Bodmin, and Vivian in Truro. The defence set up was that the prisoners had taken the articles in charge, in compliance with Mrs. Hawke's request, to prevent their getting into the hands of a bailiff. This was, however, positively denied by Mrs. Hawke. Verdict, Not Guilty. While the Jury were considering their verdict, the prisoner Vivian fainted and then went into an epileptic fit. Every assistance was immediately rendered to her, and she was taken out of court, where a medical gentleman attended her. She was brought back, still insensible, to the door of the hall, when the verdict was about to be delivered; this being deemed necessary by the Clerk of the Peace. Shortly after this, two jurors were taken so ill as to be obliged to retire.
CORNWALL LENT ASSIZES. (Concluded from on last week's paper). Crown Bar, before Mr. Justice ERSKINE. Wednesday, March 31. WRECKING. JABEZ ASHUR LUKE, 31, was charged with having feloniously stolen divers goods and merchandise belonging to a vessel lately wrecked at Porthgwarra Cove, in the parish of St. Levan, the property of some persons unknown. Mr. MOODY for the prosecution; attornies, Messrs. JOHN and RODD. The prisoner was most zealously and ably defended by Mr. SLADE; attorney, Mr. PASCOE, of Penzance. Mr. Moody said the jury were called upon to inquire into the guilt of the prisoner, who was charged with a crime unhappily not uncommon in the maritime counties of this kingdom, and one from which this county was not very free. It was hoped that this prosecution would have the effect of drawing the attention of persons on the sea coast to the frightful enormity of which they were guilty, in plundering vessels cast on shore; for which offence they were liable, if found guilty, to transportation for fifteen years, or to an imprisonment for any term under three years. The Learned Gentleman then stated the facts of the case, and proceeded to call witnesses. John PERKINS examined � I am at times in the service of Frances John PAYNTER, Esq. He is Lord of the manor of Penwith and Connerton. I have gone to save things for him, that have been washed on shore from wrecks. On the 22nd of March, I went to St. Levan. I saw the prisoner at Porthgwarra Cove. RODDA, who was with me, asked if there were any things washed on shore from the wreck. He said there was. He told me that he had seen the vessel, that she was a Dutch schooner, and that she had her yards and masts on her deck, that she was copper-bottomed, and with a round stern. He said he observed her on Friday forenoon, about ten o'clock. He said that she came in there, (nodding his head as if that was a secret) and struck against the rocks, and was there a short time, and then went to pieces, and that parts of the wreck came on shore. He then said he took a staff-barrow upon which they carry stones for the Rundlestone, to save some of the wreck. When he came up to the stores, the prisoner said that they had saved a little wool, and a little hemp and dye-wood, and that he had saved a piece of wood which some one had stolen from him. He said that there were some old pieces of timber which he had saved, of little value. He said that they were very foolish that they turned to saving the wood instead of other things, and that he had sold his share of the wood for 2s. 6d., and he pointed to the very wood which he had saved and which he had sold; and the other parties were taking it up over the cliff at the time. That was timber apparently belonging to a ship. When he brought me up and showed me the hemp, dye-wood, and wool, I asked him if he had anything more, he said he had some stuff; pointing to a can which was in the corner, and he said it was curious stuff, that it was something like water, and he did not know what to call it. He poured out a little, and I asked for some as a sample, when he told me he should not be able to find a bottle. I was to take a sample to see what it was, or what it was worth. Something had been said before about there being things there, and he asked us if we had come of our own accord. Rodda said how should you think we were sent by any one, we are merely come of our own accord, to see if we could meet with anything of the wreck. Then he said, come and I'll show you. Rodda said we will come down and see whether we can buy anything. Then he said he would go in for a key, and came out and went to the door of a house occupied for keeping stores in. He took us inside the door, and showed us the wool, dye-wood, and hemp. He asked me what it was worth? I told him that I was not allowed to give a price then, that I would take a sample and tell him some other time. I took a bit of the wool in my pocket, and the naptha which he said he gave 3d. for, and which sum I gave him again. He put the sample up for us. None of us knew at that time what it was. We said we would call again in a day or two to let him know the value of it. Afterwards I learnt from the prisoner that he was employed in the erection of a light-house on the Rundlestone Rock. He also showed us a large sail drying in the fold outside the house. He said that he expected the preventive men knew that that was there. When he gave me the naptha, I asked him if he had any more? He said he had three cans, containing about 10 or 12 gallons. He also told me that he had 15 or 16 gallons of Venice turpentine, and some liquid for making India rubber. I did not see that, but he told me he had 15 or 16 gallons. Cross-examined by Mr. Slade. We told him a lie, because when he was first spoken to he denied having any thing. I stated to the Magistrates when examined, that the prisoner denied it. Mr. Paynter did not tell me to tell that lie. I admit that it was not right to tell the lie. Perhaps it was not the first lie that I have told by many a thousand. By Mr. Rogers. If we told them that we were sent by Mr. Paynter, these people would never tell us the truth. Stephen Rodda was next examined and gave evidence generally corroborative of that given by the last witness, after which he produced the naptha spoken to by both witnesses. William THOMAS examined. I am a constable. I went with Mr. Paynter with a search-warrant to St. Levan. We went into a house, I saw the prisoner there. He said he slept there. I found part of a can with naptha in it, some hemp and shumack; there was some plank over a beam near his bed. Mr. Paynter asked him if he knew anything about the naptha, turpentine and India rubber, that he had offered for sale. He denied knowing any thing of it, or having any thing of the kind except the can. In the chaise going to Penzance, I asked him what the vessel was, and he said he thought it was a schooner. I asked how she came on shore, and he said he thought the bottom of her was out; and she stood about three minutes after she came in, then the wreck began to float barrels, and cans, and bags. He told me the goods came on shore in Porthgwarra Cove. He told me the bags contained shumack. Cross-examined. Never saw any attempt at concealment or resistance of any kind. Henry GROSE examined. I am bailiff of the hundred of Penwith, and manor of Connerton; have been so for twenty years and upwards; have been in the habit of collecting wreck for the Lord of the manor, the present Lord is Francis Paynter, Esq., St. Levan is within the manor. I went with Mr. Paynter to the prisoner's at Porthgwarra. We found some things there belonging to a wreck, there was wreck timber in the house and some near the prisoner's bed. I had the prisoner in custody at Chyandour, where I live. The prisoner said "they must put a lock and key upon my mouth." I had cautioned the prisoner many times. He said I will never "shut" or split. Then he said that he thought St. Levan men would work very hard that night when they came to hear that he was taken up. Rodda then produced the naptha can; but the Learned Judge said that the can was not in the indictment. A chemist was then sent for, who proved the liquid produced to be naptha. Mr. Francis Paynter examined. I am lord of the hundred of Penwith and manor of Connerton. I have a right to take wreck on the manor. This gentleman then gave evidence as to the visit to the prisoner's house and the finding the articles spoken to by the other witnesses. Mr. Slade addressed the jury for the prisoner, urging that there was nothing in this case to justify the manner in which it had been opened by his Learned Friend, and asked them to compare the conduct of the prisoner with that of those "blood-suckers," Rodda and Perkins, the latter of whom had confessed with unblushing effrontery that he might have told a thousand lies. The Learned Counsel then stated that the prosecutor, Mr. Paynter, had a dispute respecting the right to the wrecks on the manor with the Admiralty, otherwise they would never have heard of this prosecution, and he would show by the most conclusive evidence, that the prisoner and the other men received orders to collect the wreck from the engineer of the Rundlestone Rock, and from one of the officers of the coast guard. Henry POMEROY examined. I am in the coast guard service; have been so 31 years. I am also order to protect all wrecks, whatever they are, that come on my station. My station was along the coast of St. Levan. I saw this wreck which the prisoner is charged with plundering. I was on the cliff at two o'clock in the afternoon, and saw two or three things floating on the water. I saw wreck on the shore, and then I went to a cove and saw the wreck coming on shore. There were a number of men there. I gave them orders to save all that should come on shore and take care of it. I told them to keep it up in the cliff till my return. I went then to Penberth cove; there I ordered a man to go to the inspecting commander. He did not come that night. I remained on duty all night. I knew the store on the cliffs. I went in the store and saw the prisoner there. I saw also a quantity of wreck. The prisoner said that they had picked up the wreck the day before. He told me that they had picked up some spirits, but said he did not think it was any thing that could be drunk. He told me I might go where I pleased and take an account of all the things there were there. I did not know the prisoner before. I did not see them carry away any thing. I did not think they were working for plunder. I should think there were as many as ten men in that cove. A great deal of the wreck was floating along the shore. I think fifteen men were the outside that I saw wrecking at one time. I dot think throughout the day that I saw a hundred. I would not give more than �30 for the goods I saw washed ashore. I saved something which I have in my possession now. I reported it to Mr. Paynter's clerk, for the first time, when HARVEY was apprehended. I don't know that it was my duty to report to Mr. Paynter. I know that wrecked goods have been taken by direction of the Admiralty, to Mr. Paynter. I have received five shillings' worth of these wrecked things. Henry THERBAN examined, I am a civil engineer employed by the Trinity Board in the erection of a lighthouse off the Rundlestone. We have an open store on the shore. There is open access to it for anybody. The prisoner sleeps in it, and is under my employ. I remember on Friday, the 19th of March, some wreck coming on shore. I gave notice to Lloyd's agent, and the inspecting officer of the customs; information was sent to me by the prisoner, a man named GUY brought it to me. I went down on the shore and the prisoner was there. The goods did not appear to me worth the salvage. I have known the prisoner for two years; he has been under my employ. He is a very honest, sober, well-behaved, industrious man. Cross-examined. I went before the magistrates, and was examined when he was charged. I was sworn. I was cautioned that I might commit myself if I proceeded with my evidence, but I was determined to speak what I knew to be the truth. I was examined before the magistrates; part of it was taken down. Christopher BARNICOAT examined. I was present at the wreck when the inspecting commander was there. I did not see the prisoner there. I heard the inspecting commander tell the people to save the things till the proprietor or some one appeared. Joseph JEFFRY was also examined. Mr. Moody having replied generally, the Learned Judge, in summing up said, the great extent to which this system of plundering wrecks has arisen in various parts of the coast and he believed very much in this county in former days, and the enormous crimes to which it sometimes led, have indeed at times persons engaged in these nefarious practices to hold out false signs to vessels, in order to occasion them to become a wreck, that they might have plunder, induced the legislature to pass an Act of Parliament, by which crimes of that sort were made punishable, and the plunder of wrecks and the stealing of goods was made a capital offence. But it was allowed at the time that though plundering a wreck might be sometimes an enormous crime, at others it might be a very trifling offence, therefore, while the act made it capital to steal from a wreck, it gave the prosecutor a power to indict as for a simple larceny, where there were no acts of violence; because, if it had not been for that, if a person have been found stealing the simplest spar that had been thrown ashore, he would be subject to be tried for that, and, being tried for it, all that the Judge could do would be to pass upon the prisoner the sentence of death, a process which would have shocked the people. The milder form of law which had prevailed in our days had introduced into the statute-book a very different provision, and now a person who was indicted for stealing from a wreck was not subjected to the punishment of death under any circumstances, and therefore the legislature had provided by enactment for the punishment of offenders in every graduation of offence. A power was given for transportation, but in lighter cases the Judge had the same power as if it were a common indictment for larceny, to imprison for three years or for one day. There was nothing in the manner in which this indictment was framed that showed anything harsh on the part of those who had conducted this prosecution, and they would try this case as they would every other upon the facts that had been proved, and would ask themselves whether these facts brought home to their minds that the guilt of the prisoner had been made out to their satisfaction. After the Learned Judge had carefully recapitulated and commented upon the evidence, he said, you are to say whether, upon the whole of these facts, you are satisfied that the prisoner took the goods which were proved by the two first witnesses to have been admitted by him to be in his possession for the purpose of appropriating them to his own use, and of depriving the owners of them, or the lord of the manor. If he did, then the case is made out against him, and you will find him guilty. But if you should not be satisfied that he took them with that felonious intent, if you should think that he took them for the lord of the manor or the owners, or if you do not believe that he ever had these things, which he maintains, and which have never been found, if under all the circumstances you should not be convinced that he took them with that felonious intent, and there should be a reasonable doubt left upon your mind, then you will give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt, and find him not guilty. The jury found a verdict of Not Guilty.
HENRY HARVEY. Was next indicted for plundering the same vessel at the same place as mentioned in the last case. The Learned Judge was very full in his comments on the enormity of the offence in this trial, and of the right of the lord of the manor to the immediate possession of the property, which vested in him until an owner appeared, and if no such owner appeared within the "year and a day," then the property became absolutely his, subject to a charge of salvage to be paid to the persons who collected the property. The jury also found this prisoner Not Guilty.
