JULY 1838 NEWS
JULY 5
LOCAL NEWS
CELEBRATION of the CORONATION – further postings (see June 29 issue for examples)
St. Day Hayle
Isles of Scilly Penryn
Perranzabuloe Penryn Male Union House
Hayle Foundry & one or two other short mentions
…………….
EDITORIAL
The Coronation is over, and the Marquis of Londonderry has had no dinner. The Coronation is over, and still the Whigs are in office, and Sir Francis Burdett is not made a Peer. Yet, in spite of these sad events, we believe that never did a Coronation call forth more general joy, or give more general satisfaction, except to the disappointed Tories. The great Public act by which the Queen of these realms is recognized by her subjects, and undertakes to rule her people with justice, with equity, and with mercy, has been performed with the most striking solemnity, and appropriate splendour. …..
……………..
MIDSUMMER QUARTER SESSIONS [sentences shown in next week’s issue]
[Debate was held over accepting persons into the Lunatic
Asylum from
William NANCOLESS, 21, chimney-sweeper, was charged with stealing a flour-sack, the property of William SATTERLY of Penryn. Richard Satterly son of the prosecutor stated that on the 26th of April, he collected four sacks, which he took home. Mr. William Corfield stated that on the evening in question he saw the prisoner enter into the prosecutor’s house, and come out with a bundle under his arm. He afterwards informed prosecutor, and counted his sacks. There were only three remaining.
Thomas MAY stated that he kept a lodging-house at Penryn, and the prisoner lodged with him. On the evening of the 26th, the prisoner came home with a bundle, which he wished to put up the chimney. Witness, however, ordered his daughter to throw it out of doors into the street.
Mrs. Martha Williams saw a bundle thrown into the street, which she picked up, and found to be a flour sack.
Nathaniel Mead produced the sack, which was identified as the property of the prosecutor. The prisoner’s confession was then put in and read, but he now stated that he had found the sack in question in the street. Guilty.
……………………………
William RETALLACK was charged with stealing 20 guineas, 23 half-guineas, and 23 seven-shilling pieces, the property of William PARKIN, of St. Columb Major. Another count charged the prisoner with stealing certain monies, the property of some person or persons unknown. The case was conducted by Mr. E. Coode, the prisoner being defended by Mr. E. Lyne.
Mr. E. Coode stated that the
circumstances of this case were of rather a peculiar nature. The prisoner lived in the house in a place
called Trevanennion, in the parish of St. Columb Major, which he rented of Mr. William PARKIN. Before the prisoner lived there, Mr. Parkin’s father lived there, and he died about 20 years
since. Whilst he lived there, it was
supposed that he had a large sum of money in the house, and having lost some of
it, a considerable search was made on the premises, and the prisoner was one of
those who assisted the prosecutor in the making of that search. Nothing, however, was discovered till about
the month of May last. It was then seen
that the prisoner, who had been previously a poor man, was in possession of a
considerable sum of money, and in consequence of that, application was made to
him, when he had assisted in searching for before, and applying it to his own
use. He had disposed of part of it in
one-way and part in another, and part was still remaining in the Western
District Bank, at
William Parkin was then called, and stated that his father who lived in St. Columb, was named John Parkin; he died about 21 years ago; the prisoner lived in his father’s house in last November, and had previously occupied it for six years; the prisoner was formerly his apprentice; in consequence of a supposed treasure that was hid there, witness searched the house about two years before his father’s death; witness told him that his father had misplaced some money, and they searched under the principal; witness could not find the money, but held the prisoner up in his arms, he being smaller, to put his hand into the place where it was supposed the money was lost behind one of the principals of the roof. Nothing was found. Mary Rowe searched along with them. In the month of May last, the prisoner came to witness on the farm about some money. He had previously sent witness a note by Mary Gummow, stating that he had found the money. The note was brought to witness open; believed the note now produced to be the one. The prosecutor then proceeded to detail a conversation which he had had with the prisoner, in which the latter confessed that he had found the money in the house – that he had applied some of it to his own use – that GBP 10 which was in the Western District Bank was all that he had remaining, but that he would willingly give that up if Mr. Parkin would forgive him, and be to him as he had before Mary Gummow afterwards brought an obligation for the GBP 10. In the conversation with the prisoner, the latter said that he had not found the money under the principal but in the bed. He also said that it was thought there were many [hundreds of] guineas, but there was only about […] guineas, though there were many […] seven […] and half guineas.
In his cross-examination the witness stated that the house had been occupied by different members of the family up to the time of the prisoner taking it about six years ago.
Mary Rowe stated that she looked with the prisoner and Mr. Parkin for the lost treasure at the time stated by the last witness, but it was not then found.
Wm. Woon detailed the circumstances of the prisoner calling upon him for his advice as to how he should act when it was discovered that he had found the money. The witness recommended him, as he wished to do that, and witness therefore drew up a note which the witness signed after the prisoner had put his mark to it. This note he sent by his daughter Mary Gummow to the prosecutor.
The witness underwent a rigid examination, but no part of his testimony was shaken.
Mary Gummow proved the delivery of a note and the obligation for the GBP 10 to the prosecutor.
The Clerk of the Peace then read the note which was the prisoner’s confession, in which he stated that he found the money, and had suffered much in his own mind from keeping it. He offered the money in the bank, and would pay the remainder of the debts agreed upon before this unlucky event happened, and he hoped that Mr. Parkin would agree to be as friendly as he had been before, and that in future he promised to be strictly honest. The other note was then put in and read; it stated the receipt of GBP 22 by the prisoner, and the remaining GBP 10 also by the prisoner. This being the case for the prosecution.
Mr. E. Lyne contended that there was no case against his client, but the jury, however, thought differently, and gave a verdict of guilty, recommending the prisoner to mercy.
…………………………..
Michael CURTIS, 26, Robert WERRY, 21, and Thomas TARRANT, 30, were charged with stealing five sovereigns, the property of William WILLIAMS, carrier of St. Austell. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. E. Coode; Mr. Bennallack appeared for the prisoner Tarrant, while the other two prisoners were defended by Mr. John.
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Williams, that on the
23rd of May, that being a large fair day, he was at Truro, when he
went into a beer shop kept by Mr. Pascoe with a man who said his name was Curnick and another person dressed like a groom, who told
him that he had a horse to sell. While
there the prisoner Tarrant came by, and the other two prisoners shortly after
followed. Tarrant appeared to be in
distress about a dog which he said he had lost and which belonged to his
master. He said he would not have lost
it for GBP 2. Curnick
asked whether he had nothing by which to have taken care of it. The prisoner replied that he had, and put
down on the table a lock which he continued to open and shut, and them left the room having previously stated that no one
could open it, and offering to make bets to support of his assertion. Prosecutor opened it, and considered Tarrant
to be “mazed” for making such an assertion. Finding that he could obtain nothing by that plan,
the prisoner Tarrant pulled out a handful of what appeared to prosecutor to be
bank notes, and, calling them all a set of poor beggars, offered any man a five
pound note who could show GBP 5. The
prosecutor then pulled out five sovereigns, and Curnick
immediately snatched away the money and handed it over to Tarrant, who ran out
of the house; witness was about to follow him when he was prevented by Curnick, the groom, and the other two prisoners. He was held by the collar for about a minute
and a half, when they let him go; he then went out of the house, but Tarrant
had escaped, and on his return he found the other persons had also gone. He followed them and gave Warry
and Curtis into the custody of a person named Pill, who handed them over to a
constable named Roberts. Warry again got away, but was caught by George Hall,
another constable, who stated that he saw him put his sovereigns into his mouth
immediately after his apprehension. The
prisoner Tarrant was apprehended in
Mr. Bennallack addressed the jury on behalf of Tarrant, and Mr. John on behalf of the other prisoners, urging that although they were in the house they merely stopped the prosecutor from running after Tarrant, considering that he had won the GBP 5 in a wager with the prosecutor. The jury, after a few minutes deliberation, found Tarrant guilty, and acquitted the two other prisoners.
…………………
Richard SMITH, 21, pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing a pig, the property of William Rose. Found guilty.
- more to appear in next week’s edition -
ROBBERY
We understand that some thief or thieves broke into the
…………………
DISTRESSING AND FATAL ACCIDENT
On
Tuesday afternoon last, as the Rev. Charles Neat, who was on a
visit to this County as a deputation from the Church Missionary Society, was
proceeding in a gig from
……………………
DETERMINED SUICIDE
On Friday morning last, a young man named Dunstone, son of Mr.
John Dunstone, butcher, of Carminow-vean,
in Mawgan, aged 24 years, committed suicide by
hanging himself. It appears he had been
paying his addresses to a young woman, named Thomas, of Kilezanker,
against the consent of his parents, and that he accompanied her home from Helston on Thursday night last, and continued at her house
till
……………………..
INSOLVENT
At the COURT-HOUSE at BODMIN, in the
Joseph NINESS, late of the Borough of Penryn,
in the
William PETER, late of the Borough of Callington, in the County of Cornwall, Saddler and Ironmonger, and Sub distributor of Stamps, lately in partnership with Mrs. Grace Peter, under the firm of G. and M. Peter, Saddlers and Ironmongers, Callington.
