cornwall england newspaper

1847 NEWS

APRIL

2 APRIL 1847, Friday
[ to April 9th, etc. ]

LOCAL INTELLIGENCE

TRURO, FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1847 The very large number of prisoners for trial at our assizes, which have just closed, has swelled our reports to an unusual length; but the proceedings in both courts have been of so important and interesting a character that we have given them as fully as possible, and have omitted our usual editorial articles, as well as abridged our general news, in order to afford them the extent of room they require.

IRELAND THE FAMINE - the provincial papers received in Dublin on Thursday, are filled with details of the ravages of famine and fever. The imports of food are immense. At Cork no less than 160 vessels had arrived within eight days; a great reduction of prices had followed in consequence. Public and private accounts concur in estimating the extent of emigration this spring to exceed the widest calculations that could have been formed in anticipation of the effects of the awful calamity which has befallen the country. The small farmers are stated to be literally panic stricken, and are turning their stock, furniture, and every other valuable article into ready money, to enable them to fly to other lands before the present season closes.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT

A court for the relief of Insolvent Debtors was held at the Guild-Hall, Bodmin, on Tuesday last, at ten o'clock, before John Greathed HARRIS, Esq.

BENJAMIN PARCE, of Gulval, who had been remanded at the court held on the 30th of November last, was now brought up, and ordered to be detained for twelve months from the date of the vesting order, 13th of July, 1846.

JAMES LOUTITT BRAIMER (sued as James Louitt Brainier.) Mr. BENNETT appeared for the Insolvent. The Insolvent was a Lieutenant in the Royal Marines, on half pay, and lately residing at Flushing, in the parish of Mylor. The detaining creditors were Messrs. WHEELER and ROBINSON, tailors, 9 Prince's Street, Hanover Square, London, for GBP 26 original debt, and GBP10.11s.8d. costs. The whole amount of Creditors' claims was GBP178.10s.8d. The schedule contained no entry of property beyond excepted articles, with the exception of Insolvent's half-pay. He was discharged.

THOMAS DUNSTAN (sued at Thomas Dunstone.) Mr. Bennett appeared for Insolvent. Insolvent was described as a miner, labourer, and farmer, of the parish of Gwennap. The detaining creditor was MRS. ELIZABETH MARTIN, of Trewedna, in Gwennap, for GBP 65.4s.6d. costs in an action of trespass, tried at the Summer Assizes, 1846, at Bodmin. The whole amount of Creditors� claims was GBP 72.19s.; and there was no entry of any property, in possession or reversion. The case was adjourned till the next circuit.

LOCAL INTELLIGENCE

DUNSTANVILLE CHARITIES - The half-yearly meeting of the trustees of this charity was held on Wednesday last, at the Cornish Bank, Truro, E. W. W. PENDARVES, Esq., M.P., in the chair. It was stated to the meeting that LORD FALMOUTH had consented to become a trustee, and that the stock belonging to the charity had been transferred into the names of SIR C. LEMON, Bart., J. H. TREMAYNE, Esq., and the Earl of Falmouth. The deed of trust having been prepared, it was executed by Sir C. Lemon, and J. H. Tremayne, Esq., and the clerk was directed to obtain the signature of Lord Falmouth. The trustees were informed that GBP 100 having been left to the charity by the late MR. PRAED, the treasurer had received GBP 90, being the amount, less legacy duty, of such bequest, and with this sum the treasurer had purchased GBP 100 three per cent consols. The treasurer reported that GBP 2,850 consols is standing in the names of the trustees, and that the annual income thence arising is GBP 85.10s. It was thereupon resolved that the number of annuitants be increased to eight; and DAVID SODDY, one of the annuitants, having lately died, the trustees proceeded to the election of two annuitants. There were twenty applicants whose petitions were submitted to the trustees, and of these there were elected MARK COLLINS, of Camborne, aged 45, who has suffered the loss of one eye and both arms through an explosion of gunpowder in North Roskear mine nine years since; and PRUDENCE ARGALL, of St. Agnes, aged 24, who is a single woman and one of three sisters, who are all crippled in their ancle bones and wrists. [spelling as given.]

THE NEW COUNTY COURTS ACT - We understand that the Lord Chancellor has been pleased to approve of the Judge�s appointment of EDMUND CARLYON, Esq., solicitor, as clerk of the county court for the St. Austell district; and that the first court for this county will be held at Liskeard, on Tuesday next.

WELCOME VISITORS - In the neighbourhood of Penzance, swallows and sand-martins have made their appearance.

KENWYN PLOUGHING MATCH - This ploughing match took place on Thursday, the 18th ult., in a field belonging to MR. OLIVER, of Croft West. The farmers being so busily engaged about the spring tillage, the competition was not so great as was expected; twelve ploughs were however, entered, and the work was done in a superior manner. MR. WM. CARDELL, of Probus, MR. JOHN HARDING, of Lamorran, and MR. RICHARD GILL, of St. Allen, acted as umpires, and their awards gave general satisfaction. The first prize of GBP 2, for combing, was awarded to JOSEPH ROBINS, of Kenwyn; second ditto, GBP 1.10s. to THOMAS CLARK, of Tregavethan; and the third ditto, 15s., to THOMAS CURNER, of Kenwyn. For boys' combing, the first prize of GBP 1.5s. was awarded to GEORGE CLARK, of Tregavethan; second ditto, 15s. to JOHN TRIGANOWAN, of Kenwyn; and the third ditto, 10s., to RICHARD ROBINS, of Kenwyn. There were also three prizes for skim coulter ploughing, but only one plough was entered, and the umpires withheld the prize for want of merit. A good and substantial dinner was afterwards provided by MR. HICK, at the Victoria Inn, for upwards of thirty persons. The chair was taken by MR. OLIVER, and on the removal of the cloth some good speeches were made, and an interesting discussion ensued on the best mode of cultivating the soil. The company afterwards separated, every one appearing to be highly gratified with the day's proceedings.