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, WILLIAM COCK 30, and CHARLES ANNEAR 52, were indicted, the first for stealing about six gallons of oats and horse-beans from Messrs. William and Henry PEARCE, of the hotel, Truro; and the second for receiving them knowing them to be stolen. The taking of the property was clearly shewn on the evidence of Mr. GLASSON, the book-keeper at the hotel, Mr. W. GATLEY, of Probus, and a police officer of that parish. But it was proved by Wm. BROKENSHIRE, a stonemason of St. Stephens, that, at the Hawkins's Arms, in Probus, Annear, being in want of corn for his horse, had borrowed the oats and beans under a promise to return them to Cock, on the Wednesday following, when he intended purchasing at Truro. The prisoner Annear, received an excellent character from Mr. LEWARNE, of St. Austell, and Mr. KESTLE. The Rev. Mr. CARLYON was also called for the purpose of giving a character; but that gentleman had left Bodmin. Verdict Not Guilty. The prisoner Cock was admonished by the Judge no more to lend any property of his masters.
OYSTER STEALING. EDWARD WILLIAMS, ELIZABETH THOMAS and MARY STEVENS, (his daughters) were indicted for stealing oysters from Porth-nevis creek, in the Helford river belonging to Mr. John TYACKE. The counsel for the prosecution were Mr. MOODY and Mr. ROWE; attornies Messrs. GRYLLS and HILL; and for the prisoners, Mr. Sergeant HALCOMB; attorney Mr. MOORMAN of Falmouth. As we have on several occasions reported these cases of oyster stealing, and as the facts are not materially different, it will be unnecessary to go fully into the evidence. It appeared from the statement of Mr. TYACKE, that he rents the whole of the oysterage in the Helford river, and that there are oyster-beds in a creek, called Porth-nevis creek, which runs into the Helford river. On the 9th of March last, he went to the creek, accompanied by ROWE and TRESIDDER, two men in his employ, and there saw the prisoners and other persons picking oysters. The other people, on seeing Mr. Tyacke, ran off, but the prisoners remained, and Williams, who is the father of the other prisoners, said he had picked to-day and would pick to-morrow. These facts have been proved. Mr. Sergeant Halcomb addressed the jury for the prisoners, contending that Porth-nevis creek was not a part of Mr. Tyacke's oysterage, and that the prisoners had taken the oysters thinking that they had a right to do so. The jury found the prisoners Not Guilty, whereupon the Learned Judge said, prisoners at the bar, the jury have acquitted you, and no doubt upon the ground that you entertained an honest notion at the time that you had a right there; but you must take care how you trespass upon the property of other people, and take their oysters, you cannot do so with impunity, and unless you mean to insist upon a right which would subject you to an enormous expense in trying it, take care what you do. The same prisoners were again indicted for stealing a hundred oysters from the Helford river; but no evidence being offered, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
JAMES MARTIN was charged with stealing from the person of John MORETON, the sum of six shillings. From the evidence adduced, it appears the prosecutor HAD BEEN AT Helston market on the 9th of January, and returning home at night, went into the Rodney public-house, which is between that town and Gweek, where he met with the prisoner and some other young men; he remained there some time, and then proceeded on his journey homeward. He was stopped by three persons in a place called Clodgey-lane, and robbed of the above sum; he swears the prisoner was one of the persons, but cannot say who the others were. Two evidences proved that the prosecutor awoke them about the time he says it happened, and told them he was robbed. COLES, a blacksmith, was returning from market about one o'clock in the morning, when he saw two persons standing together, in Clodgey-lane, and another alone, who he swears was the prisoner; cannot positively swear to the other two. This was about the same spot and the same time it happened; he had not been in the Rodney. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and called Thomas WILLIAMS, who is the ostler at the Red Lion, in Helston; knows John Moreton, the prosecutor, he is a butcher at Gweek, and called at his stable about eight o'clock on the evening in question, and asked him to lend a lantern and candle to see for some money, for he had lost all he had in his pocket; he lent him a light, saw him again about ten minutes afterwards, and he said he had not found it, he was then drunk. Another witness proved that he came to his shop the same night, and wanted to borrow half-a-crown, for he had no money, and was drunk at the time. A young man came forward to proved that he had been in the Rodney-house that night in company with the prisoner, and left with him; that Moreton entered the house as they left it; that they went home together, and did not see the prosecutor after. But it was obvious to the mind of the Jury, that this evidence was entirely trumped up. Guilty, Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
NISI PRIUS. Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN. Wednesday, March 31. DOE,dem. PHILLIPS & OTHERS v. RUNNALLS. Mr. ERLE and Mr. BUTT, counsel for plaintiffs; Mr. M. SMITH for defendant. This was an action of ejectment to recover possession of part of an orchard, in the parish of Forrabury, being part of the manor of Botreaux Castle, or Boscastle, whereof Mr. Phillips is lord. It appeared that on the 26th October, 1764, the property was granted by Cotton AMY to Mary DIMOND, for a term of 99 years, on the lives of Nicholas and John Dimond, her sons, and of Susanna FORTH, on conditions of payment of 4d. a year for rent; a harvest journey yearly; 4d. yearly, in lieu of heriot; and attendance at the court of the said Cotton Amy at Botreaux Castle. The question in dispute was whether all the three lives were dead or not. Wm. JAMES stated that he had formerly occupied the property in question, for 20 years, having ceased to occupy it 24 years ago. He rented it of Mr. John Dimond first; then of his widow, afterwards of Mr. COFFEN, till he died about 20 years ago. Witness attended the courts yearly, and paid 4d. a year conventionary rent to Mr. Pearse, steward of Mr. Phillips. Witness knew Mrs. Susannah BROWN (whose maiden name was Forth) and had heard Scoffen say he held the orchard on her life, asking witness how she was. The orchard was afterwards occupied successively by Edward Hocking FRANCIS, Philip SYMONS, and Wm. RUNNALLS, the defendant. Wm. Scoffen, a son of the Mr. Scoffen before mentioned, proved that about 10 years ago, he had applied for the rent of the orchard, to Runnalls who told witness that Mrs. Brown was dead, paying witness the rent up to the time he said she died. Mr. Thomas Pearse was steward of Thomas John Phillips, Esq., for the manor of Boscastle, upwards of 30 years, and during that time, received the rent of Dimond's orchard. After 1826, witness received the rent for the present Mr. Phillips, son of the former lord. Thomas BROWN, a yeoman of Tintagel, was the son of Mrs. Brown, who died in 1832, aged 91 years. There was no other Susannah Forth in the parish. Verdict for the Plaintiff.
NIBLETT and WIFE v. HARRY. Mr. ERLE and Mr. BUTT for plaintiffs; Mr. Serjeant BOMPAS and Mr. TAPRELL for defendant. This was an action brought by Mr. and Mrs. Niblett, of Devonport to recover arrears of rent, amounting to �29. 11s., due on the Tamar brewery at Calstock, and for a cottage adjoining, amounting to �9, at �4 a year. The properties were distinct. It appeared that the brewery was held by the defendant, who was a relative to Mrs. Niblett; and that a distraint for rent due at Midsummer last, amounting to �72. 10s., had been levied in July, 1840. The produce of the goods levied amounted to �12. 19s., after deducting expenses. Mr. YEO, the auctioneer, proved that the defendant acknowledged the rent claimed for the brewery was due, but said that since his relations, the plaintiffs, had distrained, he would not give up possession. The defendant continued to occupy the premises without using them till the 24th of December in the same year, the Rent being �50 a year. But for this period, from Midsummer to the 24th of December. The Judge held that the plaintiff had no claim, as the defendant had been removed by the magistrates' authority under the new Act, from the premises, on the day preceding the termination of the half-year of tenancy. With respect to the arrear of �29. 11s. due at Midsummer, it was proved by Mr. Yeo that the defendant admitted the rent was due, but now proposed to show that somebody else, instead of the plaintiff's, was entitled to it. With this view, he first put in a lease dated January, 1826, from Mrs. Mary Harry, to Mr. Henry Clifford Smith, granting the brewery for 14 years, at �59 a year: and Mr. Smith assigned it to defendant. But it did not appear here that the plaintiff's either claimed under Mrs. Harry, or had the least connection with her. It was true that Mrs. Niblett, while the widow of Mr. Harry, did received �50 a year for the brewery; but whether under this lease, or some demise by her late husband, did not appear. The lease was put in by defendant to show that the present action on assump(?)it was not tenable, inasmuch as the demise was, according to the defendant's showing, under seal. But it did not appear to the Judge, in summing up, that the plaintiffs had made any claim, or that rent had been received from them under this lease, and therefore, it formed no answer on the part of the defendant to the present action. But the defendant further endeavoured to show that the premises were not in Mrs. Niblett, but in certain trustees under her marriage settlement. To show that, the defendant put in some proceedings before two magistrates, proving that on application by Mr. CHAPMAN and Mr. LONGDON, of Devonport, Mrs. Niblett's trustees, the magistrates delivered to them possession of the brewery on the 24th of December. His Lordship, however, held that this application by her trustees, without her cognizance, could not prejudice Mrs. Niblett's right; and that therefore, the defendant had failed in establishing that the rent was due to her trustees, and not to herself and husband. Then as respected the cottage property, the case turned on the evidence of Mr. Yeo, that the defendant, on the occasion of Mr. Yeo's being engaged to sell the distrained goods, told him that he gave �4 a year for the cottage; and although he did not expressly say to whom he paid this rent, it was proved by Mr. BERRYMAN, the steward of the manor of Calstock, who produced the court rolls of the manor, that Charles Harry, a former husband of Mrs. Niblett, was admitted as tenant of the land on which the cottage was built, at the court held in October, in 1821, and that according to the custom of the manor, on the death of Mr. Charles Harry, the tenant, his widow was admitted to the tenancy for her life. Verdict for Plaintiff, �38. 11s.
GLANVILLE v. PETER. This was an action for false imprisonment; but as the plaintiff was this morning tried and convicted in the other court on the charge of felony, for which he had been imprisoned, the record was withdrawn.
EDMONDS v. FREAN and ANOTHER. Mr. ERLE and Mr. M. SMITH, counsel; and Mr. PASCOE, attorney, for plaintiff. Mr. CROWDER and Mr. ROWE, counsel; and Mr. RODD, attorney for defendant, George Frean. The plaintiff, a farmer, residing in the neighbourhood of Penzance, had brought his action to recover �37, for corn and other goods supplied to Tolearne mills, from Richard Frean and George Frean, two brothers, millers. Richard Frean had suffered judgment by default; and the only question in the case was whether George Frean was in partnership with his brother, which he denied. George Frean lived at Plymouth, and Richard at Tolearne, near Penzance. The evidence consisted mostly of a series of letters from George to Richard, from 1836 to the latter part of 1840, and of the verbal testimony of Mr. and Mrs. LOWRY, persons employed at and about the mills, and Mr. and Mrs. PENROSE, a Baptist minister and wife. The evidence of the letters, and of Mr. and Mrs. Lowry, was though it occupied a long time in giving, of little importance, as it was consistent either with the fact of a partnership, or the reverse. It appeared undisputed, that Richard, ostensibly, and before the world, carried on the business alone. It should be observed, that while on the one hand, the existence of a partnership was contended for, it was urged for the defendant, George Frean, that all his transactions with his brother had been merely as originating in a desire to establish him in business, and to assist him in its conduct. George was many years older than Richard. W. PENROSE, a Baptist minister, stated that he knew both Richard and George Frean. Richard applied to witness in the latter part of 1839, to go into partnership with him; and, in consequence, he, (Penrose) wrote a letter on the 30th of January, 1840, to George to this effect: "Very dear Sir, Your brother has requested me to write to you, concerning the mills, &c., which you hold in partnership from Mr. Le GRICE; and although at this stage of the affair, I have no right nor inclination to interfere, yet he having informed me he has written to you saying I have no objection to enter into partnership with you, I beg to inform you most unequivocally, that if I enter into business, I will make no remuneration whatever for any losses already sustained, nor have anything to do with partnership not begun upon an entirely new footing, all accounts being closed prior to my having any thing to do with the trade, as I consider it would be highly imprudent on my part to enter into partnership on any other terms." In answer to that, Mr. Penrose received the following from Mr. George Frean. "Plymouth, February 1, 1840, Dear Sir, As it seems desirable and necessary I should come to Penzance to settle the mill matter, I write merely to say I shall not be an obstacle to your taking part of the business with my brother, and will withdraw previous to your so doing." On the 27th of February, George and Richard Frean, and Penrose met at Penzance; when Richard proposed they should take the business in thirds. George asked Penrose what sum he would put into the concern; and in answer to Penrose, said from �800 to �1000 would be necessary. Penrose said he could advance his portion of the money at any time; but on considering the matter, he came to the conclusion in his mind that God had set him apart for higher matters than worldly business, and upon that ground, he refused. [On cross-examination, it was shown, and it was remarked on by the judge, that this conviction of being set apart for higher purposes than worldly trade, was remarkably coincident with the declaration by George Frean, that previous to any formation of partnership, he should insist on the payment of �172 due to him, as by far the largest creditor against his brother Richard]. George then asked him, Penrose, if as he would not go into business, he would assist Richard in making up the accounts, and requested his advice about the mill. George told him the business had almost ruined him. He spoke against a man called HAWKE, and said he had lost nearly �1000 by Hawke, and that he would not continue business with his brother, unless Penrose would promise to assist Richard in the accounts. In May, George came again to Penzance, and said he had altered his mind, and would not go on longer with his brother until the accounts should be closed. In October, Penrose saw George Frean again. The business had come to a crisis; and then George said, in conversation with Penrose, that he could not be proved a partner. Penrose asked him if he would not have participated in any profits; and he said he should. At the close of his examination in chief, this witness said that George Frean had villainously slandered him; and he was consequently severely cross-examined, to show vindictive motive. He admitted he had seen Mr. PASCOE, the attorney, about the cause, more than other witnesses, and had told Mr. Pascoe, he thought he could prove George Frean a partner. He acted for Richard Frean in not allowing the mill to be given up till the matter was settled until this document was signed by George Frean. "To Mr. Pascoe, 13th October. Dear Sir, In reply to your letter of the 8th, I will undertake payment of the debts due for corn supplied to the mill at Newlyn, provided the whole of the effects there belonging to the mill be given into my hands. Signed, George Frean." Before this, George Frean had received an account of the debts owing by Richard, amounting to about �800, of which he, George, was creditor to the amount of �472. The evidence of Mrs. Penrose was that she was present at one conversation between her husband and Mr. George Frean; and that George Frean said, he could not go on in partnership with his brother Richard, as matters had been so misconducted. Verdict for Plaintiff.