John SHARE, late of the Borough of Penryn,
in the
Joseph COCK, late of the Borough of Truro, in the
Charles Cary DANGAR, formerly of the Borough of Lostwithiel, and of Hallworthy, in the Parish of Davidstow, Saddler, Pattern-maker, Victualler, and Innkeeper.
John FARRELL (sued as John Farrel), formerly of Woolwich, in the
Thomas STONE, formerly of No. 76, Great Stamford-Street, Blackfriars Road, in the County of Surrey; afterwards of Launceston, Liskeard, and Stratton, a Lieutenant in her Majesty’s Royal Navy.
Elizabeth PROCTER, late of Calstock, widow, Victualler and Innkeeper.
William BENNEY (sued with John Benney, and late in partnership with him) late of the Parish of Kea, Butcher.
William CHELLEW, formerly of Ludgvan, and late of
John BENNEY (sued with Wm. Benney and late in partnership with him) late of the Parish of Kea, Butcher.
John BURN, late of the Parish of St. Austell, in the
James RAPSON, late of the Parish of Stithians, Miller and Farmer, and also carrying on the business of Dealer in Flour and Groceries, at Helston.
Hugh Glewis TONKIN, (sued at Hugh Gluvias Tonkin) late of the town of
If any Creditor intends to OPPOSE a Prisoner’s discharge, notice of such intention must be given to the said prisoner in writing three clear days before the day of the hearing, exclusive of Sunday.
………………….
MERIT REWARDED
The society for saving persons from shipwreck has voted a
gold medal to Lieut. W. Field, R.N., for his exertions in rescuing two coal
porters from Mr. Wynn’s coal bulk in
…………………….
THE CHURCH
The Lord Bishop of
……………………
EXTRAORDINARY DISPATCH
Early on Monday morning, the 11th instant, some workmen under the personal superintendence of Mr. John West, engineer, proceeded to take to pieces and remove a steam-engine, which had ceased working only a few hours before, at South Roskear mine, near Camborne. Having accomplished their task in the most satisfactory manner, they commenced heaving into the same house the workings of a new engine, of a larger cylinder, which were close at hand; and after the utmost perseverance on the part of the men, backed by the example and assistance of Mr. West himself, who throughout nearly the whole of the proceedings took a most active part in the operations, they succeeded in getting all the different parts in their respective places, having completed their laborious task by the following Wednesday afternoon. At half-past six o’clock on the following Monday morning, the water, which in the interim had risen nearly 20 fathoms, was all got out, having been drawn to the surface from a depth of 160 fathoms. The bottom levels are pretty extensive, and consequently hold a great bulk of water.
[the article evidently was written in June, and inserted into this week’s paper, as the dates do not match.]
……………………
EMIGRATION TO NEW
We understand that a Gentleman from
………………………
SENNEN GARDENING SOCIETY
…..Adjudication of Prizes for the first and second, neatest and best conditioned cottagers and families in each parish, within the district. First prize, 5s; 2nd ditto, and these were awarded in the order in which their names are inserted, viz:
St. Buryan… Mark Hollow
Simon Lugg
St. Levan ….Joseph Matthews, Trevean
W. Matthews, jun., Bosustow
Sennen …….John Bottrell, Trevescan
John George, Sunny Cove
Thomas Wallis, Tregascal
Paul ……….John Clift
W. Lanyon
Sancreed…..Mark Wallis, Chapel
Thirza Harvey
Madron…….Richard Coon, Tregavern
Elizabeth Richards,
Morvah…….Ralph Hendra, Rosemergye
Elizabeth Bolitho, Treverow
Thomas Hawke, Phillip’s Court
Ludgvan ……James Trebilcock,
John Memory,
St. Ives………John Gendall, Halsetown
Simon Champion, Halsetown
Lelant………..William Reseigh (blurry, might be Ressigh; 4th letter unclear)
Elizabeth Pearce
Perranuthnoe..Julia Bryan Heavor (or Henver)
Edmund Simons, Perran Downs
……………
QUARTER SESSIONS
The following are the sentences of the prisoners whose
trials were reported in our last (July 5th) William NANCOLESS, for stealing a
sack, the property of Wm. Satterley, of Penryn, one months’ hard labour. William RETALLACK, for stealing money, the
property of Mr. Wm. Parkin, of St. Columb Major, one month’s hard labour. Thomas TARRANT, for stealing five sovereigns
belonging to Wm. Williams, carrier, of
Thursday and Friday Trials –
[Oyster stealing case, given in excruciating detail – 6 columns. Mr. Tyacke had laid down oysters off of Point Peddenabilly, which was called Mr. Pender’s Point locally – but it was unclear if Mr. Pender had any rights to the property. Mr. Tyacke, through Joseph Toy, his agent, had charged Mr. Pender and others with stealing the oysters. As a side issue, the Bishop of Exeter claimed by tithe right that HE was entitled to all the oysters found there. Proof was offered “that the Bishop of Exeter had nothing but a kind of floating right, not founded in right of land, but handed down as a part of the manor of Penryn Foreign.” The rights of the Duke of Leeds were clear, based on a lease of 1763; however, the boundaries were not clear, and illiterate fishermen could not be certain where they might take oysters, and where they might not. Since the rights for trigging had not been pressed until oysters became valuable, and fishermen had been allowed to harvest there at will until Mr. Tyacke took the lease for the manor Merther from the Duke, and “enabled by his influence” suppressed it, the Jury found the defendant not guilty, after an eight hour trial.][Mr. Toy testified that over 50 people had “trigged” on Good Friday – trigging meant picking oysters, or other shell fish, between high and low water mark. He did not object to their trigging for any other fish than oysters and shrimp. People came from as far as 15 or 16 miles to trig; knew Mary James, who had trigged there for 40 or 50 years, and who took mostly muscles{sic}, cockles &c – and occasionally took oysters. Never complained of her, nor of others.] Verdict, not guilty.
The same verdict was given in the next trial of Richard RASHLEIGH, Wm. OLD, Thomas JAMES and Wm. JAMES, for stealing oysters on the day before Good Friday. We have already gone so fully into the evidence in the foregoing case that it is unnecessary that we should enter into a detail of the facts adduced with respect to this. Indeed, a considerable portion of the Chairman’s notes in the last case were taken by comment in this, as being equally applicable to both. A verdict of not guilty was also given by consent of the prosecutors’ advocates, with respect to Wm. MAYNE and John PENALENNICK who were charged with trigging on Good Friday.
…………….
Mary HODELL, 42, was charged with stealing a calico bed
sheet, the property of William TONKIN.
The prosecutor keeps a lodging house in
EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF SHOPLIFTING
Mary Ann MINERS was indicted for stealing a crape handkerchief and two waistbands, the property of Henry Charles MILFORD and another. The prisoner was defended by Mr. E. Coode and Mr. Bennallack. Mr. Stokes stated the case and called Elizabeth PEARCE – was an assistant in the shop of Messrs. Milford, at Truro; they carry on an extensive business as drapers; on the 28th of April last saw the prisoner at the shop in company with three sisters; she purchased several articles; it was about the middle of the day; she remained there some hours; she did not purchase a crape handkerchief, but she purchased one waist-ribbon; witness afterwards went to the shop of Mr. Read, another draper; saw the prisoner there and assisted in searching her; found upon her a waist-ribbon which belonged to Messrs. Milford; had not sold that ribbon to prisoner; saw a crape handkerchief on Mr. Read’s table; that was there before witness came in; saw another waistband on the table also with another crape handkerchief; the prisoner did not say anything to her in reference to those articles.
Cross-examined by Mr. E. Coode – This was on a market day; there are seven or eight assistants; the prisoner came some time in the forenoon and remained about three or four hours.
Joseph Jenkin MILFORD stated that he carried on with his brother an extensive drapers’ shop at Truro; saw the prisoner in his shop about the middle part of the 28th of April; saw her afterwards at Mr. Read’s shop; when he went there one of the assistants showed him a crape handkerchief, and asked witness whether it was his and a waist ribbon; they had his private marks upon them, and he knew them to be the property of his brother and himself; asked the prisoner where she got them.
By Mr. Coode – not the least inducement was held out to her. Her elder sister said “confess; Mr. Milford will forgive you, won’t you?” Witness nodded in token of …
[illegible]
Examination continued. She confessed she
had stolen them. She said “I have stolen
them”, or words to that effect.
George Roberts, constable of
Mr. Coode then addressed the jury, urging upon them that the prisoner, who was only 14 or 15 years of age, had been induced to confess that she had stolen these articles through the influence of her eldest sister. He then called three witnesses who gave the prisoner an excellent character up to the present time. Her father resided at Veryan, and was a very respectable man. The jury, after some hesitation on the part of one who said he believed the prisoner innocent, found her guilty, but recommended her to mercy.
The same prisoner was again placed at the bar, and charged
with stealing one shawl, or turnover, the property of Mr. George Read, of
Mr. Stokes said that it was his very painful duty, a duty
rendered more painful through the good character which was given the prisoner
in the last case, again to appear before them in a prosecution for a similar
offence. The person who was now the
prosecutor was one of the most respectable inhabitants of
Samuel PLOMER: I am an assistant in Mr. Read’s shop; he has an extensive business as a draper; I saw the prisoner there on the afternoon of the 28th of April; her sister purchased a few trifling articles, she did not; my attention was directed to her leaving the shop before her sister’s parcel was made up; I went to the end of the shop and saw part of a shawl concealed under her arm. I followed her and took hold of her; she ran ten or twelve yards, but I brought her back.