ROBBERIES - Several robberies have been committed in the town and neighbourhood of Helston during the past week. On Wednesday night, a small shop at St. John's, near Helston, was broken into, and GBP 8 in money and a quantity of tobacco taken away by the thieves; and on Saturday night last, the counting house of the Helston Brewery was entered through a back window, and GBP 14 in money stolen. We regret to learn that in both cases the guilty parties have escaped the hands of justice.

CORONERS' INQUESTS - the following inquests have been held before J. CARLYON, Esq., coroner, since our last report. On Monday last, at Penryn, on the body of CATHERINE ANEAR, aged three years, who was burnt to death by accidentally catching her clothes of fire; and on Wednesday last, at Tretheage, in the parish of Stithians, on the body of THOMAS MARTIN, aged four years, who died on Tuesday last, from injuries he received last Sunday evening, by falling into a pan of boiling gruel which his mother had lifted off the fire and placed on the floor a few minutes before the accident. Verdict in each case � accidental death.

On Saturday last, two inquests were held before W. HICHENS, Esq., coroner, at Mousehole, one on the body of RICHARD PENTREATH, aged about thirteen years, who was accidentally drowned there on the 24th. The deceased and three other little boys were, it appears, in a boat together, rowing about for their amusement, and in trying to pass between Mousehole Island and a rock called Carn Gwaice, the boat was accidentally upset, and all of them precipitated into the sea. Two of the four were, by the force of the sea, thrown on Carn Gwaice, who was [a good?] swimmer, made several attempts to get on it, but the sea always carried him off again, till at length he sunk. The other boy, who was a younger brother of the deceased, lay on his back, and thus managed to keep himself up until a boat came to their assistance, when he was taken therein, and, with the two who were on the rock, carried to shore. The accident happened early in the forenoon, and the deceased was not taken up until between three and four o'clock in the afternoon. Verdict accordingly.

The other inquest was on the body of JOHN GILBERT, aged about 64 years. The deceased, who had been afflicted with asthma for some time, went to bed on Thursday night apparently as well as usual. On the following morning his little grandson was sent by his mother, the deceased's daughter, to call his grandfather, as he was accustomed to do; and shortly after he returned to his mother, saying that his grandfather could not speak to him. The mother went immediately to her father�s room, and saying, father, father, he replied, yes, yes, and died immediately. Verdict, natural death.

On the 31st instant, an inquest was held before the same coroner, at the village of Treen, in the parish of St. Levan, on the body of JOHN BERRIMAN, jun., aged about four years. The deceased's mother went from her house to a garden about a hundred yards distant, to gather some clothes which she had put out to dry, leaving the deceased and three other children (the oldest of whom was about nine years of age) there; and during an absence of from five to seven minutes, the deceased caught his saveall on fire, and was so much burnt thereby that he died on the same day. Verdict, accidental death.

NISI PRIUS, 2 APRIL 1847

HAWKEN v. PEARCEMr. THOMAS HAWKEN brought suit against MR. THOMAS PEARCE, executor of the estate of the late THOMAS PEARCE of Upper and Lower Coldrinnlake, in the parish of Blisland, who died June last, leaving behind him considerable property, to recover remuneration for services plaintiff performed as servant to the late Mr. Pearce. Witnesses for plaintiff, grandson of the deceased, were EDWARD PEARCE, WILLIAM HAWKEN and a man named AUGER. [Plaintiff had lived with the old gentleman since he was two or three years old. Was sent to school by him. During the past ten years, had worked on the farms as a skilled seedsman, attended to the threshing machine, and was a skilful workman altogether. He received no compensation for his labour during his grandfather's life. One witness testified plaintiff's services were worth GBP 25 a year.] When plaintiff's father sought to remove him from the grandfather's farm to a place called Boscarne, the old gentleman said he could not have him; he should not like to part with him as long as he was living. Plaintiff's father said "I hope if you keep him here all the best of his time, you will do something for him." To which the old gentleman replied "I will do more than you can for him." It was also stated that plaintiff was so much in position of servant, that occasionally when he was called to leave the farm for a day, he would get a workman to supply his place, and that he paid the workman who thus acted for him.

Defendant, who was the son of Thomas Pearce and uncle of plaintiff, pleaded the statute of limitations, and besides that he set up the following defence: that from the time he was two or three years of age, plaintiff had been reared, educated, clothed, and fed at the expense of his grandfather; he learned the business of farming at the expense of the grandfather, continued to live with him as one of the family, and expected to receive a legacy from him at his death. From these circumstances, the understanding between the parties was that plaintiff was to have no remuneration. With regard to plaintiff's providing a workman when he was absent, it was stated that the old Mr. Pearce's two sons also provided substitutes when they were absent from the estate. Plaintiff, it was said, had been left by the old Mr. Pearce a legacy of GBP 50, and an eighth share of GBP 500, and he was further entitled, on the death of his three aunts, to GBP 300 more; but these bequests were not as much as was expected, and, it was alleged, constituted the reason for his bringing this action. The learned Judge having summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

HOBBS v. SHEPHARD This was an action for damages for a serious injury which plaintiff had sustained through defendant having discharged a pistol, by which plaintiff was grievously and seriously wounded. Mr. Crowder stated the case to the jury, and then called WILLIAM MARTIN, a mason living at Kilkhampton, who deposed that on the 22nd of October last, a vessel called the "Elias," was wrecked near Stowe cliffs, about four miles from Kilkhampton. He went with HOBBS, the plaintiff, to the place of the wreck, and they arrived about half-past nine at night. The vessel was lying in such a manner that the deck was sloping like the roof of a house; there was a light on the deck, and witness saw Mr. SHEPHARD, the defendant, on board. Mr. Shepherd was a large farmer in the parish of Launcells, and was on board as Lloyd's agent. Witness and plaintiff looked on for some time, the tide being partly in when they arrived. They heard the report of two pistols, and after that witness saw a pistol in Shephard's hand; he pointed it over the bulwarks towards the crowd of people on the beach, and fired it. He said when he fired "there, d..., that's in you; that will let you know whether there is lead in it, or only powder; you have been laughing at me before for firing off powder." Hobbs then called to witness, and said he had been shot. Witness went to him, and saw blood issuing from the wound. He bound it up with a handkerchief, and then called out to Shephard that he had shot a man. Shephard asked "are you sure of that?" Witness said "Yes" and Shephard then rejoined, that he did not care a d-n if he had killed him; he might go to h-ll, and get his wounds dressed. After that, witness assisted plaintiff away from the beach. Plaintiff is about 25 or 26 years of age, he is a farm labourer, and has a wife and child. Cross-examined: there was a "brave breeze" at the time; it was not very foggy nor very clear. It was about half-past ten o'clock when the pistol was fired. I should think there were upwards of 100 people there at the time. I saw MINERS, the preventative man, go on the deck, but did not notice him afterwards.