THURSDAY, APRIL 1. FOX v. GLOVER. This was a special jury case, which was undefended. The counsel for the plaintiff, who is a merchant at Falmouth, were Mr. ERLE and Mr. BUTT; attornies Messrs. BULL and TILLY; and the attornies for the defendant Messrs. PARKER and BOLDING. The action was brought to recover �327. 10s., being the principal and interest on a bill of exchange which the defendant had accepted. Verdict for the Plaintiff.
HENWOOD v. OLIVER, Mr. MOODY for plaintiff; attorney Mr. C. WALLIS. Mr. ERLE and Mr. SMIRKE for the defendant; attorney Mr. P. WALLIS. In this case, the defendant was a blacksmith, who formerly worked in the yard of, and was constantly employed by, Mr. Wm. Oliver, the landlord of the hotel at Bodmin. The action was brought to recover �160 for work and labour done, and for goods supplied, but the defendant denied that excepting as to �159. 5s. 9d., he never was indebted, and pleaded that he had paid the defendant �141, that there was a set off of �2. 19s., and that he had tendered the plaintiff �15. 6s. 9d., which he contended was all that was remaining due, but which the plaintiff refused to accept. The question ultimately resolved itself into an enquiry as to whether two items entered in the defendant's book as �12 had been paid to the plaintiff, or whether he had received each time only �10, which his wife had put down under his direction in the book which he kept; and whether a sum entered in the plaintiff's book was �2 was paid, or whether the defendant had received only �1, that being the entry which his wife under his directions, had put down. In order to prove the payments, the defendant called Miss RANDALL, an intelligent young lady in his service, who stated that the entries of the �12 items, was in her hand-writing, that she never paid any sum of �10 at all, and that she must have seen the money paid, it being the custom of the defendant to pay all monies either through her hands or in her presence. The other �2 were entered by the defendant himself, and the witness could not, therefore, say positively whether that sum had been paid, but she expressed her decided conviction that it had. The jury gave a verdict for the Defendant, the court giving the plaintiff leave to move to set aside the verdict on account of the insufficiency of the tenders, the clerk having stated that he offered the money "as the amount of Mr. Oliver's bill," and Mr. Moody having contended that this was a conditional lender, and therefore, a bad one.
WALLIS v. FREAN. This was an action similar to that of EDMONDS v. FREAN, heard yesterday. The result, however, was different; the Jury in this case, returning a verdict for the defendant, considerable inconsistencies and discrepancies being this day shewn in the evidence of the principal witnesses, the Rev. Mr. and Mrs. PENROSE. We noticed yesterday, a remarkable coincidence between a sudden spiritual conviction in Mr. Penroses's mind that he was set apart for higher purposes than worldly trade; and the fact of Mr. George Frean's insisting on the payment, previous to the formation of a partnership to include Mr. Penrose, of the sum of �472 due to him from his brother Richard. Much interest was excited by the cross-examination of Mr. Penrose, by Mr. Crowder, in the hearing of these two causes. Mr. Penrose, after his first examination in chief, said, he desired the severest scrutiny, for George Frean had villainously slandered him. "Q. When has he villainously slandered you? A. I don't know that this is matter in question now. I am not here on my defence. Q. On your oath, are you not angry with George Frean? A. On my oath, I am not angry; I m astonished how my feelings can be so subdued. Q. then they are, of late, inclined to be excited? A. You may think as you please of it." In a subsequent part of the examination Mr. Crowder said; "Now, Mr. Penrose, you use some violent language at times; can you recollect using this language in your pulpit, that old Wesley was surely in hell? A. That is quite extraneous matter. (laughter). Q. I ask you upon your oath, whether in your pulpit, before God and man, you did not say that old Wesley was surely in hell? A. I never said such a think in my life, either in the pulpit, or out of the pulpit. I swear that most positively. Q. Or language to that effect? A. I won't say about that. Q. Have you said to the effect that old Wesley was in hell? A. It is not the first time I have been charged with speaking against parties. I believe certain doctrines of the Christian religion to be true. I have a right to maintain my opinions. Q. Did you say also, in your pulpit, that TEARE, a teetotal advocate, was a cursed Arminian apostate? A. I won't say anything about those things (laughter). Q. You wanted to get into this business, did you not? A. No Sir. Q. You had other higher notions? A. Yes, Sir; I do not think it is consistent for a Minister of the Gospel, if he has a comfortable support without worldly business, to enter into it. Q. Have you always been of that opinion? A. I never had an intention of going into this business, but by Richard's request. Q. Then when he urged you, you had some notion of going into business? A. (with great sanctity of manner). There are conflicts in other men's minds, as well as mine. Q.- Was that conflict in your mind, as a minister, whether you would go on as a minister, or get into the mill with Richard? A. I may be speaking to persons who don't know much about the conflict in a Christian's soul. Q. Was there that conflict in your mind? A. (after a pause), Ah! You don't understand!" (laughter) "Q. I ask you, before this conflict to your mind about going into business, if Geo. Frean had not told you he must have his �470 paid? A. He may have said so, I cannot charge my memory with it. Q. Was it not that which raised the conflict in your mind, and induced you to think of higher matters? A. No, Sir; it was not. Q. In August, long after you thought the Lord had set you apart, did you not try to get into partnership in the mills with ROBINSON? A. No. Sir. Q. Did you apply to Robinson? A. I applied to Robinson for him to become a partner with Richard Frean. Q. Do you mean to say there was no arrangement between you and Robinson, and Richard Frean if you please, that you were to come into business? A. There was an arrangement that Robinson was to come into partnership with Richard Frean. Q. Will you swear you don't know that you yourself applied to become partner? A. I don't know, I believe there was something said about it afterwards. Q. On your oath, had you not some miller's clothes ordered for the very purpose? A. No; I had not. Q. Did you not tell Robinson, when you wanted to come into this concern, that you could command a population of 50,000 souls, and that therefore you would be a useful man in business? A. No Sir. Q. Nothing to that effect? A. No Sir." The above are specimens of the course of cross-examination of this principal witness in these causes. After this, Mrs. Penrose, (the witnesses having been kept out of court), gave evidence in direct opposition to that of her husband, on the question, whether he had not, since the hearing of the cause of yesterday, as well as previously, spoken to his wife, by way of cautioning her on the evidence she was to give. Mr. Penrose said he had. Mrs. Penrose on the contrary, repeatedly stated her husband had not cautioned her; and swore particularly that since yesterday her husband had not spoken to her about her evidence. These were some of the circumstances which, in the Learned Counsel's address for the defence, and in the Judge's summing up were impressed on the Jury; who, as we have said, returned a verdict for the defendant. The verdict was received with considerable applause. (We understood that it was intended to move to set aside the verdict of the previous day) .
FRIDAY, APRIL 2. COLLINS v. HORRELL, Jun. This was a special jury case, and an action for trespass, brought to try a right of way. The real parties to the action were Edward Collins, Esq., of Truthan, and the defendant was J.T. CORYTON, Esq., of Pentithe, the nominal defendant, whose name appeared on the record, being one of Mr. Coryton's tenants. It appeared from the evidence adduced in the case, which of course would be too uninteresting to our readers to report at length, that Mrs. Johanna HELLIER died in 1765, leaving an estate called Newton estate, in the parish of St. Mellion, to her relatives during certain lives, the last of whom died in 1831, when Mr. Edward Hellier came into possession. Subsequently that gentleman sold the property to Mr. Collins, the plaintiff, who finding a lane that led through the estate, which was not much used, put up in the year 1838, a couple of gates, which he constantly kept locked till the time when the trespass complained of was committed by one of Mr. Coryton's tenants, to most of whom it was sometimes an object of importance that they should possess this road, as it saved them nearly a mile in getting to Callington, Saltash, and other places that way. On the part of the plaintiff, several witnesses were called to prove that in the time of Mr. Weston Hellier, 40 or 50 years ago, the people were forbidden when they there traversing the lane in question. The instances of opposition that were mentioned were, however, very few. For the defendant, many witnesses were called, who proved that as far back as 70 years ago, the lane was commonly used as a road for pack horses, carts and vehicles of that description not having been at that time, nor till many years subsequent, introduced into that part of the county. In the course of the proceedings, the Learned Judge suggested to the counsel for the plaintiff whether the usor for horses was not so completely proved as to make it a waste of time to proceed further with the evidence on that part of the case. After some consideration, the plaintiff's counsel acquiesced; and witnesses were then called to support the usor of the road for the purpose of carts and wagons from 1831, the time when the fee of the property came into possession of Mr. Edward Hellier, down to 1838, when Mr. Collins put a lock upon the gates and closed the road against the public. Several witnesses were called, who stated that they had either driven carts or seen them driven down this road; -for the road having in it a sharp angle, and being very steep, was seldom used more than one way; -and eventually the case went to the jury for them to decide whether there had been such a usor on the part of the public as to satisfy them that the owner of the fee intended to dedicate the road to the public. The jury found a Verdict for the Defendant, thereby establishing the road to be a public road. Mr. ERLE and Mr. BUTT were counsel for the plaintiff; attornies, Messrs. Collins and Son. Mr. CROWDER, Mr. BARSTOWE, and Mr. BEVAN, were for the defendant; attorney, Mr. GLUBB.
ENORMOUS PIG. On the 24th ult. A pig, about 26 months old, the property of Mr. John SLEEP, was killed at Talpetherwin, in Southpetherwin, near Launceston, which weighted 803lbs.
SMUGGLING. On Friday last, the "Sylvia" Revenue cruiser, on the Penzance station, descried a suspicious looking craft about three leagues from the Land's-end, Lieut. BREWER immediately pursued her, and after a run of five hours, both vessels going at a tremendous rate although the wind was light, it became nearly a calm. The cutter's boat was then hoisted out, and, after a smart chase of three hours more, they succeeded in coming up with, and taking the smuggler, about 40 miles S.W. from the above place, and found the crew, seven Frenchmen and three Englishmen, in the act of throwing some contraband goods overboard. It appears that she is called the "Mystery," of Cherbourg, it's a very handsome vessel, cutter rigged, and had on board 36 tubs of spirits. She was brought into Penzance pier on the following day, and on Monday the crew underwent an examination, when they were remanded until Saturday next.
TRURO POLICE. James GEORGE, William FLYNN, and Nathaniel BUCKINGHAM, have this week each been fined with costs for being drunk and creating riots in the streets. Samuel THOMAS was committed on Saturday for stealing a jacket; his trial will be found in our sessions report.
CORONERS' INQUESTS. On Friday last, by William HICHENS, Esq., at St. Just in Penwith, on the body of Mary Jane HICKS, a child about two years and a half old, who, on the preceding Wednesday, set fire to her clothes in the absence of her mother, who had only gone into the adjoining house for about three minutes. The poor child was so dreadfully burnt that she died on the same day. Verdict, "Accidental death".
At Truro, on Saturday last, before J. CARLYON, Esq., on the body of George TIPPETT, a cartman, in the employ of Messrs. HARVEY. The deceased, who was a sober and industrious old man, in the 70th year of his age, was returning with an empty cart to Garras Wharf, and in driving into the yard, the horse ran against the curb-stone of the office, and upset the cart, which fell on him and killed him on the spot. Verdict, "Accidental death," with a deodand of 1s. on the horse and cart.
16 APRIL 1841, Friday
APPOINTMENT. We have the pleasure to state that his Majesty, the King of the Netherlands, has appointed Richard PEARSE, Esq., to succeed the late Leonard MILLETT, Esq., as Dutch Consul for Penzance and St. Ives.