Cross-examined: The prisoner and her sister were in the shop about twenty minutes.
Ann PASCOE stated that on the 28th of April, she was in Boscawen-street, a little way from Mr. Read’s shop. Saw Mr. Plomer come out of Mr. Read’s shop, and take the prisoner by the arm and lead her back to the shop. The prisoner dropped a shawl in the gutter. A little boy picked it up, and carried it in to Mr. Plomer himself.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bennallack – I have not been taken into custody for disorderly conduct since I have been here. I was turned out of a public house next to the lodging-house where I lodged. A great many questions were asked the witness respecting her mode of living, which the Chairman told her she need not answer.
George ROBERTS produced the shawl, which was identified by Mr. Plomer, who stated that the article was new, and that there had not been one of them sold to any lady. Guilty. Six months’ hard labour.
…………
William WHITE, 22, was charged with stealing a half-shirt, belonging to Henry COUCH of Lanreath. The prisoner quartered with the prosecutor, of Lanreath, in April last, and one morning the prisoner got up and relieved the prosecutor of a half-crown, two shillings, and the half-shirt, which latter superfluity was found adorning the outer man of the prisoner, over a common calico shirt, when he was taken into custody. Guilty, three months’ hard labour.
……….
Nicholas VINCENT, 25, was charged with stealing a fustian
jacket, the property of John YOUDY. It
appeared from the evidence that the prisoner, in April last, was in the employ
of Mr. READ, a farmer at Gwennap, and he slept in the
same room and bed as the prosecutor and another person named Samuel
HARRIS. On the 17th of April
he went away from the employ of Mr. Read, and took with him the jacket in
question. On the Sunday following the
prosecutor went to Thomas Truscott’s house, and saw the prisoner. He then asked him for his jacket, which the
prisoner had on. The prisoner said that
it was his own jacket, for he had bought it of Digory
Morcomb, and had given 11s.6d for it. He subsequently went to his home and changed
the jacket, and gave it to the prosecutor, who handed it over to a
constable. A witness named John Penrose
stated that he was a miner at Gwennap, and that Digory Morcomb took his meat [or meal] and worked with him. On the 29th of April the prisoner came to his
house and accused Digory Morcomb
of selling him a jacket for 11s.6d., which proved to
have been stolen. The witness asked what
day Morcomb had sold the jacket. The prisoner replied first that it was on the
previous Friday, and then on the Friday week, but on both those days Morcomb was underground with witness. Witness then asked the prisoner how he could
be such a villain as to make a charge of that kind against his friend, and
expressed his determination to enquire into the matter. He took the prisoner to his house, and then
Vincent said he would clear Digory and take the blame
on himself. Witness then went for a
constable, Jonathan Bawden, who took the prisoner
into custody. The constable now produced
the coat, and stated that when he was conveying the prisoner to
………….
John KINSMAN, 23, was charged with having feloniously broken into the dwelling house of William TREVAN, and stolen therefrom 37 sovereigns, seven half-crowns, and three shillings. Mr. E. Coode having stated the case called William TREVAN, who said that he lived in Will Town, in the parish of St. Dominick; he as a labouring man, and worked under the surveyor of roads. Had a wife, but no family, was in the habit of purchasing barley, potatoes, and other things for feeding pigs; his wife had been a very independent woman, and had contrived to save some money. In the month of April, prosecutor had 37 sovereigns, seven half-crowns, and three shillings; he kept it in a large red pocket-book, in a little box locked; it was kept by his bed-side; his house consisted of a bed-room, a room under the back house, a pig’s house, and garden; there was another house under the same roof, occupied by a neighbour; there was a door leading from the kitchen to the back room, and another into the orchard; saw the money last on the 29th of April; his wife went to the box after that, and witness went on Sunday the 6th of May; the pocket-book then contained the money; remembered Wednesday, the 9th of May; having passed through the back-door, witness barred it,l and let the dropper fall, to prevent the bar being pushed back; went to work at six o’clock, and left his wife at home; she was in the habit of going to work too; Wednesday was Callington market day, and it was arranged that witness and his wife should meet there in the evening; his wife was about nine years ago an inmate of the lunatic asylum; she recovered from that illness and remained well until now; witness left her at home; she had been confined three weeks, and was not able to come and give evidence; in consequence of what she told witness on Wednesday, he went home and examined the door of the back house; there was a great hole broken in about half way up the door that leads from the orchard, and which he had barred in the morning. Witness found the box in the back-house; the clothes were tumbled, and the box had been opened; did not find his pocket-book or money there; witness found two crooked sticks in the orchard, by which one of the doors could be opened after the hole was made. Knew the prisoner, he once occupied a room over the back house; he was in the habit of coming to witness’ house a great deal, and knew the premises very well; he was there on the 5th of May, and witness did not see him between that day and the 9th. The prisoner was a miner.
Cross-examined by Mr. John – Witness left his wife at home; was quite sure that on the 6th of May, the prisoner did not rob the money, though it was on a Sunday night. Witness never showed the money to the prisoner, but his wife told the wife of the prisoner what money they had.
Re-examined: Was at home when the prisoner called on the 6th of May, and they both left together; the prisoner’s wife left a waiter and umbrella for half-a-crown that prosecutor lent the prisoner to pay his rent; his mother came shortly afterwards to redeem the umbrella and left the waiter; the prisoner came on the 6th to know whether he might have the waiter and witness replied in the affirmative. The prisoner lived at Calstock.
Thomas Peters lived at Metherill,
between Calstock and Will Town; recollected seeing
the prisoner at Metherill on the day of the robbery
between seven and
Cross-examined: Metherill was about two miles from Will Town. It was the high road where the prisoner was, and witness had seen him there many times before.
Abraham BODDY lives at Metherill, and was at Callington on the day of the robbery; on his return, he met the prisoner, between eight and nine in the morning, at a place called Cleave, and said he would be going from Will Town to Callington; by going through a wood from Cleeve to Will Town, nearly half a mile would be saved, and the prisoner might have gone that way. The prisoner had his jacket off, and was walking at a pretty good pace.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bennallack – Mertherill lies east from Will Town, and Cleave lies between both.
Joseph COCKING examined: I live at Latchley, in the parish of Calstock; am captain and manager of Gunnis Lake mine; the last pay-day of April was the 28th ; that was also a setting day; knows the prisoner; he came there on the 28th, and took a pitch on the mine; after the day was over, we had several who applied to have some money lent to them, and the prisoner applied for the loan of 5s. I refused to lend it, because he had not worked; he said he had no money to live upon, and I told him that if he would work a short time I would lend him some; he came to work after the 28th, and on the 3rd of May I went down with him. I came up with him on Monday the 7th, and I do not know that he again came on the mine till the next Wednesday, when I was sent for about ten o’clock; I was on the western part of the mine, and was sent for to come down to the smith’s shop, where the prisoner was making a disturbance, having beat his wife and knocked down his sister; he had his clothes in a bundle; I told him he must leave the mine – that he should not work there any more; he said he would not leave, and I went to put him off the mine, and said “you have not a shilling to live upon, and why do you act in this way?” He said “I can show more sovereigns than you can.” I said “where did you get sovereigns from – for it is very strange, as when you came here you were starving.” He did not show me any; I had not paid him any wages between the 28th of April and that time.
Abel HARPER sworn: I am a miner living in Calstock, and working at Gunnis Lake Mine; I know a beer shop kept there by a person called Doidge; it is not very far from Gunnis Lake; I was there on the 5th of May, and recollect seeing the prisoner there about nine o’clock in the evening; he asked me whether I would go to Tavistock with him the next day; he said I should have a sovereign if I wanted it, to go along with him the next day; I saw one sovereign; I agreed to go with him; I went with him and his brother. On the road to Tavistock we stopped at different homes and took refreshments for which the prisoner and his brother paid; on the road between Gunnis Lake he showed me some sovereigns; when we got to Tavistock, we had plenty to eat and drink; we went to a shop where they sold drapery, and the prisoner and his brother purchased six silk handkerchiefs and two pair of stockings; saw the money paid, but can’t say how much; we then went to a beer shop kept by Lamb, and the prisoner purchased a gun there; the price of it was two sovereigns, and he paid for it in sovereigns; then the prisoner also purchased the jacket he has on and a waistcoat and hat; he gave GBP 1 for the coat; the hat cost 9s., and he paid for both. His brother is a miner. We then went home, and I had as much meat and drink as I pleased; he paid for all.
William CROCKER examined: I am a constable and farmer residing at Calstock; in consequence of the robbery I went in search of the prisoner with a person named Crab, and saw him in a public house at Calstock town; I told him that he was suspected of the robbery, as, the day before, he had had money lavishing pretty freely; he said he had not committed any robbery; he said nothing else to me; I took him into custody; I went out to look after my horse, and was absent about a quarter of an hour; on my return, Crab said the prisoner had said “this is the hand that got the money, and Trevan shall never have it.” I don’t recollect that the prisoner said anything to that; all he said to me was that he had not done it.
William CRAB corroborated the testimony given by Mr.
Crocker, swearing distinctly to the confession made by the prisoner in Mr.