JOHN ROWE, a mason living at Pyworthy, corroborated several portion of the preceding testjmony, and said he saw Mr. Shephard take the pistol out of RICHARD MINERS's hand, and discharge it in the direction where Hobbs was standing. There was another shot fired after that.

The case was then adjourned, and the court rose.

FRIDAY, MARCH 26
HOBBS v. SHEPHARD. This case, postponed from last evening, was this morning resumed; and from the minute details on which the examination turned, it lasted till nearly five o'clock.

MARY ELLETT, EDWARD MARTIN, THOMAS HEARD, constable of Kilkhampton, and SAMUEL BASSETT corroborated the evidence of the previous witness.

JOHN PEARCE LANE, surgeon at Kilkhampton, was called in to Hobbs, about three o'clock on the morning of the 23rd of October. Found he was wounded in the left buttock. The external opening of the wound was about two inches from the centre of the spine. Passed the probe about six inches towards the hip joint, but did not at that time find anything in the wound. Continued to examine the wound daily for 4 or 5 days, and on the 4th day, found in the wound a piece of fustian jacket and of trowsers and lining. Had never been able to discover the ball; it was still in the man's body. The man remained under his care for nearly ten weeks. Before this wound, he was, to all appearance, a healthy man. The effect of the wound had been to disable him from undertaking any thing of an arduous nature. It was probable that the ball still remaining in the body might be attended with great danger. The amount of witness's charges would be about GBP 30 to GBP 50. Cross-examined: the man had gone about his work since witness attended him. Should not charge the plaintiff - a poor labouring man - as much as GBP 30 or 50. Should not charge him less than five shillings a day, for the ten weeks.

Mr. COCKBURN then addressed the jury for the defence, opening, in various ways, a case of complete contradiction to that of the plaintiff, alleging that he should prove that Hobbs was not wounded by Shephard, but accidentally, by Miners, a coast guard man on board the vessel who fired about two or three minutes after Shephard; that Shephard fired sea-ward over the bows of the vessel, and Miners more in the direction of the people, - and that the expressions imputed to shelphard by the plaintiff's witnesses, were not used by him. The witnesses called for the defence were GEORGE VIVIAN, a farmer of Poughill; THOMAS NEALE, a mason of Poughill; JAMES GOLSWORTHY, a farmer of Kilkhampton; and JAMES VIVIAN. After a long reply from Mr. Crowder, and a careful summing up by the Judge, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff, for GBP 35.

BIRKMYRE v GILL and OTHERS. This was an action to recover damages for an alleged assault on the plaintiff by the defendants. The plaintiff was a chemist of some celebrity, and had made some important discoveries in the processes used in the manufacture of alum, and that brought him into connection with the defendants. The defendants were Mr. THOMAS GILL, M.P. for Plymouth, MR. JOHN EDGCUMBE GILL, MR. BERNARD, their clerk or manager in their manufactory, and five men who were in their employment. Plaintiff had entered into a contract with the Messrs. Gill, by which he was to make his invention as profitable as he could to the concern, and was to be entitled to one-fourth of the profits. Plaintiff after some time left the Messrs. Gill's employment, and he subsequently went to the premises to see what were the profits accruing from his invention. Mr. Bernard, the foreman, told him he had orders from Messrs. Gill to keep him off the premises. 7 or 8 men came to put him out, and took him to a place where they put a rope around him, attached it to a pully, then lowered him to the floor below like a bale of goods. Defendants pleaded that Mr. Birkmyre was on the premises wrongfully, and that they had a right to put him out. Plaintiff answered an excess of force and violence was used. A gross outrage had been committed upon him; one for which he was entitled to ask for serious compensation. ROBERT LILLIERAP and JOHN HAY were then called to give evidence, Mr. Cockburn remarking he could only sustain his case by bringing forward men in Messrs. Gill's employ, there being no other person present. These men stated they were ordered by Mr. Bernard to assist in putting Mr. Birkmyre out of the premises. That they tried to persuade him to go quietly, but he still remained, and resisted them; that the only open way out of the loft where he was, was by a ladder, nearly perpendicular, to the floor below; that it would have been dangerous, with his resisting, to thrust him down that ladder; and that he was not at all injured by the manner in which they put him down. There was a door to an adjoining floor, but that was fastened at the time. Mr. Crowder contended there was no evidence at all to fix the Messrs. Gill with any assault, and that no contract between plaintiff and defendants had ever been broken by the former. The learned Judge summed up, agreeing with Mr. Crowder that there was nothing to show that either of the Messrs. Gill were guilty of assault. He then remarked on the circumstances of the case, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

This case concluded the Nisi Prius business. The Court rose at seven o'clock.

Continued from page 4

OYSTER BEDS (again)

[J. TYACKE, jun., testified his] father duly paid from 1815 for it at the Trelowarren Court, and had kept up the oysterage. Keelage and bushelage? were also received for the Vyvyans. Never knew of any interference with his father's right. J. TYACKE,sen., had been lessee of the oysterage since 1815; enjoyed it from that time to the present, paying rent of GBP350 yearly. Was at considerable expense, besides rent, in laying oysters and watching the river. There had been only one previous instance of an attempt to interfere with his right. That was in 1839 when the parties were convicted before Mr. Justice Coleridge. [A large placard was shown to witness; he said he had posted them; one prisoner lived within four miles, the other two and a half from the fishery, and must have seen the placards. The placard was read; it contained a caution, and the opinion of Mr. Justice Coleridge's strong opinion on the exclusive right of the occupant of the fishery to the oysters therein.]