PENZANCE QUARTER SESSIONS. These sessions took place on Monday last, before Thomas PAYNTER, Esq., Recorder, and the Borough Justices. Nancy Thomas, of Buryan, was found guilty of stealing a cotton handkerchief, from the shop of Mr. E. DAVY, draper, Penzance, and sentenced to Four Months' Imprisonment.
Elizabeth HARRIS, of Paul, pleased guilty of stealing 28 years? (yarns?) of cotton from the shop of Messrs. COULSON, drapers, Penzance, and was sentenced to Five Months' Imprisonment at Hard Labour.
Thomas RODDA(?) of St. Day, was found guilty of stealing a quantity of pork, the property of Richard HOSKING, of Brunyan, in the Parish of Lelant, and was sentenced to Four Months' Imprisonment.
Ann JULYAN, and Elizabeth JULYAN, mother and daughter, were indicted for stealing a slip, or petticoat, the property of Mr(s?). RESCORLA, of Penzance. The jury acquitted the daughter, but found the mother guilty, and she was sentenced to Three Months' Imprisonment at Hard Labour.
Grace BURGESS pleaded guilty of having stolen a quantity of ribbon from the shop of Mr. YORK, draper, Penzance, and was sentenced to Three Months' Imprisonment.
The recorder having accepted another appointment, was addressed, at the rising of the court, by Col. ROBYNS and Mr. G. D. JOHN, in complimentary speeches, to which he replied in a suitable manner, and bade them farewell.
Mr. Herman MERRIVALE, a barrister on the western circuit it is said, is to succeed Mr. PAYNTER as recorder of three towns.
PENZANCE BOARD OF GUARDIANS. The last resolution of the late Board was to pass a unanimous vote of thanks to John SCOBELL, Esq., the chairman, and John PAYNTER, and Richard PEARSE, Esqrs., the vice chairman and at the first meeting of the new Board, those gentlemen were re-elected to the same offices which they have filled with so much ability.
CAUTION TO PAWNBROKERS. On Tuesday last, Mr. M. JACOB, pawnbroker, Falmouth, was summoned before the Mayor and magistrates, by Mr. E. BENNETT, to answer to several informations preferred against him relating the taking in of a quantity of wearing apparel from a man called SANDOE. After some discussion between the legal gentlemen engaged, it was decided to go into one of the cases of taking pledges from a child apparently under 12 years of age; and after hearing the case, the magistrates fined the defendant 49s., being the lowest(?) amount allowed by the law. The defendant put in recognizances to appeal at the sessions, to be held the following Thursday; and all the other counts were postponed by the magistrates to Friday (this day).
SMUGGLING. The crew of the smuggler "Mystere", captured by H.M. cruizer "Sylvia," as we stated last week, have undergone an examination before the authorities, and have been disposed of as follows: Pierre Poulain, alias Peter WALTERS, John SARGEANT, alias John Sargeant BRETT, and John TRUDGEON, alias John Trudgeon, BAG, were each sentenced to six months' hard labour in Bodmin gaol; and William SEAWARD, Alias William CHAMP, being an old offender, was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment at hard labour. There were also several Frenchmen on board the smuggler when taken, but being claimed by Richard PEARCE, Esq., the French Consular agent, subjects of the King of the French, who were not liable to any penalty in this country in consequence of not having been within the limits affecting foreigners, they were discharge.
SHIPWRECK. On Thursday, 1st inst., the "Britannia", nearly a new schooner, of St. Ives, Capt. HAYES, master, was proceeding on her voyage from Wales to Portreath laden with coals. In coming down the channel, the weather was so severe as to compel her to put into Padstow, where she found for a short time a place of safety. She was however, again driven out by the wind, and carried across to the opposite side of the harbour, where she was blown upon the rocks. The coast guard and inhabitants of Padstow, observing the dangerous position of the vessel, and being convinced that she must become a complete wreck at the same time finding, from the immense surge, that it was totally impossible to put off in their boats without running the hazard of a fate similar to that of Lieut. SMITH and his crew a short time since, in the Mount's-bay, resorted to the apparatus of Captain MANBY, firing rockets to the "Britannia." So perfect was the trim, that the first rocket which was fired reached the deck, when a hawser was attached to the rocket line and hauled ashore, the distance from the beach to the vessel being upwards of a quarter of a mile. A communication being thus made, a cradle was fixed to the line, by which means the whole of the crew, consisting of seven persons, were safely landed. Shortly after the preservation of the crew, the bottom of the vessel broke up, when the cargo, consisting of coals, was washed out, and subsequently the vessel became a total wreck. The vessel, which was worth about �1,100 was insured at Lloyd's, and an agent having come down to ascertain whether blame is attributable to any party, the subject is now, we believe, undergoing investigation. [Our Padstow agent omitted sending us an account of this wreck in time for our last week's paper] .
ACCIDENT AT SEA. On Monday morning, about three o'clock, the "Royal William" steamer, on her passage from London to Dublin, when off the Orr Light, ran into a fine schooner, laded with Oats, and carried away her catwater, figure-head, fore yard, and bowsprit, but luckily did little or no mischief to the schooner or any one on board either vessel.
ST. IVES. The crew of the sloop "Triton," of Ilfracombe, which sunk off this bay a few days since, were sent home in the "Herald" steamer, on Tuesday last, by the committee of the Ship-wrecked mariners' Society.
FATAL ACCIDENT. An inquest was held on the first of April, before William BONVILLE, Esq., coroner, at the Lord Nelson, in the parish of Llanelly, South Wales, on the body of Elizha TREGEA, aged 19 years, a seaman on board of the schooner "Sisters," of St. Agnes, in this county. The deceased, on the previous day, was at work in the rigging of the foremast, and accidentally fell from the cross-trees to the deck, upon his head, and was so severely injured, that he expired in about twenty minutes afterwards. Verdict, "Died from concussion on the brain".
CORONER'S INQUESTS. On Friday last, on board the "Princess Royal," of Southampton, in Falmouth harbour, before W. J. GENN, Esq., coroner, on the body of a young man, a seaman, who fell from the main-topsail-yard, and was killed on the spot. Verdict, Accidental Death.
On Tuesday last, on board the brig "Elizabeth Adnett," from London, bound to Quebec, now in Falmouth harbour, on the body of the master, ---WHITFIELD, who on Friday last, cut his throat, but not so as to cause death. On the Sunday following, he made an attempt to throw himself overboard, but was prevented by one of the crew, who threw him on the deck. On rising, the captain thrust him away, and succeeded in getting over the side; the seaman again laid hold of him, but before assistance could be rendered, was obliged to let him go, as (the captain being a very heavy man) he found if he kept his hold, he must have been drawn overboard. The boat was immediately lowered, and on reaching the spot, the captain, although floating, was dead. This sad affair occurred about 160 miles S.W. of the Lizard, when the mate thought it prudent to bear up for this port. The verdict was, "Temporary insanity, caused by excessive drinking," it appearing in evidence that the unfortunate man had been drinking to excess ever since leaving London on the 1st instant.
On Monday last, at St. Agnes, on Susannah NETTLE, aged 79 (70?), whose clothes caught fire, and she was so seriously burnt before assistance was at hand to extinguish the flames, that she only survived a few hours. Verdict, "Accidental Death".
On Wednesday last, on the body of Elizabeth Ann HUGO, at St. Austell, a child 11 weeks old who was found dead in bed by its mother the preceding morning. From the evidence of Mr. PEARCE, surgeon, the jury entertained no doubt that the deceased died of epilepsy, and a verdict was returned accordingly.
CORNWALL EASTER SESSIONS. Thursday, April 8. After the following sentences, which appeared in a large portion of our last week's impression, had been passed on the prisoners, the Court proceeded to the hearing of appeals: MARY ANN STEVENS, Six Weeks' Hard Labour. HENRY TAMBLYN, Six Weeks' Hard Labour. EDWARD NANKERVIS, Six Months' Hard Labour. THOMAS GUY, six Months' Hard Labour. SAMUEL THOMAS, Six Months' Hard Labour. JAMES SWIFT, Twelve Months' Hard Labour, Four Weeks Solitary. JAMES JENKIN, Three Months' Hard Labour. John RULE, Three Months' Hard Labour. John CADWELL, Three Months' Hard Labour. WM. ROWE, Three Months' Hard Labour. John ARTHUR, Four Months' Hard Labour.
APPEALS. Warleggan, appellant; St. Blazey, respondent. Mr. JOHN and Mr. B. LYNE for Appellant; Mr. SHILSON and Mr. HOCKIN, for Respondent. Mr. B. LYNE moved in appeal against an order for the removal of Ann YELLAND and children. Mr. John then took a preliminary objection to the examinations on which the order of removal was granted. There had been two examinations; the first was of Jennifer Yelland, the mother of the pauper's late husband, who spoke to the settlement in Warleggan, in consequence of relief having been supplied to her and the pauper's late husband by the officers of that parish. The examination of Ann Yelland referred only to her marriage, and to the number of her children; but it disclosed nothing as to settlement, appeared as being only "taken before us, Nicholas KENDALL and Charles LYNE;" and not as being upon oath. Mr. John therefore contended for the invalidity of the order of removal. The objection was fully discussed; the respondent's advocates urging that, in the first place, there was no necessity for the examination being on oath; and next that the appellants should have given notice of their intended objection. The Bench decided that the examination of Jennifer Yelland would not do. The order of removal was reversed with common costs.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT. On Wednesday, the 7th instant, a Court for the relief of Insolvent Debtors, was held in the Nisi Prius Court, at Bodmin, before J. G. HARRIS, Esq., one of her Majesty's Commissioners for the relief of Insolvents. There were two adjourned cases for hearing, and fifteen insolvents came up on their original petitions. ALMOND TREVOSSO HOCKING, grocer, of St. Ives, was unopposed. The Insolvent stated that he had lost �200 or �300 in adventuring in mines, and that he had a wife and six children. The mines had gone down therefore the shares would fetch nothing. He had sold a great deal of goods, but there had been a great competition in the trade for the last three or four years, so that the profits did not amount to 2 � per cent. The debts due to his estate would realize, if collected, perhaps about �300 or �460. Insolvent, in 1837, paid his creditors about 2s. 6d. in the pound. Ordered to be Discharged Forthwith.
JOHN BATH. Was committed on the 9th of February, at the suit of Richard SECCOMBE, of St. Stephens, by Launceston, for a debt of �27. 12s. 7d. for beer, spirits, &c. The whole amount of his debts was �41. 3s. 6d.; he was a farmer in the neighbourhood of Launceston, and was in the receipt of �12 a year. The commissioner feared that the insolvent had visited the creditor's house too often. He paid 42s. a year for his house, and �4 for two acres of land. The Court ordered him to be Discharged. Mr. C. COODE, Can you appropriate any part of that money to the payment of his debts? Court, Oh dear, no; what is �12 a year, and the man grown old?
THOMAS GLIDDON LEIGH, was committed on the 17th of December at the suit of Mrs. Mary HOCKING, widow of Launceston, to whom he owed �13. Insolvent had a wife and three children, the eldest not eight years of age; gave up his farm on the 21st of October; took it of his mother-in-law, who held her farm by her widowhood, it being a Bishop's holding, and it had been taken away from her because she had had a bastard child (laughter). Maria LEE was his mother-in-law, and re rented under her. The farm was 24 acres; he paid her �15 a year for it, and was to pay his two sisters �8 a year besides. The insolvent had bought a horse of his detaining creditor, for which he gave her a note for �6. 15s.; when he left his farm he went to her and requested her to take back the horse, offering to give her the sovereign if she would do so, which he had already paid. This she refused, and instituted the suit which had occasioned this being thrown into prison. Ordered to be Discharged Forthwith.
THOMAS UREN was committed on the 18th of November, at the suit of Wm. CLEMO, for �24. 14s., balance for groceries and costs of suit. The whole of his debts were �30. The insolvent stated that he was a working miner in the Fowey Consols; the groceries were for his own use. The debt was �12; never defended the cause at all; don't know how the costs amounted to so much; they went on with the action till they got judgment; his goods were seized, but there was not enough to pay the creditor; owed his landlord �4; he had let him keep his goods; had received �6 for two months' labour while in prison. The insolvent was undefended. He stated that �3 or �3. 10s. was his ordinary wages at mine. Should go back to the mine. Discharged.
ANDREW THOMAS was again brought up, having been remanded ever since August last, in order that his accounts might be amended; and no one now appearing against him, he was ordered to be Discharged Forthwith.