Crocker’s absence. The witness underwent
a long cross-examination, by Mr. John, relative to his pursuits in life, from
which it appeared he had twice been in the
The last witness called was Susan MORGAN, the mother-in-law of the prisoner, who stated that on the 9th of May, the prisoner paid her 24s. which he had owed her for nearly twelve months.
Mr. John having addressed the jury, the Chairman summed up, and the jury found the prisoner guilty of the larceny but not of house-breaking. The Court sentenced him to seven years’ transportation. On hearing his sentence, the prisoner said, with great nonchalance, “I’d rather be transported for life than go home to my wife.”
…………
Paul CLARK, 17, and Charles CLARK, 18, cousins,
were charged with having feloniously stolen twelve sovereigns and twelve
half-crowns, the property of George BUZZA, of
It appeared from the evidence that the prosecutor was a
bargeman, residing in
………….
William CHIVER., 33, was charged with stealing 17s, 6d, a quantity of buttons, copper tokens, &c., the property of William BLUITT. The prosecutor is an ostler at the King’s Arms, at Wadebridge, and he kept the articles in question in a box in the stable. The prisoner broke it open on the 7th of May, and took the things from it. He was afterwards apprehended at St. Mabyn, and the buttons and other things were found in his possession. Guilty, one month’s hard labour.
………….
John STANTON, 24, and Betsey EDWARDS, 22, were charged, the
former with stealing a cheek of pork, the property of Ann JOSE, and the other
prisoner with receiving the same, knowing it to be stolen. The prosecutrix
lives in the
Jane JOSE, an intelligent little child, stated that the prisoner came into the house and asked her if she had any rags. The witness replied that her mother was out, and that she did not know. He then asked her to give him a drink of water, and she went to get him some, while he remained standing under the bacon rack. He then left.
Thomas ROBARTS, a constable of St. Austell, went in search
of the prisoner, and found him in company with the other prisoner. Witness charged him with the felony, and he
then examined the woman and found the piece of port which he now produced. This the prosecutrix
identified as her property. The
prisoner, Stanton, said that he bought the pork, and gave it to the woman whom
he had overtaken on the road to Bodmin. The jury found
……….
Betsey EDWARDS was then charged with stealing a pair of shoes, the property of Thomas CALF. It appeared that when the prisoner was taken into custody, she was conveyed to the Bodmin gaol, where she was searched, and a pair of shoes were found in her possession. The prosecutor, who lives at Tregonissey, had a pair of shoes on the 10th of May hanging up on two nails in his dwelling house, which were taken away; and hearing that a woman who had been seen in his neighbourhood was in Bodmin gaol, he went there on the 14th of May, and found his shoes in the possession of the gaoler. Guilty. Six weeks’ hard labour.
…………
Nicholas SCOBELL, 25, was charged with stealing a pair of
plated snuffers, belonging to William Plummer, of
Mrs. Elizabeth PLUMMER stated that she lived in Carclew-street, Truro, and that on Saturday, the 28th of April, she saw the prisoner standing at her gate when she went to the baker’s, and on the following day she missed a pair of snuffers, which another witness proved was offered to her by the prisoner for a shilling. Guilty. Twelve months’ hard labour.
…………..
William TREWARTHA, 22, was charged with breaking open the changing houses belonging to the Consolidated mines in Gwennap, and stealing twelve candles, the property of John BRAY. The parties were employed on the mines, and the prisoner was seen by one of the persons employed on the mine, trying some keys in the changing house, in consequence of which, he was afterwards searched, and twelve candles were found upon his person, besides a bar of iron with which he had forced a lock, and three loose keys in his watch-pocket. The prisoner afterwards made a confession of his guilt. Guilty. Three months’ hard labour.
George SOWELL,21, was again placed at the bar on the charge of stealing a gallon of rum and a jar, the property of the adventurers in Wheal Rose mine. The same evidence was given as in the former trial, but the witness William ROWSE, when called upon by Mr. Bennallack, was unable to swear to the jar being the property of the adventurers in Wheal Rose mine, or identify the rum and jar as that which was stolen from the cart. None of the adventurers being present to identify the property, the prisoner was acquitted.
The court rose shortly after
(As our reports are too interesting to be abridged to the extent necessary to admit of their insertion this week, we think it best to reserve the remainder for our next paper.)
Wednesday, July 4
The Grand Jury found no true bill against John RICHARDS, who was charged with stealing a pair of trowsers, the property of Richard BARTLE, of Gwennap.
………………….
Richard JOHNS, 50, was charged with stealing a jacket, a hat, and a handkerchief, the property of Thomas Heard. The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge, as well as to a former conviction for felony, remarking that he pleaded guilty for the purpose of being sent out of the country, for he would much rather be sent out of the country than remain in it. Twelve months’ hard labour; during that time to be kept in solitary confinement one month.
……………
Jane RICH, 30, was charged with stealing 6.5 lbs of rope, the property of Wm. Robins, of Mevagissey.
William Body stated that he lived at Megavissey, where the prisoner also resided. On the 9th of May, he saw the prisoner go into the rope-house of the prosecutor, and he immediately informed the daughter of the prosecutor.
Mr. Robins stated that on the day the question, in consequence of what he heard from his daughter, he went and saw the prisoner, who had under an apron a piece of rope coiled around her arm. It was his property, and was worth about 1s.6d. Guilty. Fourteen days’ hard labour.
…………….
John THOMAS, 20, was charged with stealing a sovereign, the property of John PEARCE, Marazion, his master. The prisoner pleaded guilty. Six months’ hard labour.
…………
Elizabeth COLMER, 36, and Hannah HARRIS, 26, were charged with stealing some mutton, the property of Henry EDMUNDS, a butcher, of Hayle. The prosecutor stated that on Saturday week, the prisoner Colmer came to his stall, and asked him the price of a piece of veal, which she cheapened, but did not purchase. She then went away, and he immediately afterwards missed part of a neck of the mutton; he followed the prisoner and saw her speak to Harris. She then returned to the market, and he watched her, and went up and spoke to Harris, who denied having any acquaintance with Colmer. The prosecutor then raised the prisoner Harris’s arm, and found the mutton wrapped up in an apron. She then confessed that Colmer had given it to her, also calling the latter prisoner by her name. He had them taken into custody, and Colmer several times begged to be forgiven.
Walter JENKIN, the constable, proved the taking the prisoners into custody. Guilty. Six months’ hard labour.
……………
Edwin YOUNG, 26, pleaded guilty, of stealing a gold watch,
and a rosewood case-stand, the property of Wm. Henry TEALOR, of
………….
Thomas ALLEN, 34, was charged with stealing a shawl, the property of Elizabeth DAVY, of Zennor. Mr. John appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. E. Coode and Mr. Bennallack for the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence, that on the 19th of June, the prisoner and another person, who follow the occupation of hawker, called at the house of the prosecutrix, and endeavoured to induce her to purchase a waistcoat piece and a pair of trowsers. She declined doing so. The prisoner seeing a shawl lying on the table, which the prosecutrix had paid 28s. for, offered to exchange it for one more valuable, for which he wished her to give 12s. in addition. She refused to make any exchange, and left the room to go into the pantry with some potatoes. On her return, she found her shawl gone, and one much less valuable in its place. She immediately went in pursuit of the prisoner, but could not find him, he having made off as fast as possible. In the course of the day, he was apprehended by Mr. Martin TREWALLS, of Towednack, about four miles from the house of the prosecutrix. When informed that he was taken up for stealing a shawl, the prisoner pulled the shawl out of his bag, and said that he had exchanged for it. He was then taken into custody.
On the part of the prisoner it was contended by Mr. Coode that he might have exchanged it with his companion, and that there was no proof of his having stolen it. The jury found the prisoner guilty. Six months’ hard labour.
………………
John PHILLIPS, 38, was indicted for stealing a fagot of furze, the property of John PARKIN, of Little St. Columb.
This was a case that occupied the court for a considerable time, but the facts were simply these. On the 7th of May, the prosecutor carried seven fagots of furze from a stack, leaving five in an outhouse, and taking the other two into the house. On the following day, the prosecutor’s father missed those that were left in the outhouse, but he traced them home to the possession of the prisoner, through a quantity having occasionally fallen on different parts of the road. The property was identified by the person who cut the fagots, as being those supplied to the prosecutor, and there was a peculiarity in the fagots – these being cut from a part of some downs where the material was French furze and Cornish furze without any mixture of sedge, and supplied only to the prosecutor. The witness who cut them also recognized the fagot taken off the prisoner’s premises by his peculiar method of binding it, and there had been no other fagots made from that part of the common supplied to any body else.
Mr. Bennallack addressed the jury for the prisoner and called a neighbour of the prisoner’s, named Gill, who stated that he sometimes lent him a fagot, and that he lent him one sometime in May last. Mr. John, who appeared for the prosecution, sent for the fagot, and asked the witness whether that was the one that he had lent. He replied that it was not, and the jury immediately found the prisoner guilty. One month’s hard labour.
…………
Richard JOHNSON, 26, and William FRANCIS, 24, were charged with stealing 3 lbs of candles, the property of Edward TONKIN, of Kea.
Capt. Thomas Trewethen, of Killiwerris mine, stated that he delivered 7 lbs of candles to Edward TONKIN, for him and his pair, on the 4th of June.