JOHN HENRY, 76, lived at Treveder, and formerly possessed it, having inherited it from his father. Was persuaded by friends to claim to take oysters on his estate, for doing which an action was brought against him by MR, JONATHAN MAYNE, the then lessee of the oysterage, and witness was cost GBP 2,000 at the Assizes.

JOSEPH TOY, 81, stated his grandfather, father, and he had been lessees, under the Duke of Leeds, of the Lower Right, reaching from Calmansack bar to the sea. Knew the Upper Right, belonging to the Vyvyan family. Never knew of any interference with it except by Mr. HENRY. FREDERICK HILL, of the firm of Grylls and Hill, attorneys for this prosecution. Prosecutor was Sir RICHARD RAWLINSON VYVYAN, who was also the prosecutor in the case of the Queen against CARLYON and others, tried in 1839. [Testified he had placards made and posted.] JAMES JAMES, collector of customs at Gweek, had known about the receipt of harbor dues in the Helford River, for nearly seventeen years. The Trelowarren family had always been entitled to keelage, bushelage, and anchorage, for the Upper Right, and the Duke of Leeds for the Lower Right. JAMES GARD, clerk to MR. SYDNEY GURNEY, clerk of assize, produced the record of the trial in 1839. (The material part was read by MR. MOODY.)

Mr. MERIVALE, for the defense, addressed the jury at considerable length; after which the Learned Judge carefully summed up. The jury found both prisoners Guilty, but recommended GOLSWORTHY to mercy. The Judge asked on what grounds the recommended him to mercy. The FOREMAN then turned round to one of his fellow-jurors, and said "Come, Mr. BRABYN, you had better speak for yourself." The JUDGE " I shall be very glad to attend to your recommendation, gentlemen, but I should know on what grounds you recommend a prisoner to mercy." The Foreman - "because of his good character; and not only so, but it is not proved sufficiently to one of the jury, that Golsworthy was at the place." The Judge - "Then you must acquit him. You must all agree as to his guilt before you can convict him. You cannot make that sort of compromise - finding a man guilty, and then recommend him to mercy." The Foreman - "There is only one that disagrees - Mr. BRABYN." The jury then turned round and consulted; and the Foreman gave the verdict - Both Guilty. Sentence deferred.

JAMES HAMETT, who had pleaded not guilty to a charge of stealing oysters from the Helford oysterage, the property of Mr. TYACKE, now, through his counsel, Mr. ROWE, begged leave to withdraw his plea, and to plead Guilty, expressing himself satisfied of the right of the parties promoting these prosecutions, regretting the part he had taken in interfering with that right, and hoping never to do so again. MR. COCKBURN said, after this public acknowledgment, the prosecutor begged to recommend the prisoner to the merciful consideration of the Court.

A like course was pursued in several other cases of prisoners charged with stealing oysters. But, in the case of ROBERT SEARLE, charged with assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty, and rescuing some parties whom he had in custody charged with felony on the oyster fishery, the counsel for the prosecution declined to recommend him to mercy. Other prisoners, charged with misdemeanor, for having dredged oysters with intent to steal, were ordered to be at once discharged. The learned Judge deferred sentencing the others till tomorrow morning, in order that he might have time to look over the depositions.

UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN - JOHN MEDLIN, 29, was charged with unlawfully and deceitfully uttering, on the 4th of February, to JOHN SANDOW, a counterfeit half-crown, knowing the same to be false and counterfeit. He was also charged with uttering a counterfeit half-crown to ELIZA CARTER. Mr. MOODY and MR. STOCK conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. ELIZA CARTER, widow, kept a grocer's shop at St. Agnes. [Prisoner came to her shop, and bought two-penny worth of biscuits, for which he offered a half-crown, and she gave him 2s.4e. change. She put the coin into the till where it was the only half-crown. During the evening she looked at the coin, and suspected it, then gave it to constable EDWARDS. JOHN SANDOW shopkeeper at St. Agnes, testified [prisoner came to his shop and bought half a yard of fustian, which cost seven pence, for which he paid a half-crown and a penny, and witness gave him two shillings in change. Shortly after, prisoner came into shop again, bought a six-penny handkerchief, and received two shillings charge for another half-crown. RICHARD EDWARDS, constable, produced the coins received of the two previous witnesses, and EDMUND HENDER, silversmith of Bodmin, proved all four were counterfeit, and appeared to be struck from one dye. Guilty; Eight months' hard labour.

NANCY MARTIN, 29, was charged with having, on the 4th of February, unlawfully and deceitfully uttered to HENRY PRATER, at St. Agnes, a counterfeit half-crown, knowing it to be counterfeit. [She was charged with the same crime against ELIZABETH MARTIN, shopkeeper, also at St. Agnes.] The case was very similar to the preceding in its character and proof; but in this case there was additional evidence of there being found on the prisoner a box containing two good half-crowns, of the same die as the counterfeits. [JOSEPH ARGALL, constable of St. Agnes, and EDMUND HENDER, silversmith, gave testimony as to the coins being counterfeit.] The Judge expressed dissatisfaction at the witness's speaking of coins being counterfeit, merely from outward appearance, and insisted they should be cut. The counsel for the Mint said it was not usual, in such prosecutions, to require such mode of proof always. The witness, however, cut the coin, and continued to state that it was counterfeit. Guilty - Eight months' hard labour.

ELIZABETH MEDLIN, 24, was charged with unlawfully and deceitfully uttering at St. Agnes, also on the 4th of February, a counterfeit half-crown, to SAMPSON ROBERTS, shopkeeper. Guilty - Eight months' hard labour.