IMPORTANT CASE. JOSEPH HAINE, who described himself in his schedule as a butcher, labourer, and victualler, having been remanded at the last court, again came up on his petition. The prisoner's case had been adjourned to his circuit for the purpose of obtaining particulars of his wife's property. The prisoner had lived at Liskeard, and was now opposed by Mr. B. LYNE, for Mr. CRAGOE, a mason of that town, to whom the prisoner was indebted for the building and repair of some houses belonging to his wife, and which were secured to her under her marriage settlement. Mr. BROWN appeared for the prisoner, who was brought up by the Society for the relief of Insolvent Debtors. It appeared from the prisoner's statement, that his wife had five freehold dwelling houses, which, when all let brought �30 a year; on these there was said to be a mortgage to Mr. HENDER, of St. Cleer, for �480, and the interest due made it amount to �500. There was another mortgage held by Mr. Brown for �95. Mr. Brown stated that the first mortgagee was in possession, and the property was not worth what was due on the first and second mortgage. He did not think it would make �600 if it was all sold. The commissioner. This is a case in which the Society must have been most grossly imposed upon to have ever given one farthing to this man. The debt was as great a fraud as could ever be committed. Mr. Bennett said that there had not been a farthing given to him. He was brought up as a matter of charity. The Court � I am only sorry that you brought him up, his wife should have redeemed him. He leads a tradesman to build a house, and then turns round upon him and says it is my wife's property, and I will go to prison. He has been in prison a long time, and I think he has done very little to get himself out. Mr. Lyne said that when the Sheriff's officer entered, a notice had been given to him claiming the whole of the household property as the settled property of the wife. The furniture was mentioned in the marriage settlement, and the commissioner, at the last circuit, ordered the insolvent to give an account, and mention in the schedule all the property that belonged to the wife. The furniture was worth more than enough to pay the detaining creditor. The wife was a much richer woman than the creditors had thought. The prisoner had not included the furniture in his schedule in pursuance of the order of Court. Mr. Lyne then proceeded to state that in February, 1839, when the prisoner owed a considerable sum, he effected a second mortgage, and obtained �95, the whole of which he pocketed. Besides, the settlement gave him a power to raise, with his wife's permission, anything they liked � she might sell the equitable redemption of the whole, and the personal chattels. The prisoner had paid Cragoe �17 odd, and there was �40 due. Besides the monies that had been borrowed, the prisoner's wife had �110 in money when they were married in 1836. There had been no valuation of the furniture made. The mortgage deed of Mr. Brown was then put in, and it did not appear that the furniture had ever been incumbered. Mr. Lyne said, at the time of the marriage, there was only a mortgage of �200 on the property, and it was mortgaged to a Mr. RUNDLE. Since that, it had been mortgaged to Mr. Hender, of St. Cleer, for �480, and to Mr. Brown for �95 � giving the prisoner nearly �400, besides the �110 which his wife had in ready money. The Court � Now, tell me how it was;- your wife's property when you married was mortgaged for �200. How much more has been taken up? Insolvent � It says there � I don't recollect. The Court � You don't seem to be desirous to be discharged out of custody, and I am not desirous to discharge you unless you do justice to your creditors. Mr. Bennett said something about having put into the schedule the prisoner's statements. The Commissioner made other enquiries, wishing to ascertain when and how the mortgage, originally in Mr. Rundle's hands for �200, had passed from his into Mr. Hender's for �480, but on this he could get no information, and remarked � all I know of the case is that there is nothing like the truth either in the schedule or the amendments. Mr. Brown begged to assure the Court that it was quite impossible that insolvent could furnish any other schedule as far as the freehold property was concerned. Mr. Lyne requested the Court to order him to give an account of what he had done with the money. The Court � He has squandered the money away, and is a person for whom the Court can have no particular reason to grant any favour. Mr. Lyne � it is only four years ago since the prisoner was married, and he has had �495, and he would not be out a week before he would go and live as he did before, and be as happy as possible at other people's expense. It was then determined by the Court that the prisoner should be again remanded for the consent of the mortgage creditors to be obtained for his release, and for a satisfactory account of the whole of the furniture to be taken. If the Commissioner was satisfied, he would be discharged, but if otherwise he would have to remain till next circuit. Mr. Cragoe, the detaining creditor, was appointed assignee, and the court allowed costs for one day's opposition.
BENJAMIN CARTER - a fisherman of Newlyn west, was opposed by Mr. P. WALLIS, for James KELYNACK, another fisherman, at whose suit the prisoner had been detained for debt contracted by the prisoner's son, amounting to �5. 15s. 2d., for things supplied to that son during the illness which preceded his death. It appeared from the examination of the insolvent, that his son had died, leaving property to a considerable amount, of which the prisoner had received �447, out of which he had paid some debts of his own, but had refused to pay the debt due to the opposing creditor, although he was so peculiarly entitled to it. The Court censured the conduct of the insolvent, and said this was a case in which the Society never knew what the facts were, or it would not have afforded relief. The petitioning creditor was appointed assignee � there being still some property, it is believed, from which a trifle may be obtained. Mr. Wallis begged to apply for costs. The Commissioner. Oh I will grant you the costs of opposition, certainly. The only question is, whether this man ought to be discharged till the debt is paid.
HENRY WARMINGTON was opposed by Mr. STOKES, on behalf of Mr. Richard HARVEY, the detaining creditor, at whose suit for �45 he had been committed. It appeared that the insolvent claimed a debt from Mr. Harvey for labour, and he pleaded a set off. The insolvent brought an action in the Court of Queen's Bench for �2. 17s. 0d., and it was dismissed by the defendant obtaining a judgment of non pros. The costs which Mr. Harvey had had to pay were �45, and he complained justly at the prisoner bringing the action in a superior Court at great expense, when it might have been tried at a trifling expense in the Stannary Court. The whole of the prisoner's debts were about �27. He was a married, man, and had a wife and two children. The Court � You had better not have gone to law; and it was a case that ought to have been sued in the Stannary Court. However that is not your fault. � Discharged.
CAUTION AGAINST COLLUSION - John PHILLIPS ROGERS was opposed by Mr. STOKES, for Messrs. BESLEY and YEO, of Plymouth, cabinet-makers. The insolvent resided at Redruth, where he had carried on the business of a cabinet-maker, and his examination brought out some rather curious facts. The insolvent was lodged in gaol for a debt and costs due to the opposing creditors. His furniture was seized on the 17th of December last, and a sale took place on the 28th, after the action had commenced. DREW, the bailiff, was there with an execution after the distress had been put in. Ann PAUL, his mother-in-law, was the landlady. She claimed �105 at that time. Insolvent said he had been living in her house more than three years � his rent was �35 a year, and he had never paid her any rent. She had never distrained upon him before, but she had frequently made a demand upon him for rent. About �48 was raised by the distress. William Paul bought some of the goods. He was the brother of insolvent's wife. William ROGERS bought goods � he was insolvent's father. Mr. Paul bought some things � he was a brother-in-law. No other relation made purchases. The insolvent denied that he owed Messrs. Besley so much money as they claimed, but two letters were put in and read, in which he said he would pay their claim as soon as he could; and he allowed the action to go on against him when he owed above �800, without telling the parties that he was over head and ears in debt. The insolvent had five houses, which he had mortgaged to Mr. Paul of Redruth, his brother-in-law; the relieving-officer of that union. Henry Jeffrey produced the deed, and stated that Paul was too ill to attend. The deed was dated the 5th of December, 1838. Insolvent stated, in answer to questions, that these houses were mortgaged for �180; they let for �21 a year. He had �100 in 1833, to go into business. He had never paid any interest on the money. His mother-in-law received the rents; the houses were his wife's before marriage. Mrs. Paul levied for �105. There was nothing removed out of the house before the sale; had previously sold some of his own furniture to support his family; had sold a sofa to MICHELL, of St. Day, a cousin of his wife's, for �4. 10s., worth �6. 10s. It was the situation of his house that caused it to be so dear; his wife had no interest in that house at her mother's death unless she pleased to give it to her; had been in business about nine years.
The Commissioner. Let us see how the family stands. Is Mr. Jeffrey a relation of yours? A. Yes, Sir. The Court. I thought so, for he is down for �133. What relation is he? A. He married a sister of my wife. The Court . Then I think, according to your account, there is �619 due to your relations. A. There is a set off against that. Mr. BENNALLACK, who appeared for the insolvent said there was �100 against Jeffrey's debt on the other side. The insolvent then said that the things were not on the premises and that they had been sold by public auction. The Commissioner then called for the auctioneer's account of the sale, which stated that the goods had been sold by public auction for �18. 12s. The Commissioner said there was no evidence of its being a real sale. There is, said the Learned Commissioner, there is an act of parliament under which you should indict these auctioneers and other persons who lend themselves to these sales. It has been done in the north of England, and I wish it had been done here, for I think that this is a sham sale. Mr. Bennallack. The mother-in-law and he have quarrelled, and they have not spoken for the last nine months. It was an adverse sale. The Court. Then there is a great deal of property that was not sold at this sale, depend upon it. Mr. Bennallack. Probably there was, Sir. The Court. I want some rational account how it happens that you are so much in debt when you borrow �600 or �700 of your relations, what is done with the money? Insolvent. I had very little capital. Commissioner. Oh you had plenty of borrowed money, and what is that but capital? I am not quite prepared to believe all that you swear by a good deal. I think you have rendered a very unsatisfactory account; I will take care of this property, and I shall put it into the hands of the Clerk of the Peace to see after it, for there has been property removed and secreted. Let these documents be impounded in the hands of the Clerk of the Peace till further orders, that the creditors who oppose him may see if there has been any foul play in the matter. The Commissioner then referred to the 90th section of the Act of Parliament, relating to insolvent Debtors, in which it is enacted that any person who assists a debtor in defrauding his creditors is liable to three yearsimprisonment imprisonment. It had been held that Auctioneers were liable if they acted in collusion with the debtor, and he strongly recommended that an example should be set by a prosecution in this county, for a single conviction would do more to put the act in useful and wholesome administration than all that could be done in Court. Mr. Robert Besley was then appointed assignee � the costs were allowed and the prisoner Discharge.
A VERY SUSPICIOUS CASE. RICHARD SEYMOUR, a carpenter, of Truro, committed on the 28th of February, at the suit of William Jane OKE, an auctioneer and hatter, of Truro, came up for his discharge, but was opposed by Mr. STOKES for Messrs. JAMES and Messrs. MILFORD. Mr. Oke was neither present nor represented. The insolvent stated that he contracted this debt with Oke in 1840. It was for hats and glue-�3 for hats, �4 for glue, and �3 borrowed money; did not know that Oke usually sold glue, but he had a double quantity, and wishing to get rid of it, insolvent purchased it. Oke first sued him eight or nine weeks back � could not tell the exact date. It was just after the last Vice-Warden's Court, when he had had his furniture sold by Messrs. HARVEY, of St. Day. Mr. Oke's debt was a debt by cognovit. The Commissioner � Mr. BENNETT, don't you think that this savours a little of a collusive arrest? (Mr. Bennett is the solicitor acting for the Society, under whose auspices the prisoner came up.) Insolvent further stated that he believed Messrs. HODGE and HOCKIN were the attornies for Oke. Oke had served him with a writ two or three days before prisoner signed the cognovits. Had offered his creditors a composition of 5s. in the �, but as they would not take it he had then offered them 10s. After his goods were sold, his friends had offered 2s. 6d. Messrs. Harvey's debt was �57, and that of Messrs. James �67. Had pleaded against Messrs. James's debt. Had no buildings at all belonging to him; had carried on a decent trade. The Commissioner � Well, the only question is, whether this is not a case, where, if the plaintiff lived at hand, we should not examine the creditor and see under what circumstances he arrested this man. I think it would be a very wholesome case to make Mr. Oke file a most explicit affidavit that the arrest was not collusive. Mr. Bennallack. He owed the money. The Commissioner. I don't know that. It is worse now than when they had to make an affidavit for arrest. I think the law, instead of being strengthened, is exceedingly weakened by it. I shan't part with this gentleman till I have an affidavit, stating most distinctly that there was no collusion. Mr. Bennallack � Mr. Hockin is here. The Commissioner � Well then produce him. The case then stood over, and Mr. Bennallack eventually said that Mr. Hockin knew nothing of the transaction; the business having passed through his office in his absence. The Commissioner then ordered that an affidavit be prepared, stating most distinctly that there was no collusion, nor that Oke had caused the insolvent to be arrested at his own request, for that seemed to be the point. Mr. Silvanus JAMES and Mr. Henry Charles MILFORD were then appointed assignees and the costs of the opposition were allowed. The debtor looked exceedingly gloomy at the prospect of lying a long time in gaol.
NICHOLAS PEARCE, a farmer, lately residing at Crockadon, near Callington, was opposed by Mr. SHILLSON, for a debt incurred to Mr. RENDLE, of Tavistock, for medical attendance on his wife during her last illness. Mr. Rendle was appointed assignee, and the prisoner was discharged.
ROBERT WILSON, of St. Austell, was unopposed. He had been imprisoned at the suit of some tea-dealers in London. He had sold many of his book debts to Mr. KERR and Mr. MCKENNALL, of Truro, for 16s. in the pound. - Discharged.