Edward Tonkin stated that on the 5th of June he put 3 lbs of candles in his box in the barracks. When he came on the 6th,he found his box had been broken open, and all the candles taken but half a pound.
William JAMES examined:
He watched on the night of the 5th of June, and about
half-past twelve or
Samuel WOOLCOCK was in the engine-house on the night in question, and went to the assistance of Mr. James, who accused them of stealing candles. They then had candles in their possession.
Capt. Sampson TREWETHEN proved that Johnson had said that he and Francis had stolen the candles; and then he said the candles which Francis said were his, were still in their box. Johnson then gave him the key to their box, and said that witness would find them there. Witness handed the key to Capt. T. Trewethen, who now proved that he had opened the prisoners’ box, and found between two and three pounds of candles in it. Guilty. Three months’ hard labour.
………………..
George SEWELL, 21, was charged with stealing a gallon jar of rum, the property of William ROWSE, carrier, of St. Erme.
William ROWSE is a carrier.
On the 24th of May last, he was carrying rum and other things
from
In reply to questions from Mr. Bennallack, the prosecutor stated that the spirits that he [transported, along with other goods], were the property of the adventurers in East Wheal Rose Mine, and that he was a servant in the employ of the company.
Mr. Bennallack then contended that the indictment was invalid, because the property being in the possession of the servant was constructively in the hands of the master. The man was not a common carrier, and did not derive any benefit from what he conveyed, nor would he have been responsible to his employers or to any one else for any thing he might lose out of the cart.
Mr. Stokes contended that the indictment was properly laid, and quoted the case of a driver of a stage coach, who was not a proprietor, being called upon to pay for property stolen out of the boot. He was only the servant of the proprietors, but yet he was held liable, and he maintained this to be a parallel case.
Mr. Bennallack said it had been laid down long ago by Lord Coke, that if plate was in the charge of the butler and was stolen, yet the indictment must be laid in the master who was properly the owner of it. The Learned Gentleman quoted several cases in support of his argument.
The witness then replied in answer to questions from the Court that he was a daily labourer belonging to the East Wheal Rose mine, receiving daily wages. Every thing in the cart belonged to the adventurers. The cart belonged to one of the agents of the mine.
The COURT decided the indictment was bad, and a verdict of not guilty was recorded. The prisoner was put back while another indictment was framed.
…………..
Richard JULIFF, 17, was charged with stealing a duck, the property of Wm. HAWKEY, of St. Enoder. The prosecutor stated that he had the duck on the 9th of June, and that he afterwards missed it.
Grace STEPHENS stated that on the 9th of June, the prisoner came to her husband’s house, and in consequence of some suspicion that she had she searched him, and found the duck in question upon him. She then had him taken into custody. The prosecutor identified the duck. The prisoner stated that he found it. Guilty. One month’s hard labour.
……………….
William HARRINGTON, 14, and William PENROSE, 18, were
charged with stealing a book, the property of Louisa Elizabeth GILLETT,
bookseller, of
Cross-examined - Did not see them in communication before the circumstance happened.
George Roberts, constable, produced the book, which Mrs. Gillett identified as her property.
Mr. Bennallack, addressed the jury on behalf of Penrose, and they found Harrington guilty, and Penrose not guilty. Harrington was sentenced to two weeks’ hard labour, and one whipping.
……………
James DANIEL, 43, was charged with stealing a barn-door fowl, and a quantity of potatoes, the property of Thomas MARTYN. Mr. Collins appeared for the prosecution.
Jane CARVETH is a servant of Mrs. Martyn, of St. Columbe; was in the habit of feeding her mistress’s fowls; saw them in the middle of Saturday, the 20th of May; there were only four of them; on the following day there were only three; there was one missing; it was a fine black hen; she saw it on the following Monday qat the Magistrates’ room.
Grace HAWKEN lived at St. Columb; saw the black hen in question at Mrs. Martyn’s; it was a beautiful one, and had purple feathers; saw it again on Monday, at Mr. Collins’s office. It was the same witness had seen on Saturday.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM, a constable, saw the prisoner in the night of the 29th of May, in the Church-yard, with a bag. He asked what was in the bag; and he said, potatoes, and that he had nothing else. Witness took him into custody, and found a fowl in his bag. It was the largest witness ever saw in his life. Took him before the magistrate on Monday; when he was taking him away, the prisoner said to his wife “Don’t cry. I hope I shall get off this, and then I will not do anything of the kind again.”
William MARTYN, son of Mrs. Martyn, proved the fowl to be his mother’s property. Guilty. Twelve months’ hard labour, during that time to be kept in solitary confinement one month.
…………………………………
Ann BLAKE, 26, was charged with stealing a piece of calico print, the property of Mr. Thomas MARSHALL, draper, of St. Columb. The prisoner, who was a married woman, was defended by Mr. E. Coode and Mr. John. Mr. Collins conducted the prosecution. The case excited some interest, from the previous good character of the prisoner.
Mary Ann CHAPPELL was occasionally a shop woman to Mr. Marshall; was in his shop on the 5th of April last; saw the prisoner there; saw her take a piece of print from the window; it was striped cotton, and was about nine or ten yards in length; when she took it up, she wrapped a handkerchief round it, and put it under her cloak; it was Mr. Marshall’s property. In consequence of what witness saw, she called Mr. Marshall, and told him of it. Mr. Marshall then took the print away from the prisoner. Saw it again in possession of Mr. Buckingham, the constable.
Mr. Buckingham produced the print, which was identified by the last witness, who in her cross-examination said that the prisoner did not attempt to run away.
Mr. Thomas MARSHALL, stated that he lived in St. Columb, and saw the prisoner in his shop on the 5th of May. In consequence of information which he received from Miss Chappell, he immediately proceeded to examine the prisoner, and under her cloak, in a handkerchief, he found a piece of print dress. He asked her where she got it from, and she said she got it just below. He asked her where, and she made no reply; and he then asked if was of Mr. Nankivell’s, the draper. She said “yes”. He then said “you will just have the goodness to go down with me, for you never bought it there.” Some other observations were made, and he then gave her into custody along with the piece of print, which was his property. The piece now produced was the one in question.
Cross-examined by Mr. John – There were eight or nine other persons in the shop; never saw the young woman before that he knew of. If he had known as much then as he did now, he did not think that he should have pressed the charge. He did not believe that she was in such a state of confusion as not to know what she was about. Witness did not notice anything like absence of mind at the time. She afterwards had a fit at Mr. Collins’s office.
Mr. E. Coode then addressed the jury for the prisoner, urging the imbecility of her mind as the cause of her conduct. She was of a most respectable family. The Learned Gentleman then called a number of highly respectable witnesses, who gave the prisoner a most excellent character, having all known her for the greater part of her life. All the witnesses spoke particularly to the imbecile state of the prisoner’s mind. The jury found her not guilty.
……………
James BARRETT, 39, was charged with stealing two deal boards, the property of John TAYLOR and others, adventurers in the Charlestown United Mines.
Thomas BONE is mine captain in the Charlestown United Mines; was so on the 5th of June last, knew Mr. John TAYLOR very well; he is an adventurer in the mine; knew the prisoner very well; he lived on the sett of the mine; he was a waggoner in their employ; on Monday, the 4th of June, in consequence of something that he had heard, he went to the prisoner’s house, and opened a door under the stairs, and he there found two deal boards,; he did not immediately take possession of them, but left them there for about half an hour, and then he went after them, and took them up to the counting-house. Had got these boards with him; they corresponded with some pieces of board on the roof of a shed on the mine. Saw the prisoner after witness had discovered the boards, and he said to him “I suppose you made two journies[sic], one for the coals and one for the boards?” and he said “no, he made one of it, and when he was coming home the clock struck one, on Sunday morning.”
Capt. RENFREY, clerk of the mine, knew that Mr. John Taylor was an adventurer; knew the shed from which these boards were taken; compared them with the roof of that shed, and they tallied with the other parts. The prisoner confessed that he took the boards and some coals, and he hoped they would not send him to Bodmin.
Capt Bone gave the prisoner a good character for his general conduct for the three years that he had previously been employed on the mine. Guilty. One month’s hard labour.
………….
George HENDERSON, a respectable looking young man, a carpenter, residing in Bodmin, was charged with stealing a hone and its case, the property of William PERRY.
Mr. E. Lyne stated the case, and called William Perry, who said he was a journeyman carpenter; worked for Mr. COLENZO, with his nephew; they left their tools in an unoccupied house adjoining Mr. Colenzo’s, in Downing-street, on Saturday evening, the 12th of May; they fastened the back door and latched the front; on Monday morning, the 14th, he went there again; did not find the hone there; had seen the case since.
Cross-examined by Mr. E. Coode – Any one could have opened the door.
John WHITE, was a shoemaker in Bodmin; on the 14th of May, in consequence of what his daughter told him, he went down the court behind the Bryanites’ chapel, to a pond, where he picked up two pieces of wood like the case of a hone, which he took home. He cut two pieces off one for the purpose of lighting the fire, and left the remainder in the chimney corner, and did not again see them till the following Thursday, when he saw them before the Mayor.
Richard YOUDY stated that on the 16th of May, he went to the last witnesses’ house, and got the two pieces of wood he now produced. He observed putty on one, and oil on the other. Took then down to the building where Francis Perry was working; showed them to him, and then handed them over to Wm. BRAY, the constable.