THIRD COURT

THOMAS HARRIS, 20, was charged with stealing two pasties, one cake, one handkerchief, and a walking stick, the property of WILLIAM GILBERT, of Liskeard. The prisoner lodged at a lodging house kept by prosecutor's wife, for about a fortnight; and when leaving, in the early part of the present month, took off the articles named in the indictment, which were found on him by the constable, to whom information of the loss was given by proseuctor's wife. Guilty - one month's hard labour. ELIZABETH SNELL, 29, was charged with stealing, on the 23rd of February, a flannel petticoat, the property of THOMAS COCK, of Pydar street, Truro. Guilty, One month's hard labour.

JAMES POLKINGHORNE, was charged with stealing a horse muzzle, the property of EDWARD LUXMOORE, of Wadebridge, solicitor, in whose employment prisoner had been. Acquitted. THOMAS WILLIAMS, 21, and WILLIAM HENRY TUCKER, 21, were charged with stealing at Truro, from JAMES MANSELL, GBP 13 in sovereigns and half-sovereigns, four half-crowns, two shillings, and a fustian hat, the property of the said JAMES MANSELL. JOHN NORTH, 40, was charged with feloniously receiving GBP 1 of the above monies. [Prosecutor was at the William the Fourth Inn, Truro, on the 18th of January, having the money in his left-hand pocket. Took out some money from the bag, and put in back in his pocket. Williams rubbed against him, and asked why he did not sit down. Williams was nearest the fire, on witnesses left. Williams asked witness for a pint of beer, and said "if you'll go out, I'll give you a quart." Witness went out, but both prisoners ran away. Witness then found his bag gone. There had been no one sitting on his right hand. WM. HAWKE, licensed victualler at Budock, stated prisoners came to his house on the 19th of Jan. They had some beer and spirit, saying they were tired; came from Helston, and were going to Plymouth to search for work. Witness drove them in a cart to Penryn; they paid him 2s.6d. between them. He saw GBP 7 with Williams, and GBP 4 with Tucker. They were shewing and counting their money at the Golden Lion. Witness told Williams he thought something was amiss, and that he would be taken to the constables. Williams replied that it was money sent to him by his mother, and that he was going to have a spree with it. THOMAS NINNIS, constable of Penryn, apprehended Williams on the 20th of January, at the Golden Lion, Penryn, and told him there had been a robbery at Truro. Williams offered him 2s.6d. to let him go, saying that if he was put to Truro he should be transported. RICHARD WHITE, constable at Penryn, was with last witness when he apprehended Williams; he had three sovereigns and twenty-seven shillings in silver, and was then bargaining for a dog.

AMBROSE ROGERS, another constable of Penryn, apprehended Tucker on the 19th of Jan., in Gluvias- Street, and took him to the Inn. He was very drunk. JOHN NORTH and others came in. Witness saw Tucker slip some gold into North's hands, after he had been sleeping. North was not sober. WILLIAM HARE, [or Hore] constable of Truro, apprehended North on the 20th of Jan.; he at first denied having seen any of Tucker's money, but afterwards admitted that he had had money of Tucker, and gave witness GBP 1, saying that was it. EDWARD BUCKINGHAM, cordwainer, had known North for 30 years; he was of weak mind, but very honest. HENRY JANE, constable of Truro, had never heard any harm of either Tucker or North. Verdict - WILLIAMS and TUCKER, Guilty; NORTH, not Guilty. Williams and Tucker were sentenced to twelve months' hard labour.

JAMES ROBERTS, 22, was Acquitted of stealing a piece of cured ham, the property of CECILIA ANN GRIGG, of Stokesclimsland.

SAMUEL BRIDGEMAN was found GUILTY of stealing two pieces of board, the property of RICHARD POLK GRIFFIN, and JOHN JAMES, at St. Issey, on the 26th of March. ONE MONTHS's HARD LABOUR.

ELIZABETH AVANY, was Acquitted of stealing a counterpane, the property of JOHN MARKS, at Truro.

PETER JEFFERY, 63, was found GUILTY of stealing a pair of trowsers, a pair of drawers, and a pair of braces, the property of JOEL TROUNSON, of Camborne, at a lodging house in Truro, on the 22nd of January. Three Months' hard labour.

JOHN WILLIAMS, 37, and MARY ANN TOMES, 27, were charged with unlawfully and falsely pretending, on the 22nd of February, at Perranzabuloe, that a certain printed paper, commonly known as a flush note, was a Bank of England note of the value of GBP 5, with intent to cheat and defraud JOHN JENKINS of four sovereigns. JANE JENKINS, wife of prosecutor, stated on the 22nd of February, prisoners came and asked to see her husband, and Williams said he was come to pay the sovereign he owed, and asked her to change a GBP 5 note. Witness gave four sovereigns and took the note; Williams said it was a good note. Prosecutor had previously lent the female prisoner GBP 1. Prosecutor took the note, and sent for his son-in-law, who is a constable, and who speedily apprehended the two prisoners. Both GUILTY - Six Months' hard labour.

ELLEN STEPHENS, 24, was charged with obtaining money under false pretenses from JOSEPH SELLER, of st. Blazey, by passing off packages of saw-dust for tobacco. The prosecutor was a beer-shop keeper at St. Blazey. On the 15th of January, prisoner came to his house, and offered to sell him some tobacco and tea. He agreed, per sample, to buy 28 lbs. of tobacco for GBP 3.17s. On the following Saturday, he went to Par, where he met the prisoner and a man with her; took the parcels of her and paid her GBP 3.16s; he afterwards found that the parcels contained saw-dust. The prisoner was found Guilty, and sentenced to Six Months' Hard Labour.

ELIZABETH TOY, 21, was Acquitted of keeping a house of ill-fame at Penryn.

This court rose at about five o'clock. The Grand Jury were discharged this day at about twelve o'clock.