THOMAS HARRIS. Lately a publican at Truro, was committed on the 9th of February, at the suit of Mr. John STEVENS, for �21. 5s. due for malt and costs of suit. The prisoner was recently landlord of the Queen's Head, and on his leaving that house he had �260, all of which he paid to his creditors. The account he gave of himself was satisfactory, and he was ordered to be discharged.
GEORGE ROBERTS POMEROY came up to be discharged from �1060 worth of debt, of which �500 were contracted by his father who died in 1827. The prisoner, who lived at Falmouth, stated that ever since his father died, and he took his debts upon him, he had been involved. He was unopposed, and the Court ordered him to be Discharged.
JOHN THOMAS, A blacksmith, of St. Austell, and lately of St. Agnes, came up and was not opposed. His debts amounted to �772, and were chiefly owing to Bristol merchants for iron used in his trade. Ordered to be Discharged.
WILLIAM CROWHURST, The keeper of a public house at Northhill, owing �50, was unopposed, and was Discharged.
JOSEPH COCKING, hatter, of Camborne, next came up. He had been arrested by Mr. YEWENS, an attorney, for �12. 10s., for which sum he had given a bill, the original debt for which Mr. Yewens had to sue him being only �4. 12s. 3d. The Court thought the case looked too much like collusion, and sent the prisoner back till an affidavit , as in the case of Seymour, was obtained from Mr. Yewens.
AFFECTING NARRATIVE. A wretched looking, wounded seaman, named Joseph FORBES, was lately introduced to Alderman PIRIE, by Mr. BROOKS, the ship owner of Broad-street, as an object of charity, from the strange and intense sufferings he had undergone for a series of years. Forbes had been lately brought from Sydney to this country in one of Mr. Brooks's vessels. The circumstances in which he had been placed for the last 16 years, (and of the accurate veracity of the statement there is no doubt,) are best detailed by himself. - "In the years 1822, I being then a boy, sailed from London in the schooner "Stedcombe," with a crew consisting of thirteen persons, bound for Melville Island, on the North coast of New Holland. The vessel proceeded to the Island of Timour Laut, for the purpose of procuring buffaloes, and the natives came on board the schooner, appearing to have the most friendly disposition towards us. An arrangement was concluded with the natives for the supply of a large cargo of buffaloes, which they stated were ready to be shipped, and the captain left the vessel in his boat with all the crew (amongst whom was my brother) with the exception of myself, John EDWARDS, another boy, the cook, and a seaman, with the intention of accomplishing the traffic. Soon after the crew landed, to my great horror, I saw them attacked by a number of the natives and savagely murdered. A few minutes after the murder of the crew, the murderers came over to the schooner in vast numbers, and seizing the cook and seaman, cut their heads off and threw their bodies overboard. Edwards and I had taken to the rigging, and witnessed the murders on the deck from thence. The natives pursued us, and after a short while, we descended in an exhausted condition, convinced that our lives would also be taken. We were, however, but mere boys, and they did not use their weapons against us. They stripped us, put us into a canoe and took us to the beach, where they compelled us to walk over the bleeding trunks of our poor shipmates, whose heads had been cut off and conveyed to the village. The schooner, after having been plundered of everything of the least value, was hauled on shore and burnt. Edwards died about three months after this dreadful transaction, leaving me the sole survivor of the "Stedcombe," crew, to linger out all the horrors and miseries of the most frightful captivity. During the 16 years of my captivity, they kept me to severe labour, such as cutting timber, cultivating yams, and other hard employments. In their wars I was compelled to accompany them, and I received two severe wounds, one in the neck, the other in the wrist, from the former of which I now suffer most bitterly. Whenever a ship appeared off the island, I was taken to a cavern, and there bound by the hands and legs. The frequent repetitions of this cruel treatment made me the poor cripple you see, with a constitution destroyed, and limbs which can scarcely perform any of their offices." Mr. Brooks said, that Sir Gordon Bremer, of her Majesty's ship "Alligator," was understood to have made an attempt to rescue Forbes, a report having reached Sydney that an Englishman was detained on the island. The seaman said he believe that such an attempt had been made, but he was found hand and foot at the time. It was to Captain WATSON, of the trading schooner "Essington," of Sydney, he was indebted for his deliverance from the dreadful slavery amongst the natives of Timor Laut. Captain Watson having been assured that an Englishman was amongst the natives, appeared off the island in March, 1839, and the natives proceeded to the vessel with their usual appearance of kindliness and goodwill. They had, however, as was evident from their conversation when the vessel approached the island, determined to seize her, and if that had been accomplished, every one of them would have been murdered. Captain Watson used the following stratagem:- He closed his ports, strongly armed his crew, and sent them below. He then allowed the natives in the first canoe to get on board, and finding one of the principal chiefs of the island amongst them peremptorily demanded the white man. The captain then ordered up his men, and compelled the natives to leave the ship, detaining only the chief, whom he was resolved never to deliver up without the exchange he required. The order was at last issued by the chief, and he (Forbes) was taken from the cavern in which he lay bound, and was once more placed amongst human beings. Mr. Brooks: He has been here six weeks, and has been attended constantly by medical men; but he had not been able to come up to the Mansion-house before this day. My object in attending here with him is to solicit the Lord Mayor's exertions in his favour. Alderman Pirie: It is a singular fact, that I, who am thus addressed on this occasion, was the very person who sold the schooner just before she went upon her fatal voyage. It will give me the most sincere pleasure to receive subscriptions for the benefit of the sufferer, and I will commence myself with �5. I shall answer for the readiness with which the Lord Mayor will aid in the cause.
23 APRIL 1841, Friday
WESLEYAN METHODIST SOCIETY. JOSEPH FLETCHER, formerly a missionary in the East and West Indies. Also stationed for some years after 1825 in Demerara. The Rev. A. STEAD formerly stationed in the island of Ceylon, in the course of his duties sailed 40,000 miles, travelled hundreds of miles under a vertical sun, taken the trouble to learn two languages, one of which was exceedingly difficult, and in those languages had preached for several years with great success. The Rev. H. DAVIES read an interesting extract from the journal of the Rev. John WATERHOUSE, who had been recently visiting the Polynesian Islands in the South Seas, and had addressed (through Mr. WOON, who was formerly of Truro), a large body of converted New Zealanders.
GRATIFYING TRIBUTE TO A CLERGYMAN. The Rev. T. PEARCE, M.A., having been appointed to the living of Roche, his late parishioners at Tywardreath have presented him with a richly embossed service of sacramental plate, inclosed in a handsomely carved oaken case, as testimony of their respect and regard. It is much larger than the ordinary pocket size, and is of the most exquisite workmanship. The cup is five inches high, having around it a wreath of vine leaves, grapes, and ears of corn. The salver and bottle are of corresponding size and are richly cha(?)ed. It was manufactured by Mr. RAMSEY, of Fore-street, Devonport and is highly creditable to the taste and talent of that eminent silversmith. The case is made of old oak, taken from Tywardreath church, when it was re-seated, an improvement for which the parish was mainly indebted to Mr. Pearce's exertions. It is of Gothic design, and is divided into compartments in which are shields bearing the arms of the parish, with other appropriate devices. In the centre is represented Saint Andrew, the patron Saint, with his cross, on which is a shield of silver with the following inscription. "This case, made of the old oak of Tywardreath church, and the Sacramental Plate it contains, are presented to the Rev. Thomas Pearce, M.A., by the parishioners of Tywardreath, on his leaving them. The former as a tribute of gratitude for his exertions in re-seating and beautifying the church of their fathers, the latter as a memento of their sense of his worth in having during a period of twenty years' Ministry, faithfully preached Jesus Christ and him crucified 1841." The chest is throughout very highly ornamented; and the design and workmanship reflect great credit on the talented artist, Mr. Julyan GLANVILLE, of St. Austell. On Easter Monday a deputation from the parish waited on the Rev. Gentleman at Roche Rectory, and presented him with this elegant gift, together with a suitable address. Both the address, and Mr. Pearce's answer have been very kindly sent to us; but we regret to say that it is utterly out of our power to find room for them.
GALLANTRY REWARDED. An honorary reward has been conferred on Captain Stephen HAYES, of St. Mawes, by her Majesty the Queen of Spain, for his gallantry in saving the crew and passengers of a Spanish vessel in Majorca.
CAMELFORD. A woman from Tintagel, called MUTTON, walked to this place on Friday last, a distance of five miles, to make an application to the Board of Guardians, though in her 99th year.
TRURO POLICE. On Friday last, John ROWE, of Truro was fined 5s. and costs, for assaulting Mr. COURTIES, who had recently lived with him as a servant; and on Monday, Mary Ann SANDERS was committed to the house of correction for a month, for riotous and disorderly conduct. There was a charge of pocket picking against another female of similar character, but the complainant not appearing, she was discharged. On Wednesday last, two boys named DORCEAU and MARGUET, belong to a French vessel laying at Malpus, "La Tour d'Auvergne," J. CASSARD, master, were brought before W.T. CHAPPEL, and W.P. KEMPE, Esqrs., charged with an assault upon two tide waiters, named TRESIDDER and ARTHUR, occupied on board the vessel. It appeared on the investigation of the case that although the boys were said to have attempted to stab the complainants, it was a paltry squabble, in which the latter did not at all appear to advantage, and the bench, after inquiring very minutely into the case, fined each of the boys 6d. and ordered all the parties to pay their own costs.
FALMOUTH QUARTER SESSIONS. These sessions were held on Thursday, the 15th instant, before Thomas PAYNTER, Esq., Recorder, and the Borough Magistrates. After an eloquent charge from the Learned Recorder, a true bill having been found, William SANDOE was placed at the bar, charged with having fraudulently made away with certain goods (��..?) to him for sale. The goods it appeared had been pledged, and the case against the prisoner having been clearly proved, he was found Guilty, and sentenced to Two Months' Imprisonment. On the motion of Mr. GENN, the conviction of Messrs. JACOB for illegally taking goods in pledge was quashed, on the ground of informality in the record, the place where the offence was alleged to have been committed not being stated therein. The Recorder having resigned his office, in consequence of his appointment as magistrate for one of the districts adjoining the metropolis, a suitable address was delivered to him by the foreman of the grand jury, E. C. CARNE, Esq., for which the learned gentleman returned his sincere thanks.
HELSTON QUARTER SESSIONS. These sessions were held on Wednesday, the 14th instant, before Thomas Paynter, Esq., the recorder and the borough magistrate. Henry FLAMANK, was indicted for stealing oats from Frederick HILL, Esq. The prosecutor being absent, the trial was postponed to the next sessions, and the prisoner admitted to bail. Benjamin BAMFIELD, for stealing a cwt. of coals from Mr. Henry ALLEN, innkeeper, was acquitted.
VERYAN. During the last few days, the ground-seans at Pendower beach have brought in great quantities of fine mackerel. The float-seans and drivers on this coast have, as yet, done nothing worth mentioning.
PADSTOW. On Thursday last, there was picked up at St Minows, near Trevese Head, a board about 9 feet long and 9 inches wide, with gilt mouldings, marked "City of Waterford," in large white letters, on a white round. It appeared to be either the head or stern-post of a wrecked vessel. Several pieces of plank which looked like the fragments of a vessel's bulwarks, were also picked up.
PORT ISAAC. On Monday last, a boat about 20 feet long was picked up off this place. She is of fir, and clinker built. There is no name to be seen.
SUICIDE. On Tuesday morning last, a beer-shop keeper, named COCK, residing at St. Austell, committed suicide, by hanging himself in his brew-house. It appears he had got up early to brew, and on his mother-in-law coming down stairs soon after six o'clock, she found him as stated. An alarm was given, and he was cut down; but, on medical assistance being procured, he was found to be quite dead. It came out on the inquest, which was held the following day before J. HAMLEY, Esq., coroner, that deceased had for some time being labouring under strange delusions, and had given evident symptoms of aberration of mind. The jury, in consequence, returned a verdict of insanity.
AWFULLY SUDDEN ACCIDENT. Yesterday evening, as a driver, named Edmund PENGLAZE, in the employ of Mr. FARQUHARSON, of the Red Lion Hotel, Truro, was proceeding with a carriage from the stables round to the centre of the town, the off rein broke in turning the corner by Mr. SLEEMAN, the druggist's shop, and the horses immediately started and went in a contrary direction towards the St. Austell road. The driver wished to get them up Mitchell-hill, but in the attempt, the horses ran against the wall of the George and Dragon, and the driver was precipitated into the road. He was immediately taken up, and it was found that his frontal bone was broken. Medical aid was immediately obtained, but we are sorry to say, that it was utterly useless, as the poor fellow expired in a quarter of an hour. The deceased was formerly of Bodmin, and was unmarried. An inquest was held on the body at nine o'clock the same evening, and a verdict returned of "Accidental death".
COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Monday, April 19. PALMER v. GRAY. This cause was tried at the last assizes for Cornwall, and a verdict found for the plaintiff with �90 damages, subject to the opinion of the court as to the construction of a guarantee on which the action was brought. Sergeant BOMPAS now moved for leave to enter the verdict for the defendant. The guarantee was given by Samuel Gray to obtain credit for his nephew, James Gray, and it was in these words; "I promise to pay for any goods James Gray may take up.-26th June, 1837," and signed by the defendant. What he now contended on the part of the defendant was, that the guaranteed was limited to goods taken up by James Gray on the 26th June. On the other side, it was insisted that the words "26th June, 1837," was merely the date of the guarantee, and did not limit the defendant's responsibility. It appeared, however, that James Gray had taken up �17 worth of goods on the 26th of June, and that amount was paid to the plaintiff, and that the defendant, before further credit was given, had stated to the plaintiff and that the defendant, before further credit was given, had stated to the plaintiff that he was only answerable for such goods as should be taken up on the 26th of June. Even if the guarantee should be continued as a general guarantee, it was quite clear that the defendant had a right to put an end to it, and give notice that he should not consider himself liable for goods supplied after the notice. Baron PARKE said that whatever might have been the intention of the parties, looking at the writing, the court could come to no other conclusion than that it was a general guarantee, and not limited to goods supplied on the 26th of June. It was quite true the defendant might give notice that he wished to put an end to the guarantee, and the plaintiff after such notice could not hold him liable under it, but here the defence was not pleaded, the defendant had contented himself with a mere denial of the contract declared upon. Rule refused.
QUEEN'S BENCH. Saturday April, 17. PETHERICK v. ENGLISH and others. This was an action for work and labour. The plaintiff was the captain and cashier of a mine in Cornwall, and four of the defendants were members of the committee of management of that mine, and the fifth (a person named WASKETT) was alleged to be a shareholder in the company. The action was brought to recover the amount of two bills of exchange drawn upon the committee of management for the time being, and accepted by two of the defendants. Waskett was not a party to the acceptance. These facts were proved at the trial of the cause before Lord DENMAN, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff. Mr. THESIGER now applied for a rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial, on the ground of misdirection. This mining company had been established by the defendant English. Waskett had only purchased twenty shares in the company. They had been entered in the name of his wife, and he had attended two or three meetings of shareholders. According to the whole course of the proceedings usual in cases of mining concerns, the bills drawn on the company were always accepted by the directors. It had been insisted that where bills were so accepted, the whole company was liable, but in the present case the answer was that the bills were not accepted by the directors of the company, but by a committee of management, and consequently, the defendant, who was a mere shareholder in the company, could not be liable. But, indeed, the case was still stronger in his favour, for he was not properly even a shareholder, for the only shares in which he was interested were purchased and entered in the name of his wife, and he himself had never interfered in the business of the company. Lord DENMAN said, that he himself had always thought that if a man had a share in a company, and acted on that knowledge, he must be held to be liable, but it would, perhaps, be as well that that point should be distinctly settled, and it should be known whether circumstances such as existed in the present case were sufficient to make a man liable as a shareholder. As to the other point, the question left to the jury had been whether the defendant Waskett had acted as if he was a member of the committee of management. The whole case was perhaps worth being reconsidered. � Rule granted.
HENWOOD v. OLIVER. In this action, which was tried at our last assizes, a verdict was given for the defendant, with liberty for the plaintiff to move to enter a verdict for the plaintiff on the ground of the tender being insufficient. The plaintiff has accordingly moved the Court of Queen's Bench, but a rule has been refused, and consequently, the verdict for defendant remains undisturbed.
LONDON GAZETTE. Tuesday, April 20, 1841. Commissions signed by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Cornwall. The Honourable Edward Granville ELIOT, commonly called Lord Eliot, to be Deputy Lieutenant; Augustus CORYTON, Esq., to be ditto; April 2.
QUEEN'S HEAD AND COMMERCIAL INN, ST. AUSTELL. David STICKLAND, Begs to inform Commercials, Mine Agents, Farmers, and other Gentlemen visiting the town, as well as the public generally, that he has succeeded Mr. T. BELL in the above Inn, where he intends carrying on the business in all its branches, as done by his predecessor, and he trusts by strict attention to business, and a general study to the comforts of his customers, to ensure a continuance of the liberal patronage hitherto shown towards his old established Inn. Choice Wines, genuine Spirits, prime Scotch and other Ales, always on hand. Well-sired Beds, good Stabling, and lock-up Coach-Houses. Excellent Post Horses, Carriages and Gigs, let on hire. April 21, 1841.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE WEST BRITON. Sir, With reference to the enquiry of your correspondent, signing himself "A Cornishman," on the subject of April Fools, I beg to refer him to Times Telescope for the year 1814, page 79, where the following explanation will be found: "The making of April Fools, after all the conjectures which have been formed touching its origin, is certainly borrowed by us from the French, and may, I think, be deduced from this simple analogy. The French call them April Fish, (Poissons d'Avril), i.e. simpletons or in other words, 'silly mackerel,' who suffer themselves to be caught in this month." We, I conclude, have substituted the word "Fools" or "Fish," intimating that people who suffer themselves to be taken in, are just as great simpletons as the "Poissons d'Avril." By your insertion of this, you will oblige, Yours, &c.,&c., "PEDN' AN LAAZ." April 14th, 1841.
30 APRIL 1841, Friday
FOR QUEBEC. The fine, fast-sailing, coppered Barque, "Lady Fitzherbert," Capt. James HOOPER, burthen about seven-hundred tons, will be ready to sail from this port on or about the 8th of May next, wind and weather permitting. This fine Vessel has accommodations of the most superior description for Cabin, Steerage and between Deck Passengers. For Freight or Passage, apply to Capt. HOOPER, on board, in Hamoaze(?); or to Mr. Thomas RESTARICK, Mutton-Cove, Devonport. Devonport, April 14, 1841.
LAUNCHES. On Thursday, the 22nd inst., a splendid schooner, called the
"Minalto," was launched from the building yard of Mr. Wm. MUMFORD. This
vessel, which registers 200 tons, is the property of the St. Mary's Shipping Company, and is destined for the Foreign trade, being now chartered to load wine at Bordeaux for the Mauritius, and is to be commanded by Mr. Stephen TREGARTHEN, late master of the "Mincarlo." The next day a new pilot cutter, called the "Agnes," burthen per register 35 tons, the property of several branch pilots and others of the Island of St. Agnes, was launched from the same yard. On the 8th instant, a very handsome smack called the "Temperance," completely rigged and with colours flying, was launched from Mr. TREDWEN's building yard into his dock at Padstow. She is a very strong-built, and at the same time very pleasant looking little craft, and promises fair for sailing qualities as well as for carrying a large cargo. She is to be commanded by Captain Theophilus HOSKIN, of Port Isaac, who is the principal owner.
PROVIDENTIAL ESCAPE. On Wednesday, the 21st instant, as Capt. PUCKEY, of St. Blazey, the mining managing agent of J. T. TREFFRY, Esq., was performing his round on horseback, on his way to Par Consols, in the west Fowey Consols Mine, and whilst riding along the towing path of the canal, his horse, being a very spirited animal, took fright at the flapping of some clothes which had just been put out to dry, and instantly leaped with his rider over the sloping part of the canal into the water, and both went to the bottom. Capt. Puckey fortunately slipped his feet from the stirrups, and on coming to the surface swam towards the bank, his horse taking the opposite direction, and neither having sustained the least injury. Capt. Puckey had his horse almost immediately brought to him, when he backed him, and rode full speed to his house; and after having given orders that the greatest care should be taken of the horse, and changed his clothes, he proceeded on his route on foot. Capt. Puckey says that in coming out of the water he
found a difference in the atmosphere equal to that of the deep level in
Fowey Consols Mine, which he had only left about three hours before.
CORONERS' INQUESTS. On Thursday last, before Wm. HICHENS, Esq., on the
body of Robert WOOLCOCK, of St. Just. It appeared that the deceased, in
ascending through a scuttle-hole at Boswednan mine, fell, through one of the boards giving way, a distance of seven or eight feet, upon his temple, and received a fracture from which he died on the following morning. Verdict, Accidental death. On Saturday last, at Gwinear, on the body of Edmund ANGOVE, who came by his death while employed in a shaft where four men were lifting a pump. An engine rod having struck the pump, knocked it out of the hands of the persons lifting it, and it fell upon the deceased and laid the fore part of his head completely open. Verdict, accidental death. On Monday, at the preventive station, Prussia Cove, in Breage, on the bodies of Lieut. SMITH and Henry WELLSPRING, who were drowned on the 22nd of March last while going to the relief of the crew of the "Mary Stuart," of Cardiff. Verdict, accidentally drowned.
On Friday last, before J. HAMLEY, Esq., on James HOOPER, a miner, who was killed in Fowey Consols mine. He was working on a stute which gave way, when he fell several fathoms, and was filled on the spot. Accidental Death.
On the same day, at Fowey, on a child called John PEARCE, aged about four years, in consequence of his clothes taking fire. The mother was only absent a few minutes, but the child was so burnt that after lingering a few days he died. Verdict accordingly. On Saturday last, on Ambrose COCK, a miner, at Calstock. He was working underground in a mine near Calstock, when a large rock and some rubbish fell on him, and burying him, he was killed on the spot. Accidental Death.
On Monday last, on Richard LOBB, a workman in the Cliff Quarries at
Tintagel. He was killed by a stone falling from a kibble, which struck him on the back; he lived a few hours, but never spoke after the accident. His back was broken. Verdict, accidental death.
On Monday last, before J. CARLYON, Esq., at Redruth, on the body of Jemima Goldsworthy, a little girl 7 years of age, who came by her death under the following circumstances: It appeared that the deceased and three other children about the same age, had put some potatoes to bake in the ashes of some peat which was burning in a field, and on taking them out the deceased caught her clothes on fire. A person named NANCARROW heard the child's screams, and immediately ran to her assistance. The burning clothes were torn off and the flames extinguished, but the child was so shockingly burnt that she only survived a few hours. Verdict, accidental death.
DESIRABLE OPPORTUNITY OF A PASSAGE TO AMERICA. The barque "Pero," Charles COLENSO, master, of the burthen of 350 Tons, will sail direct for Miramichi, on or about the sixth day of May next, wind and weather permitting. This vessel has just undergone a most extensive outfit, and will have very comfortable accommodations for passengers. There is a regular communication between Miramichi and all parts of Upper and Lower Canada, and the United States. For further particulars apply to the Master on board the barque, in the Dry Dock, or at the office of MATHEWS and Co., ship-builders, Dock-street, Penzance. April 21, 1841.
POETS' CORNER. Sir, the following verses were composed on the occasion of the "Amelia Thompson" sailing from the port of Plymouth, with emigrants for New Zealand; when, as the vessel passed by the "Impregnable," three-decker, then lying in the sound, the yards of that noble ship were manned, and three hearty cheers were given by her crew to their adventurous fellow-countrymen, while the band played the national airs. Many of the emigrants were from Cornwall and Devon and these lines may therefore be pleasing to some of your readers as a memento of the occasion. Should they hereafter be seen by any of the voluntary exiles, with one of whom their author is nearly connected,
they will convey an assurance of the lively sympathy which attended their departure from their native land. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Henry Sewell Stokes, Truro, April 20th, 1841.
GOOD SPEED THE SHIP! Her anchor's up, Her sails are spreading in the
breeze; With filling eyes and foaming cup We now commit her to the seas;
And, as she leaves Old England's shore, Hark! From yon stately vessel's
side, What well-known strains are waited o'er The waves, that swell with
conscious pride; See - see the 'meteor flag' unfurl'd, At once the lofty
yards are mann'd, And with such cheers as daunt the world The bold
adventurers leave their native land.
God speed the Ship to that far Isle, Where in the vast Pacific Main Another Albion seems to smile, And Britons find their homes again; Green hills appear, with streamlets clear, And waving woods, and showery skies, And Ocean loves to murmur there, While many an echoing cave replies: There birds chime in the matin hour, And when the trembling stars grow bright, Sweet voices from the woodland bower Remind the swain of England's summer night (1)
God speed the Ship! Her company Have hearts as tender as they're true; Good bark! Oh , bear them gallantly The deep's tempestuous perils through; A dear, a sacred charge is thine, Good ship! Be staunch, be strong, be swift; Soon may the glorious Southern Sign Its Cross above the waters lift, To prompt, perchance, some grateful hymn, 'A holy and a cheerful note,' Such as did once on Ocean's brim By the remote Bermudas sweetly float. (2)
God speed the Ship! For conscience-sake No more the Briton leaves his home, In Trans-Atlantic wilds to make With forest boughs his temple-dome; Not thus with cheers and blessings went The Pilgrim Fathers from the coast; Some silent prayers to Heav'n were sent For good men to their country lost - Few - few to bid farewell stood by, and hastening from the lonely shore, The exiles, 'neath a lowering sky, Heard but the sea-bird's scream and billow's road.