Wm. BRAY examined: Was a constable of Bodmin; recollected on the 16th of May receiving the hone stone frame from the last witness, which he now proferred.
Wm. COLENSO examined [note change in spelling of name] – was a master builder residing in Bodmin, Wm. PERRY was in his employ; the prisoner was also in his employ up to the time …… Perry, in May last, was in the habit of putting his tools in an uninhabited house adjoining the witness’s, and belonging to him. The prisoner was not accustomed to put any tools there, and he had no right in the house. About the time of this occurrence, witness saw prisoner go into the house, and he afterwards said to the prisoner “I wish to be convinced that I saw you go into the house,” and the prisoner said that he did, but that the prosecutor was there at the time.
In his cross-examination the witness stated that he could not say within a week when the prisoner went into the house, and it might have been even on the Friday before the prosecutor put his tools there on the Saturday. He also acknowledged that there was a tiff between Perry and the prisoner, as they both took contracts and he endeavoured to promote that state of ill feeling, as he found it advantageous to his own interests. (laughter).
Francis PERRY was a carpenter and nephew of the prosecutor; he was also his comrade; proved that the pieces of wood now produced belonged to his uncle’s hone.
Eliza OLIVER, the daughter of Mr. WHITE, stated that on Monday, the 14th of May, she saw the prisoner come down a court behind the Bryanites’ Chapel; she followed him and saw him take a piece of wood from under his arm and throw it in a pool, and it came up in two pieces. He then turned round, and went back again, and she went and informed her father. The pieces now produced were like what the prisoner threw in – indeed, she believed they were the pieces.
John Perry recalled – Believed that they were the pieces belonging to his hone.
Mr. E. Coode then addressed the jury, and remarked upon the want of evidence necessary to complete the case, to bring it home to the prisoner – the most necessary part, that of Mr. Colenzo, having entirely failed; for he could not tell whether the prisoner, even supposing it to be true that he had gone into the house, went in before the tools were put there or not. To convict a man on circumstantial evidence, it was necessary that ever part should be complete. This was altogether incomplete, for the woman, Eliza Oliver, although she said she had seen him throw the case into the water, did not take it out herself, but went and told her father, and when he took it out did not at all appear. The Learned Gentleman then went on to notice other discrepancies in the evidence, and concluded his case by calling Samuel BOND, who stated that he was a carpenter, living at Camelford, and had employed the prisoner about three years and a half ago for more than twelve months – that he would again take him into his employ, if he were at liberty. He had never known anything against his character. The witness was cross-examined at much length.
[As an anti-climax, I could not read the verdict! If anyone is very interested, let me know and I’ll try again.]
A special general meeting of the shareholders in this company was held on the 19th instant, at the London Tavern, to consider of the propriety of dissolving the present company, and organizing a new one to carry into effect a portion of the line originally contemplated.
[much more detail follows – including the “fact” that a Parliamentary committee had found “a net profit of 14 percent … might be reasonably expected.” Each current shareholder would receive 2 shares of the new stock for each share held in this company; many more shares would be authorized for sale, which would allow the company to raise the necessary capital.]
LOCAL NEWS
CORNISH SILVER
A large plate of this valuable metal was taken from the
furnaces of Messrs. Michell and Co’s
lead works, at Penpoll, near
CHURCH RATES
Some curious proceedings, we understand, have recently taken place at a vestry at St. Just in Roseland, held for the purpose of considering the propriety of granting a prospective Church-rate for that parish. The rate appears to have been proposed by the Rector, seconded by a woman, and according to the statement of the chairman and proposer, carried by a majority of one. A poll was afterwards demanded, but refused by the Rector, when the parishioners elected another chairman, and drew up a protest against the legality of the rate.
ASSAULT
On Saturday last, a man named Richards, in the employ of Mr.
R. James, hatter, at
FOWEY REGATTA
The aquatic sports which have given so much celebrity to
this ancient town for many years, took place on Tuesday the 17th
instant. At an early hour all was bustle
and xxx. Triumphal arches were erected
in the different xxx,
decorated with evergreens, intertwined with
oak and the gayest flowers of the season. That on the town quay displayed considerable
taste, having a platform
on the top, c..ted
with four flags. Gay flags were also
deployed from flag-staffs, and the vessels in the harbour
which were arranged in line, and had a fine effect. At
[A list of races and winners followed.]
Fourth race: First
prize, GBP 3. 10s, was
awarded to the “
All the matches were contested with great
spirit, and drew forth the plaudits of the spectators. At the close of the race the committee landed
at the extremity of the town, and walked in procession, headed by the Fowey amateur band, to the Ship Inn, where the prizes were
awarded. At
MELANCHOLY AND FATAL ACCIDENT
Last Friday afternoon, just as the Hayle and Redruth locomotive was starting with a train from the engine-house, at the top of the Portreath inclined plane, Mary Ann Keast, the wife of one of the workmen in charge of the wagons, rashly attempted to pass from another train to one of the carriages to which the locomotive was attached, and which starting at the same moment, caused her to fall between the carriages across the rail, when the train, passing over her chest, so dreadfully crushed her, that the poor woman almost instantly expired. She was about 23 years of age, had only been four weeks married, and had come out for the pleasure of a ride. We hope this calamitous accident will operate as a warning to others, and that persons will no longer be allowed, with such heedless temerity, to place themselves in situation of extreme danger, as they frequently been observed to do on this railroad.
FATAL RAILWAY ACCIDENT
On Tuesday evening last, soon after the train of carriages had left Hayle, a fine boy, about seven years old, named Hosking, in attempting to get into one of the wagons, fell, and the wheel passing over his body, killed him on the spot. The wagon contained a weight of five tons.
ADVERTISEMENTS
PASSAGE to NEW
The ship “JAMES PATTISON”
of 548 Tons burthen, James Cromarty, Commander, will leave Gravesend the 15th
and Plymouth the 27th of August.
The ship
“ALFRED” of 716 Tons, J. T. E. Flint, (late H.C.S.) Commander, will leave
The Ship “ANDROMACHE” of
477 Tons, Thomas Dow, Commander, will leave
These Ships are regular
Colonial Traders, are all of the first class, have poops and very superior accomodations, will each carry an experienced Surgeon, be
fitted and applied with liberal regard to the comfort of Passengers, and sail
with Strict PUNCTUALITY. Persons from
all parts of the three kingdoms can join these ships, on fixed days, at
A limited number of
AGRICULTURISTS and MECHANICS, will, under certain regulations, be allowed a
FREE passage by these ships. All
particulars may be known on application to Mr. T. H. Edwards, General Agent, Helston.
Other fine ships will
follow the above every month – all touching at
Post-paid letters only
will be answered.
……………..
C. and J. Harvey
Are now discharging, ex “Perseverance”, a Prime Cargo of Quebec Pine, Oak, Birch, Elm, and Ash Timber, Deals, Lathwood, &c., which will be Sold at very low Prices.
……………
LOCAL NEWS
[the condition of some of the pages is very bad; large sections are blackened to the point of not being able to read them. In those cases, I shall try to get the pertinent facts and names, and enter as much of the case as possible – they’ll be enclosed in [ ], as usual.]
On Sunday, at half-past three, Mr. Justice Coltman, having arrived from
[what followed was a paraphrased version of the entire sermon]
Trial of the prisoners:
William LUDLOW was indicted for a riot in the parish of Stratton. Mr. ROWE said this was a case arising out of the riots which they might recollect accompanied the introduction into this country of the Poor Law Act in 1837. From certain circumstances it was found impossible to proceed against this person, and as the prosecution was only for the sake of example, that example was afforded in the conviction of two other prisoners. Under those circumstances, the learned gentleman said he would not prefer any evidence against the prisoner. The jury found the prisoner not guilty.
……………
Nathaniel HAWKE, 10, and William LANCE, 15, were charged with stealing 3 lbs of rope-yarn, the property of Edward Henry HAWKE. The prisoners pleaded guilty, and Lance was sentenced to six weeks’ hard labour, and Hawke to a month’s.
…………..
Thomas DREADON, 29, was charged with stealing four oxen and a heifer the property of Mr. Thomas VARCOE.
Thomas VARCOE examined: I am a farmer living at St. Wenn; on Sunday evening, the 10th of June, I called at my brother’s public house between eight and nine in the evening; saw and left the prisoner there; had some cattle about half a mile from my house, and about half a mile from my brother’s house; the four oxen and a heifer were among them; sent my servant into the field next morning, between six and seven o’clock; I went there afterwards in consequence of what I was told, and I afterwards went to a fair at Grampound, which is about 10 miles or more from St. Wenn. I went there on the 11th – the same day; on Tuesday morning I saw them in Mr. Hugo’s field; Hugo lives about a mile from Bodmin.
Cross-examined by Mr. Greenwood: Knew the prisoner quite well; he served his apprenticeship near me; I never knew anything bad of him before this.
Henry BRENTON examined by Mr. Cockburn: I am in the service of prosecutor; on the morning of the 11th of June, I went to the filed, and missed four oxen and one heifer.