Tuesday, March 30

CHARGE OF MURDER, NEAR REDRUTH - JENEFER BOLITHO, 36, was indicted, and also charged on the coroner's inquisition, with the wilful murder of a female child, by refusing or neglecting to provide sufficient meat, drink, and other necessities for it. The prisoner pleaded NOT GUILTY. Mr. MERIVALE conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended, but the learned judge took particular care of her case throughout the trial. After a brief statement to the jury, Mr. Merivale called: ANNA GEORGE, who said - I am the wife of JOHN GEORGE, a miner, and live under the same roof with the prisoner. The house is at Plain-an-gwarry, in the parish of Redruth. The house is let out to lodgers, and I live one the same floor with Jenefer Bolitho. She had three children with her - one a boy about twelve or thirteen, who lived there, but did not sleep in the house; a girl about nine, and another about three and a half years old. There was a person called HICKS, and another called MESSENGER also in the house with their families. Prisoner is a widow, and has lived in the house about ten months; she came there at the death of her husband. On the 1st of February I was up late, and heard prisoner's little girl, SARAH JANE, open the door and begin to cry. She came to me, and I went into Jenefer's room; she was then in bed. There was no light nor fire in the room. I asked prisoner what was the matter with her, and she told me she was very ill. I then went down and brought up my candle to her, and told her I thought she was in child labour. She asked me to call MARTHA TREGLOWN the midwife. I did so, and when I came back I found the prisoner had given birth to a fine child. I was away from the house about five minutes. I am a char-woman, and being out a good deal I have not seen much of the child since that. Two days after the child was born, I went in with a little soup to Jenefer, and remarked what a fine baby it was. She said yes, it was a very fine baby indeed. I asked her if she had any relief from any one. She said her aunt Jenny had been to the relieving officer the evening before, and he had relieved her, and told her to come again the next day, or send, and if it was wanted he would relive her again. On the following Sunday I again saw the baby, having gone into Jenefer's room to see what o'clock it was. The baby seemed then to be very well. I have seen nothing of the child since that time until after its decease, but I have heard it crying in the evenings after I returned from work. It was crying two or three evenings very much when the mother was not in. The mother is out every evening; she sometimes returned at eleven, twelve, or one o'clock. Since the birth of this child I have often heard her come in at those late hours.

By the JUDGE - The child died on the third of March.

ANN MESSENGER deposed - I live in the same house with Jenefer Bolitho. On Monday, the 1st of February, I was called out of bed by the last witness to come and assist the prisoner. That was about twelve o'clock at night I believe. When I came in I took the baby out of her hands, and assisted her. She told those in the room to take some clothes out of a little box in the room, where they found all that was necessary, and dressed the child. It was a very fine baby. The next morning I saw the baby, and also afterwards when it was about seventeen days old. The baby was then in a very "wisht" state; to all appearance it was dying. It was dressed in the same woolen as I before put on, except the frock. It was not very clean. I gave it a little bread and sugar, and it appeared to be "choking" with it. I fed it afterwards several times, and it appeared to eat very greedily. I kept it a day and a night, and it seemed to be revived a great deal. I afterwards begged JANE HICKS to carry the baby to its mother's room, and then went in to give it some bread and sugar. I left the food on the table, and begged Jenefer to give it to her child. I did not afterwards see the child, but I heard it crying a good many times very loud. The cries at last became like the noise of a "hoarse cat". I once told Jenefer that she had better take care of the child, or we should all be called up to give an account of it. I said if she did not attend to it she would have to put her hand to the bar for it. Her other children appeared to be very healthy. The child died on the 3rd of March, and on the Sunday previous, I went to Tregoning, the constable, about it. I heard the prisoner say at first that she had no meat for herself or her children; she did not say so latterly.

ELIZABETH HICKS - I live with my husband in the same house with Jenefer Bolitho, and have four children. I saw the child when it was born, and also the fourth day after. (The prisoner became faint and was allowed sit.) I saw the child very often afterwards, but not every day. When I saw the child on the fourth day after its birth, I said, "Jenefer, why do you not nurse your baby, the milk is running away from you." She said, "let it sleep, let it cry, it will grow the faster for it." I told her twice to let the baby suck. I never saw the prisoner feed her baby at any time. I heard the child often crying, and particularly in the evenings. Sometimes I am a good deal at home in the day, and sometimes not, but I am usually at home in the evenings. Jenefer Bolitho was generally out in the evenings. I used to see her go out, and I have heard her come in sometimes at eleven or twelve o'clock. I was with Ann Messenger when she brought the baby up into her room; it seemed before it was fed like a little baby dying., I helped her to feed it, and while it was there I went for its mother. I said Jenefer, how do you say the baby won't eat any meat? She then took up the flat iron, and said, "God d-n you, I'll murder you if you don't leave the house." On the Sunday evening, which was about a week after Ann Messenger had the child, we went for a policeman, and I heard him come in.

By the JUDGE - she had not about this time asked me for bread. I went to ask for relief for her the night after she had child, and I was relieved with two pounds of oatmeal and a sixpenny loaf. When it was weighed I found it to be only a pound and a half, and I brought home some tea for her.