God speed the Ship! God speed the ship! To all on board a long adieu! In
the broad waves the white sails dip, and soon elude my anxious view; Yet, like the faithful Albatross, In thought I'll track the rapid bark; With her the burning Line I'll cross, and seek the Bay with pine-woods dark, Where,safe from storms, on some blithe morrow, The eager crew will leap to land, And on the soil their ploughs shall furrow The flag of England plant, 'mid cheers that shake the strand.
(1). Describing one of the first days he spent in Queen Charlotte's Sound, the great navigator Cook, says - "The ship lay at a distance of somewhat less than a quarter of a mile from the shore, and in the morning we were awakened by the singing of the birds. The number was incredible, and they seemed to strain their throats in emulation of each other. This wild melody was infinitely superior to any that we had ever heard of the same kind: it seemed to be like small bells, exquisitely tuned." (2). See Andrew Marvel's hymn of "The Emigrants." "Where the remote Bermudas ride, In th' ocean's bosom unespy'd, From a small boat that row'd along, the list'ning
winds received their song."
EXTRACT FROM HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. GROTE rose to move a series of
propositions, framed with a view to the conclusion, that the colonial land fund had been sadly saddled with the large expenses of police and gaols, the burden whereof ought to have been shared by the mother country. The mother country, he argued, would have had a very heavy annual charge to bear for the maintenance of her own convicts at home, if she had not fixed the present arrangement upon the colonists, and it was unjust that she should thus throw the cost exclusively on the colonial treasury. He enlarged upon the importance of emigration, and urged that for every �10,000 subtracted from the land fund to answer this gaol and police charge, 600 labourers were deprived of the opportunity of changing a state of destitution here for an adequate subsistence in the colony, of which indeed the prosperity was now
seriously checked by the impossibility of procuring labour. The productiveness of the land fund itself depended mainly on the use made of the proceeds, for purchasers would not buy tracts of land to continue waste, but were willing enough to pay good prices where they understood that what they were giving for the land itself would bring them the hands required for its cultivation. He cited the opinions of Lords Goderich and Glenelg, both of whom had been Secretaries for the Colonial Department, in favour of restricting the application of the land fund to the purposes of emigration. He did not now ask the House to make provision for making repayment to the land fund, however that might be required by the justice of the case - he only desired a committee for the consideration of the whole subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to the complaint of injustice toward the colony, made a recapitulation of the measures taken by the government
during some years past, from which it appeared, that if the particular
expense in question had been newly thrown upon the colonists, yet, for a
part at least of that expense, there had been financial equivalents given to them, of which Mr. Grote had taken no notice. The general principle ought to be, that each colony should pay its own internal charges, and the mother country merely the charges of general protection. It was true, that of late years the expenses of this colony had increased; but the mother country, notwithstanding the modern arrangements complained of, was still paying as much as ever on the colony's account; and he enumerated a variety of items to make good that allegation. He suspected that recurrence to the system which was in force before the present role was established, would not be found either gainful or satisfactory to the colony. With respect to the land fund, he agreed in the general principle that it was fitly appropriate
to emigration; with some reserve, however, as to harbours, roads, bridges, and such other objects as would tend, equally with labour itself, to effect an improvement in the value of the land. But he could not concur in a vote of money for repaying sums withdrawn from the land fund. If the House were prepared to give �40,000 or �50,000, for the assistance of emigration, which by such a vote they would substantially be doing, it would be better to give that sum directly, and in a way which would keep the control of it in their own hands. Mr. C. Buller said, that even a direct vote of �40,000 or �50,000, in the shape just mentioned, might perhaps be by no means inexpedient, under all the circumstances of domestic pressure. The burden borne by this colony was unreasonably large - much larger, in proportion, than the burden borne by the mother country herself; and it was imposed upon them, not by their own representatives, for they were unrepresented, but by the government at home. He enlarged upon the great advantage to a colony of
an expenditure upon labour, as being a source of increased revenue; but
thought the government had now been killing the goose that laid the gold
eggs. The recent abolition of the assignment system had been a great
hardship on the colonists, and it had been aggravated by the alienation, at the very same moment, of this fund through which free labourers might have been obtained. He trusted that Lord John Russell would give full consideration to the expediency of maintaining the funds for emigration; for the colonial government of that Noble Lord had been marked by a great improvement on that of his predecessors, and by an inclination to adopt every sound suggestion thrown out in debate. Lord Mahon concurred in the policy which had abolished the assignment system. On the best mode of giving the relief now needed he would pronounce no opinion; the motion being for a committee, did not pledge the House to any particular course, and he would give his vote in support of it. Lord J. Russell said, that the Colonial office was constantly receiving applications from various colonies for remission of particular payments now defrayed by them; he instanced the Ionian Islands, Ceylon, and Jamaica. But of all the complaining colonies,
New South Wales was that which had least ground for complaint. A state of low wages and bad food, as in Ireland, was a state of distress; but a state of high wages and great demand for labour, was a state not of distress, but only of retarded prosperity. The actual number of labourers in New South Wales had not diminished, but increased; and this in great measure through the acts done by the mother country. He admitted that if all moral and religious considerations were excluded, slave labour would conduce to a colony's prosperity, and the assignment system was a system of slave-labour; but it was a system which, had it been continued, must have led to the most injurious consequences; and this colony therefore had been doubly fortunate, first in getting the foundation of her material prosperity, and afterwards in superinducing another prosperity, of a political and moral character. He referred to the rapid increase of the colony's revenue, and to the lightness of its taxation. The customs duties were the only taxes borne by the colonists, for the revenue produced by the sale of land was not a duty borne by them. Therefore it was not just to represent them as burdened more heavily than the people of this country; nay, in truth, they bore a tenth of the proportion borne by the English people. The proper contribution from England to her colonies was in the shape of national defence, from that cost the colonists were wholly free. He fully admitted the value and importance of emigration. But the people who most wished to quit the mother country were not always the persons most required in the colonies. The distressed weaver of Glasgow was not very fit for the rural tasks of New South Wales (hear). The problem was, therefore, by no means so simple as it had been supposed. Government did not desire to stop emigration to New South Wales. On the contrary, they were anxious to promote it; and the question on which they differed from Mr. Grote was merely whether, in order to aid emigration,
�50,000 a year should be voted from the taxes of this country. As to the
suggestion made about representation, he trusted that the present objections to such institutions, arising from the large proportion of convict inhabitants, were speedily passing away as the character of the population improved. Sir W. Molesworth argued that the just obligation on the colony to maintain gaols and police was only in proportion to the number of its own criminals; there was no pretence for loading it with the whole expense of British convicts. He contended that the whole net produce of the land sales should be invariably applied to emigration; for the only means of purifying the colony was to swamp the convicts with free labourers. Would England refuse this paltry sum of �50,000 or �60,000 for such advantages? Sir R. Peel said, the same argument might just as well be urged for making grants towards the transmission of emigrants to the other colonies. He did not deny the importance of such general considerations; but they were not fitly put forward on a question whether a sum should be voted to one particular
colony. The annual expense actually incurred by the mother country for the present military defence of New South Wales was now �320,000 to say nothing of the contingent expenses which war might additionally impose. The growth of that colony's prosperity had been unexampled. This had chiefly arisen from the peculiar command given to it of the labour of convicts; and it was just that the expense connected with those convicts should be borne by the party which had so largely profited by it. The mother country did not take to herself one shilling of the produce of the land sales. He could not look without alarm at the present state of the nation's finance, and indeed at the state of finance in other nations, especially when he saw a country spending millions in needless fortifications, and, instead of improving the
opportunities of peace, encouraging the feelings that issue in war (hear). Mr. Ward censored the unsteadiness of the government policy with respect to the application of the land fund. He thought the colony had the clearest possible claim of justice. Sir R. Inglis considered New South Wales as having established a moral and an equitable claim for reimbursement. Sir C. Grey denied the claim. He observed that all the lands of all the colonies originally belonged to the crown, and that the appropriation of them to the transport of labour had been an act of the greatest liberality on the part of the mother country. Mr. Hume could not consent to increase the taxes of this country for such a purpose; but he dilated on the necessity of a representative constitution for New South Wales. Mr. Grote replied, after which the motion was negatived by a majority of 52 against 8.
SHERIFFS' COURT. Crim. Con. This was an action brought by Harry Dent
GORING, Esq., against Edward TRELAWNY, Esq. The plaintiff laid his damages at �4,000, and the defendant having suffered judgment to go by default, the jury, of whom Sir Henry ELLIS was foreman, were not called upon to assess the damages under a writ of inquiry. Mr. THESSIGER observed that this inquiry, if gone into, would give much pain to a very great number of persons, and as he understood that in the course of detailing the criminal intercourse that had taken place between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife, circumstances would transpire that would go in extenuation of the conduct of the defendant, he took upon himself the responsibility of coming to an arrangement with his learned friend Mr. AUSTIN. With this view they had consulted together, and he was happy to inform the jury that the result was that they would be saved the difficulty of assessing the damages, and would be prevented from hearing the particulars of the most distressing and painful circumstances connected with this case. He had agreed to accept a
verdict for the plaintiff for �100. The jury, under the direction of the
learned Under-Sheriff, then found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages,
�100.
BRITISH SEAMEN. A small Pamphlet has just made its appearance, entitled
'the condition and claims of British seamen, with a plan for their
improvement, by W. H. BOND, Purser of H.M. Ship 'Astrea(?),' which we have persued with pleasure, and strongly recommend to the serious attention of the British public. It is high time that steps should be taken for the improvement of a class of men so important to the welfare of the nation as our seamen; and the plan suggested by Mr. Bond appears to us to be at once practicable and efficient. We shall therefore, rejoice to see it taken up with spirit, and carried into effect upon a scale sufficiently large to meet the necessities of the case.
PENRYN. The anniversary of the Penryn Branch of the Shipwrecked Mariners and Fishermen's Benevolent Society, was held on Monday, April the 19th, Sir C. LEMON, Bart., M.P., in the chair, when resolutions were moved and seconded by Archdeacon SHEEPSHANKS, Dr. COPE, Messrs. W. EDGCOME, R. RICHARDS, and M. PARSONS.
APPOINTMENT - Mr. HEARD, of Truro, has been appointed by the Lords
Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to the office of Sub-Distributor of Stamps for that town, vacant by the decease of Mr. WHITFORD, who held the situation for nearly 30 years.
SCILLY - Capt. Joseph DOUGLAS, who has just received the honour of
knighthood for his gallantry in repairing with his ship to Canton, and there supplying the want of a man-of-war, by affording protection to the
commercial shipping, is a grandson of the late Dr. LEGGATT, of St. Mary's. His father, who was in the India Service, is dead; but his mother and two sisters reside here. Sir Joseph Douglas, who is about 46 years of age, married a lady of this place, Miss Martha WARSELL, daughter of Capt. Warsell, of the Revenue Service.
EDWARDS v. FREAN and ANOTHER. In this case, which was tried before Mr.
Justice WIGHTMAN at the last Cornwall Assizes, and in which a verdict was had for the plaintiff, damages �37, Mr. CROWDER applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside on the ground of its being against evidence. The question in the case was whether there was a partnership between the defendant Frean and his brother at the time the goods were sold to him. The evidence was of a very uncertain nature, and a jury impannelled on the following day to try another action against the same defendants, found a verdict the other way. Mr. Justice Wightman said there were discrepancies in the evidence of the two principal witnesses on the second trial. The court granted the rule.
NEW BRITISH PROVINCE VICTORIA - Most favourable intelligence having been
received of the arrival of the settlers by the "Rose," at Port St. George, Notice is Hereby Given, that the first-class Ship "Emma," 500 tons burden, will leave the West India Docks positively on the 12th of May next. The Directors of the British Central American Land Company continue to grant Land Orders addressed to their superintendent at Robert Town for Sections of 100 acres each in this healthy and fertile province, at �1 per acre, with free passage and provisions for the purchase and five labourers, to each section, or in that proportion. Persons having paid Deposits on Sections of Land, and intending to proceed by the present conveyance, are requested to forward the balance to the undersigned, at the offices of the Company, 68, Old Broad-street, London. Agent for Falmouth, Mr. E. P. WILLIAMS, 23, Dunstanville Terrace. By order, C. F. SMITH, Secretary.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE WEST BRITON. Sir, Permit me, through the medium of
your columns, to draw the attention of the authorities to the state of our town, which is far worse than it has been for some years past. The streets are infested by characters of the most abandoned kind, and to such an extent does this prevail, that a modest female can scarcely go out after dusk without being insulted at almost every corner. I see also that vagrants are becoming much more numerous, and within two hours one day last week I know a neighbour who had a visit from three of this description, all begging. The pavements, too, are frequently by day so blocked up, that it is impossible for passengers to make use of them. I know not whether it be from the inactivity of the Police, or the apathy of the Magistracy, that these nuisances have so increased of late; but the contrast between the present state of things and that which existed under the government of our late Mayor, must be apparent to every observer. Trusting that this may meet the eyes of those who can remedy the evils complained of, I am, Sir, your obedient servant, An Inhabitant. Truro, April 28, 1841.
[END]
[ BACK ]