James HUGO examined: I am a farmer and cattle dealer living in Bodmin; on Monday the 11th of June I went to Menheniot fair; I should fancy that is 20 miles or more from the prosecutor’s; Menheniot is about three miles east of Liskeard; St. Wenn is north-west; saw the prisoner about half a mile before I entered the fair; he had four oxen and a heifer; I asked him whose bullocks they were; he said they belonged to him; asked him what he would take for them, and he said GBP 35; I asked him where he had brought them from; he said from St. Columb; St. Columb joins the parish of St. Wenn; I asked him whether he had reared them; he said no; but that he had bought them at one Tatmin’s sale the day after Christmas-day; the oxen appeared very much fatigued; I asked him why the bullocks were looking so tired? He said he had brought them the Sunday evening before from St. Columb; I concluded my bargain with him at the price asked, and gave him a shilling earnest; I then said I would mark those bullocks, for I thought they were unlawfully got at; I then asked him if he knew Mr. Reynold? The prisoner replied he did, and I asked him if he would agree to let the money lodge in Mr. Reynold’s hands, and he said he would if I would let him have part of it, as he had an engagement to go to Torpoint, and wanted some money for that purpose; I objected, and he then said he would take them to my house, on which I told him I would give him 5s. for his trouble. The witness went on to state that he afterwards followed the prisoner, and saw a young man on horseback stop to speak with him; witness spoke to the young man, and, in consequence, took possession of the cattle, and had the prisoner taken into custody.
Cross-examined: He might have gone a nearer road to my house.
Charles HICKS corroborated the last witness in his detail of the conversation which had taken place between him and the prisoner.
Mr. Greenwood addressed the jury, and called several witnesses, who gave the prisoner a good character for honesty up to the time of the present charge being preferred. The jury found him guilty, and the learned judge sentenced him to transportation for 15 years.
…………………
Fanny MAUNDER, 34, was charged with stealing, on the 18th of July, from the shop of Mr. Leonard PHILP, at Callington, a piece of printed cotton.
Elizabeth FELTON, a shop girl, in the prosecutor’s employ, stated that she observed the prisoner take up the print in question and put it under her arm, while another person in the shop had turned her back to get something that the prisoner had asked for. The witness went up and accused the prisoner of the theft, and she then took the cotton from under her arm, and left the shop. Witness informed Mr. Philip, who had the prisoner taken into custody.
Mr. PHILP identified the print, which was produced by Mr. BURT, a constable, as his property. Guilty. The prosecutor recommended her to mercy, on account of her poverty; and the Court sentenced her to ten months’ hard labour.
…………
John FRANCIS, William SPARGO, and James KESTLE were indicted for feloniously assaulting Henry JOLLY, and robbing him of sixpence and five half-pence, on the 24th of July, in the parish of St. Gluvias parish.
Henry JOLLY – whose head and eye displayed convincing marks of very severe usage – was examined by Mr. Cockburn; and stated that he is a shoemaker, living at Ponsanooth, in St. Gluvias parish. On Tuesday evening last, between between nine and ten o’clock, I was coming from Falmouth to my home, and had occasion to pass through Penryn; saw the three prisoners near Shoal-lane; did not speak to them at all; came along the road to Redruth, and was overtaken by two of the prisoners, Spargo and Francis, who fell into conversation with me; they asked me if there was any village between there and Ponsanooth? I said there was, and that it was called Burnt House; while I was speaking, I received a sudden blow over my eye, with a fist; Spargo struck the blow, which knocked me on my … into the hedge; I asked him what that was for, and James Destle demanded my … to save my life; Francis held [me down]…So Francis said if you screech murder I will kill you; I had a little bundle in my .. at the time; they tried to take the bundle and .. the handkerchief in which it was tied up. Francis did this; while they were trying to get the bundle, I heard a [sound of a horse] coming from Redruth; the two men then left me, and I [looked] round and saw a third; John Kestle was the third man; he did not do anything to me; the third man went towards Penryn; on the Thursday afternoon, I gave a description of the men to Mr. Mellewas; I know they are the same men as I saw in Penryn, because I observed their gait and build.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rowe: The place where I was knocked down was better than a mile from Burnt House. I went straight home; had a blow on the eye and another over the ear, which cut it through; I fell against the hedge, I was lying in the hedge when the money was taken out of my pocket. I could walk when I got up. I attempted to go home as fast as I could. There is a short turn [near] where I was struck down, towards Redruth; it might have been two or three minutes after I was knocked down before I heard a horse’s foot. My house is three miles from Penryn.
Re-examined: I took a good many blows.
By the Judge: I never examined the prisoners so … know their features.
Wm. MELLARIS is a carpenter at Ponsanooth; was in a public-house kept by Nicholas Martin, on Tuesday evening last, about ten o’clock; saw the prisoners come in, they appeared to have been walking very hard; they might have stopped a quarter of an hour; the prosecutor afterwards gave me a description of them; I communicated the names of the prisoners to him.
Cross-examined: The prisoners left me there. I saw one of them pay a shilling and receive change.
John THOMAS is a constable; took the three prisoners into custody. Kestle told me he was not anywhere that night; Spargo said he had gone to fetch a pair of boots at the time of the robbery; I had not got Francis at that time; Spargo did not say where he had been; this was said at the public house where I took him; the landlord … refused to say anything when Spargo asked him if he had not been there at the time the robbery was said to have been committed; Spargo and Kestle afterwards said they were at Ponsanooth and had …. The examination of the prisoners was then .., and in which they confessed to having been in company on the night in question at Ponsanooth.
Cross-examined: Was asked a few questions before the Magistrates; took prisoners Kestle and Spargo into custody in the parish of Budock. Francis came with the constable to the inn; I first took Francis’s brother by mistake, and afterwards the prisoner.
Mr. Rowe addressed the jury and called the Sheriff’s Chaplain, who gave Kestle a good character.
Another witness was called who gave the whole of the prisoners a good character for the whole of their lives, and the jury found the prisoners not guilty.
…………….
Anthony COCK, 37, was charged with stealing three hives, with the honey and comb, the property of Mr. James MANN.
James Mann, sen., is a yeoman
living at Boswarton, near Penzance;
had a garden behind his house where he keeps bee hives; saw his bees safe on
Saturday the 21st of July; on the next morning, they were all gone;
the bees were killed and there was no honey-comb left. From information witness had, he got a
warrant against the prisoner, who lived about a mile away; went to the prisoner’s house on Sunday
about
James MANN, jr., is constable at Gulval where the prisoner lives, and went with the prosecutor to the prisoner’s house; the door was bolted inside; after being at the door three quarters of an hour witness got in but the prisoner previously said if witness came in he would murder him. The prisoner then attempted to come out of the house, but witness prevented him. He afterwards got into the house, and found the prisoner in the chimney. Witness then went upstairs, which he found covered with dead bees; he then went into the bedroom and found more dead bees; the prisoner’s sister was in one of the beds, of which there were two in the room, and refused to get up till witness told her he would upset the bedstead if she did not get up. She rose and he then found some honey-comb under the sacking of the bed and dead bees and honey in various other parts of the house. Witness asked the prisoner and his sister where those things came from, and they said they could not tell.
Cross-examined by Mr. Daman: There were two children in the house. The prisoner denied all that night any knowledge as to how the things came in his house.
The confession of the prisoner was then put in and read, in which he stated that he found a parcel about half a mile from his house, which contained honey and honey-comb, and he took it home for his children to eat.
Richard MANN accompanied the two last witnesses on the 22nd of June; previous to getting into the house, witness saw a face looking out of the window, which immediately withdrew; he also saw some honey thrown out of the back window in a basin. Heard the prisoner say that he did not know how the honey came there. Guilty. Six calendar months’ labour.
………..
… ALLEN, 23, was indicted for stealing … lbs of brass from Jane HODGE, his mistress, of St. Austell.
Xxx said that on the 3rd of July … his shop to sell brass, which [he then sold to] John Nicholls, and gave the money to the prisoner; would know the brass again.
Michael Roberts, constable, produced the brass which Mr. Nicholls identified.
John HODGE said his mother was a widow, and carried on the business of a brass founder at St. Austell. The prisoner was in her employ in July; identified some of the brass now produced. Guilty. Six months’ hard labour.
…………………
Richard DUNN, a little child eight years of age, who said my father is called Thomas DUNN, and he lives at Park Lannerest; I go sometimes to St. Stephens; I know Lane, sometimes I meet him; I saw him last Saturday week, and had seen him sometime before; Lane, on that occasion, threw a stone at witness; on Saturday week saw the prisoner at a place called Roydon; was carrying a pike and rake, and Lane threw me down and stabbed me; I did not try to strike him with the pike or rake; he said he would fight me, and then I let fall the pike and rake; when Lane came up he threw me down and fell upon me; I saw the point of a knife; that was when I … up; the knife was in his hand; I felt my side “blood up”; it was just above my hip; I got home as fast as I could and told my sister Anne; she took down my clothes…. He had been quarreling a day or two with me; he threw a stone at me, and hit me in the … had not done anything to him before.
By the Judge: I am sure I did not fall on the point of the pike.
Ann DUNN, the sister, was examined, and stated that she found a cut on her brother’s side when she took down his clothes.
Dr. Rowe stated that he had examined the child, and found the waistcoat cut, and a penetration through the side into the … of about a quarter of an inch.