JANE HICKS, the wife of RICHARD HICKS, said - I live in the same house with Jenefer Bolitho. I first saw the child the day after it was born, and have often since that time seen the child twice a day. I have seen it once every day. At the time of my visits to prisoner's room, I never saw it fed; it was generally lying upon the foot of the bed with clothes thrown over it. I never saw the child upon her lap but twice. When I first saw it, it was a very fine healthy-looking baby, and it continued so about a week., After that it appeared to be failing very much. It made a very sad noise, and the Tuesday before it died it made a noise like a cat; I was obliged to leave the house on account of its crying. On that evening the mother was not at home; I saw her going out, but cannot say at what time she returned. I recollect on one occasion Jenefer Bolitho went out for water. While she was out I went into her room, and saw the baby there. I did not hear the baby cry that day, and though it might be dead. It was a minute or two before I could find the baby, and when I uncovered the bed clothes I found the frock thrown over the child's head and brought down in front. The quilt was thrown three or four times doubled over the child when I found it. About a week before the child died, I went into the room in consequence of hearing the child cry, and I said "Jenefer, why don't you nurse your baby?" She said she had nothing to give it. I said "you have; you have money to buy sand, and lime, and soap when you want it." She replied that she had money sent to her to buy those things. I said to her, "I should leave alone those things and buy a bit of sugar to nourish my baby." A day or two after that, I went into her room, and the baby was lying upon the kitchen table on a quilt. I said, "Jenefer, why don't you give that baby something?" She said she should not punish her body any more for any more d--d bastards; let the d-d punch maintain it himself." She meant the father of the child. On the Saturday before the child died, it was very noisy, and I went into the room. I tried shame upon her for not nursing her baby; I could not bear the noise of it. She said, "God d-n thee, if thee dost not get out I'll send thee to h-l. I can't rest in the house for the devils coming in and tormenting me." I never opened the door after that time. I remember when Ann Messenger took the child away; I afterwards carried the baby into its mother's room, and said, "Jenefer, you must take your baby, for the woman can keep it no longer to nurse it." She asked, "what could she do with it, she had nothing to give it; the woman who had taken it away ought to keep it." I then offered it to her; she would not take it out of my arms, and I laid it on the bed. She and her other children appeared to be very well, just the same as my children. I never heard from prisoner anything about her circumstances. I have seen the prisoner's little girl bring money that prisoner's boy got by his employment; he got 2s.6d. a week. I have seen pence and half-pence in her cupboard. She had asked me not long before she was confined, to lend her barley to make cakes for her children. She has also asked me for soup, and I gave her some. The day after she was confined, she asked me to go to the relieving officer for her. I went to his house, but he was not home. She never asked me to go on any other occasion.

CHARLES TREGONING, policeman at Redruth, said - I received information about the child being born on the 21st of February. I went to her on the 22nd, the Monday morning, and found prisoner at home. I asked her where the child was? She told me it was on the bed. I then turned down the bed-clothes and saw it; I asked how it was, and she said very bad, I asked why she did not nurse the child? She said she had no milk; she then took out her breast and showed me, and it appeared very thin. I asked her why she did not give the child some meat? She said she had none to give it. I afterwards asked her if she had no bread in the house? She said she had nothing but Union bread, and the child would not eat that. I then went away and told the relieving officer of the matter.

By the JUDGE - She told me her child was starving, and I told the relieving officer, George Harris, what she said to me. I saw about half a sixpenny loaf in her house when I was there.

GEORGE HARRIS said - I am not appointed, but I have acted as relieving officer of the Redruth Union. On the 2nd of February, JANE POLKINGHORNE applied to me for relief of Jenefer Bolitho. I went to her house, and then spoke to MR. MICHELL, the doctor, who went to see her, and in consequence of his orders, I gave her some bread and some oatmeal. On the Friday morning, Jane Polkinghorne came again, and I relieved her with two loaves of bread. On the Monday following, the Board of Guardians ordered four 4 lb. loaves of bread per week to her, and I delivered it. The bread is pretty good; the wheat is ground down without the bran being taken out, what we call "forth-right" bread. This relief was continued three weeks. She never asked me herself to give her bread for the baby. Jane Polkinhorne came for the four loaves of bread every week; and I gave them to her.

JANE POLKINHORNE, aunt of the prisoner, said - I received twelve loaves altogether from the Union, and took them to Jenefer Bolitho. She sent me to ask for food for the child; I did not get anything more than what I have mentioned. On the third week she desired me to seek for relief for the baby, and I then took nothing back to her except the loaves. I was in the habit of going to her house, and gave the child gruel and treacle while it lasted. I do not know that she had any thing else to give the child besides the loaves; she was a distressed woman. I have brought in turnips for her, and she has sliced them and given them raw to the children. I have begged bread for her, and brought and divided it between them since her child was born. The prisoner has begged me to get her barley bread, and then she has soaked it in water, having no tea nor anything to take with it. (The prisoner and witness were here both crying, the prisoner in distressing accents saying "My dear children, my dear children.")

SAMUEL VINCENT PRYCE MICHELL said - I am one of the district surgeons of the Redruth Union, and Jenefer Bolitho's house is in my district. On the 2nd of February, George Harris came to me, and in consequence of that, I visited her. She was in bed when I came. She had been delivered of a child the day before. I did not see the child on that occasion. I next saw her I think about a week afterwards. She was out of bed, and complained of a pain in her head. She made no other complaint to me. I did not then see the child, and nothing was said about it. My attention was not called to her circumstances at that time. I never saw the child alive. I first saw the child in her house on the morning of the 4th of March. It was then removed to an inn, and I examined it. The body externally was much emaciated, but healthy. There was no disease; the stomach was empty, and the bowels nearly so, but not entirely. I could not distinguish what food had been in the bowels. From the emaciated appearance of the child, I should say it had not had sufficient nourishment; I could not speak positively as to that.

Mr. MERIVALE - What in your judgment was the cause of death? Witness - I should say it was occasioned from want of the necessities of life; but as I said before, I would not speak positively. There were no signs of any other cause. She did not tell me when she complained of a pain in her head, that she had not sufficient meat to support her child.

By the JUDGE - Are children of that age subject to convulsions? Witness - They are. Judge- Might that child have died from convulsions? Witness - it might have; that is possible. Judge - If the child had died from convulsions, should you have expected to find any external indications of it? Witness - There would have been before the child's death. Judge - yes, but would there have been after death? Should you have expected there would have been anything after death that would have shown to you that the child had died from convulsions? Witness - No, I think not. Judge - Do you speak with any confidence as to the cause of death being the want of nourishment? Witness - I should hesitate to say, certainly, that the child died from want of nourishment. I should hesitate to say so positively.