The Judge thought that they could hardly predicate that it was the intention of this little boy to inflict this wound with [an intention] to do the prisoner some grievous bodily harm. [a confused sentence – surely the writer meant the prisoner had not intended grievous bodily harm on the smaller boy.] He might be convicted of an assault. The jury found a verdict as directed. Two weeks’ hard labour.
……………………….
Eliza JACKSON, a nymph of the pave, was charged with
stealing a handkerchief, on the 16th of July, the property of
Elizabeth CARDALE examimed: I live at
[Soldier, presumably
By the Judge.- I was standing at my billet when the prosecutor and another girl passed, and saw the handkerchief in my breast. The prisoner told me that it was a handkerchief which she had found, and if I heard any one enquiring for it I must give it up.
George ROBERTS, constable, produced the handkerchief, which the prosecutor claimed as her property.
The prisoner said she found it, and called Edward Stephens TABB, who stated that he was the landlord of the house recently inhabited by the prosecutrix. There was a cry of fire on the morning of the 16th , and I got up; the prosecutrix lived next door to me, and kept, he was sorry to say, a bad house, which he had since locked up, and he would take care it was not so again; when he got down stairs he saw the prisoner come out, and picked up a silk handkerchief, and she asked him who was its owner; he said “it din’t belong to either of the Lizzys,” – said that was either great Liz or little Liz (great laughter, in which his Lordship heartily joined). Knew that it was not Lizzy’s because he had seen all her wardrobe, which would scarcely count more things than what she stood up in (renewed laughter). Never saw the handkerchief till he saw it in the prisoner’s hand; and was quite certain that it could not have been the property of the prosecutrix.
The prosecutrix, who was a dashing damsel, and who certainly displayed in her person none of those harrowing marks of poverty with the ungallant Mr. Tabb chose to insinuate, was re-called, and in reply to a question from the Judge stated that the handkerchief was not her property, but had been borrowed the previous night of a young friend of hers, who lived two doors down.
After Mr. Rowe had addressed the jury, and nearly slain Mr. Tabb for his obstinate defence of the prisoner, the Judge summed up and the jury immediately found her not guilty.
………………………..
Rosa ADAMS, 49, was indicted for feloniously assaulting Owen McGUIGAN, and stealing from him four shawls at Probus, on the 5th of July. Two other prisoners, named Catherine HARRUP and Eliza NEY were also indicted for a participation in the same offense, but the grand jury ignored the bill as against the latter prisoners.
Owen McGUIGAN examined by Mr. Rose: I am a hawker and carry shawls and other things; on the 5th of July, I went to Probus fair; I went into a public house in the evening to take some refreshment, and saw this woman [the defendant] and another; I afterwards went into another house between 10 and 11 o’clock; saw this woman when I ..l. never had seen the prisoner before; had a bundle of shawls when I went into the first public house; and also when I went into the second. …. I came out and the prisoner struck [the back of my head] with something that she had, and took my bundle away; when I came to, a man with a velvet jack brought back a part of my bundle, there were four shawls gone; I [saw one of my shawls] in a public house at St. Austell the following night. Had no conversation with the prisoner. She was drinking with the woman Catherine Harrup.
By the Judge: I suppose I had drank four or five quarts of ale in the course of the day, but that was nothing considering (laughter). Both the women struck me before the prisoner gave me a blow with a stone. The prisoner took the bundle. Had had no quarrel with the women.
John LOWRY, constable of
The prisoner stated that she and the other women had been drinking together, the prosecutor having treated them, and there was afterwards a quarrel in the street when the prosecutor knocked Harrup down, and a row ensued.
In answer to a question from the Judge, the prosecutor stated that he did not know whether he had treated the prisoner or not. The Judge left it with the jury to say whether they could find the prisoner guilty on evidence so unsatisfactory. Not guilty.
The court then rose.
The court was occupied through nearly the whole day with the painful investigation of a case, in which Thomas LITY was charged with a violent and felonious assault on the person of Charlotte PEDLER.
The unhappy subject of the alleged assault was, of course,
the principal witness; and we scarcely remember any legal proceedings in which
so distressing a scene was presented, as in the delivery of her evidence. The examination of this one witness lasted
nearly five hours; though, from the nature of the details, we must necessarily
give her evidence very briefly. The witness
repeatedly fainted, and at one time was obliged to be removed, and kept …
nearly three quarters of an hour. She
was at that time, and subsequently, under the care of Mr. Mudge,
surgeon, and was accommodated, by the direction of the judge, in every way that
the kindness of her friends could be so great.
It appeared that she was about 16 years of age, and lived with her
father and mother at Withiel; and that the prisoner, Lity, was a miner, and with other young men, lodged at the
house. On the 11th of April
last, the father, Lity, Charlotte Pedler,
and a younger sister, went to a Methodist Missionary Meeting at Bodmin, where they arrived about
In her cross-examination, the witness admitted that there
had been some previous courtship on Lity’s part, and that he had talked to her of marriage immediately
before and after the occurrence on the
Richard Pedler, the father, stated
that the reason of Lity’s remaining behind on the
party leaving Bodmin was to light his pipe, and that
George Pedlar [Uncle of the prosecutrix, testified] the prisoner and Charlotte talked
about marriage.. he said “It will be better for you
both to be married” or something like that.
They talked together the morning after the occurrence, and
Mary Blewitt, a widow of 60 years of age, gave evidence as to the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix. [Evidently, she was a midwife; they accepted her medical testimony as valid.]
Mr. Moody addressed the jury … in reference to the facts [presented] by Mary Blewitt, and read several extracts from Medical works. He implored the jury to bestow their .. attention to the evidence, guarding themselves against the impulses naturally awakened by what they had heard. … such testimony, induced by anxiety on the part of the witness to clear herself from the imputation of guilt. He would not, for a moment, defend the sort of intimacy before marriage which he was …[so unhappy] to see so prevalent among the labouring classes. [he encouraged the jury to “view the evidence in reference to the capital crime with which the prisoner stood charged”.] Several witnesses gave the prisoner a good character for quiet and peaceable manners.
The learned Judge summed up, and with great care; and the
jury about
………..
Richard SLEEP, 19, was charged with committing an indecent assault on Maria COOPER, the wife of Thomas Cooper. There was another count for a … assault.
The prosecutrix stated that she lived […] farm with her husband, and that Sleep lodged with them. On the 10th of July, her husband and neighbours [attended?] at Altarnun revel, and she was sitting on one side of the fireplace and Richard Sleep on the other; and that Sleep (making an odd overture) pinched her toe with the tongs. Witness asked him why he did that. He then got up and went out, and coming in again, took her by the arm and touched her person insultingly. She …. and .. him on one side. After that he went upstairs and came down with his best clothes, … He asked witness to sew a button on his clothes, and while she was doing it, he committed the assault complained of, subjecting the witness to great fright and pain….
Thomas ROCHE, the father of Mrs. Cooper, [was in a field]; [upon] her coming to him on the Common, [she said] that Sleep had [attacked her] and saying he should never sleep there [at the farmhouse] again.
Thomas COOPER, her husband, [recounted] his wife’s telling him of the circumstances immediately on his return from the revel. The prisoner had not [dared] to come to the house again, except [to fetch his clothes]. Guilty of a common assault. Three months’ imprisonment.
…………….
Thomas CUNDY, 36, was charged [with stealing a pack and sundry articles in it, the property of John DONNELLY, an Irish peddler].
John DONNELLY stated that he was.. house at Sticker, near St. Austell, on the night of the 8th of June. [Prisoner was there with another man.] On the road he saw these two men following him; he had his pack and box with him. Cundy knocked him down. [Witness followed, but could not keep up]. At length, he found himself on the way to Pentewan. He came to the inn called the London Apprentice, and afterwards went to …. [returned to Sticker, and said he [would not do them harm] (meaning Cundy and Brown) if they brought back his pack.] Had had a little beer, but knew what he was about.
Cross-examined – Cundy was dressed as he was now; the night was neither dark nor light, and the beer he drank had not blinded his eyes. The first witness he told his loss to was Mrs. Cock [of the London Apprentice Inn]. The names he heard were William Brown and William Cundy.
John SIMMONS said on the 10th of June he found a pack on the hedge of his back premises, and saw it was a pedler’s pack. Donnelly claimed it he next morning, and took it away with him.
Mrs. COCK lived about a mile and a quarter from St. Austell. Saw Donnelly on the Saturday morning in question, about half-past six. He called and asked to warm himself, and said he had been knocked down by two men, and robbed the night before. He said he knew them, but not their names.
Cross-examined: Donnelly was not very sober nor was he very drunk. He was not very wild, nor very stupid, and did not look like he had just got out of bed.
Elizabeth WHITEHAIR examined for the defence – When the prosecutor came to her husband’s beer house, his pack was very loose, and the things were trembling about. This was about eleven or twelve on the Friday night. He charged Cundy with stealing a razor. Cundy insisted on the prosecutor’s being searched, and a razor was found in his pocket. Brown’s name was Nicholas.
Wm. Mitchell, the constable, stated that he had never been able to find any Nicholas Brown, concerned in this transaction. Verdict, Guilty. Twelve months’ hard labour
……………….
John SARAH was indicted for stealing on the 12th of July last, at Feock, a pair of shoes of the value of two shillings, the property of a fellow labourer. The prisoner pleaded Guilty. Two months’ hard labour.
This concluded the business at the Crown Bar at about
half-past
BACK to INDEX