This concluded the case for the prosecution, and the prisoner was then asked what she had to say in her own behalf. She began to cry, and made a pitiable story, that she and her children had for some time been in a starving state. That she had been obliged to give her dear children raw turnips sliced up for three days together, and had sent them out begging at times for a crust of bread. She had no milk at her breast because she had no nourishment to bring it forth; and she could not support her child because it would not eat the Union bread. When she concluded, the Learned Judge summed up. The prisoner at the bar, he said, was indicted for the wilful murder of her own child by starving it; that was a crime of the greatest magnitude, and one so abhorrent to our nature, that he should imagine it to be a very rare occurrence indeed. The law required them to entertain a presumption of the innocence of every person before proof of guilt was adduced; and it seemed to him that that presumption would be very strong in the case of a mother charged with the starving of her own offspring. He should imagine the jury would require very distinct and satisfactory proof that she was guilty of such a crime, before the presumption of innocence was removed from their minds. But if the charge was made out to their satisfaction, then, however dreadful such a crime and its consequence might be, it would be their duty to find the prisoner guilty; on the contrary, if serious doubts arose in their minds, it would be their duty to give her the benefit of those doubts, and to acquit her. He then remarked that if the case had rested upon the evidence of the surgeon alone, he should not have thought it requisite to send it to the jury. But there was also other evidence adduced, and taking the whole into their anxious and careful consideration, the jury must first decide whether they thought the child died from want of food,. Then, if they believed the mother had food to administer, but withheld it for the purpose of causing death, they must return a verdict of murder. But if they considered that the mother, having the means of obtaining food for the child, had omitted to do so out of gross carelessness and negligence, without intending its death, their verdict would be manslaughter. On the other hand, if they thought she had no means of supplying the food that was required, and was not guilty of gross neglect, in not obtaining this food, then the prisoner must be acquitted. He afterwards commented upon the evidence, and the jury deliberated upon their verdict for a quarter of an hour. They then retired from the court, and in about half an hour they returned, and gave a verdict of "Not Guilty."

ASSIZES

JOHN COOM, 27, was charged with having on the 5th of January, in the parish of St. Erme, feloniously assaulted ANN MORCOM, with intent &c. The assault was alleged to have been committed between five and six in the evening, as the prosecutrix was returning from Stanfoot in the parish of St. Erme, to her home in the churchtown of that parish. The prisoner, at that time, was in company with, and assisted by, another young man named MICHELL, who was not in custody. The prosecutrix was about eighteen years old, and there was evidence by herself, and also by two young men named BUDGE, who came to her assistance alarmed by her screams, that the assault was one of considerable violence. The Judge summed up in the way of directing a verdict against the prisoner for the greater crime charged, and not merely for the common assault. Guilty. Eighteen months' hard labour.

HENRY NORTHY, 23, was charged with maliciously stabbing, cutting, and wounding JAMES NOBLE, on the 15th of August, 1846, in the parish of Gwennap, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. FITZGERALD conducted the prosecution; Mr. COLLIER the defence. The Prosecutor stated that on the 15th of August, about ten or eleven o'clock at night, he was going to his home in Gwennap from Twelve Heads, with his father and brother and two men named JAMES MEDLAND and HERCULES PAYNTER. This party, and a party to which prisoner belonged, had been quarrelling at DAVIS's public house at Twelve Heads. As witness and his party were going on, JEREMIAH NORTHY, prisoner's brother, at first came up to them, and then prisoner himself came behind witness, and knocked him down with his fist. A fight then began, and in the course of it, witness felt a knife used against him by the prisoner. He screeched out to his brother John, who came up, and laying hold of prisoner by the wrist, said "What a man thee must be, to make a fight, and then to fight with a naked knife." Prisoner d----d him, and said he would run it through his bowels. Witness had three cuts about the face. JOHN NOBLE corroborated the evidence of last witness, adding that after the affray, his brother was covered in blood.... James MEDLAND stated that just before the assault the prisoner had been walking on behind the prosecutor insulting him. JAMES DOWNING, constable of Gwennap, produced the prosecutor's coat which he wore on the evening in question. It was much stained with blood. For the defense, besides a minute cross-examination, the following witnesses were called: THOMAS MICHELL, RICHARD BENNETT, JOHN JENKIN, PRISCILLA JENKIN, WILLIAM TREGONING, AND JEREMIAH NORTHY. Their testimony was in direct conflict to that for the prosecution in important particulars; and especially they denied that the prisoner was at the scene of the affray until it was over. The Judge, in summing up, put the case to the jury as one of conflicting evidence, which he was glad it was their duty, and not his, to decide upon. The jury immediately returned a verdict of ACQUITTAL.

ROBERT SEARLE, who yesterday pleaded Guilty of having, with other persons, assaulted RICHARD CHAPPEL and others, constables, in the execution of their duty, and forcibly rescued out of the said custody of the said constables, JAME HAMETT, EDMUND LOCKYER, SOUTHILL, MARKS, and THOMAS JONES, was brought up to receive the sentence of the Court. The assault and rescue took place at Helford, on the 18th of November last, the parties in custody of the constables having been apprehended for offences connected with the Helford oysterage. The prisoner was sentenced to One Month's Hard labour.

BILLS IGNORED The grand jury found no bills against the following prisoners: SARAH BLAMEY, indicted for manslaughter; NICHOLAS PRATER, for maliciously cutting and wounding: WILLIAM POLKINHORNE for firing a gun with intent to kill, or do some grievous bodily harm; WILLIAM BAWDEN and ELIZABETH BAWDEN, for inciting to arson; RICHARD WILLIAM RILEY, for administering drugs; AMBROSE MARTIN, for coining; JAMES PENNA, THOMAS ADAMS, and MARY DAVEY, for felonies; And HENRY BULLEN, for misdemeanor.

NISI PRIUS [Only a few cases shown, and the breach of promise case has been shortened; everything material is included, however.]

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE - UREN v EDWARDS Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH for the plaintiff; Mr. CROWDER and MR. CARPENTER ROWE for the defendant. Mr. M. SMITH stated the case to the jury. [This was an action brought by JANE UREN against the defendant, her first cousin, to recover compensation for having make promises to marry her, and for having broken those promises. Plaintiff is now an orphan. After the death of her father, 8 years ago, plaintiff went into service with families in Penzance. Defendant was a farmer living on his freehold estate, in the parish of Madron. An acquaintance was formed then, and shortly after the courtship commenced. Plaintiff came home on Sundays and holidays from her place of service to see her mother and sister; on those occasions defendant and another man of the name of CHAPELL were in the habit of going to the house, to pay their addresses to these two girls. Seven years ago, defendant made a pledge of marriage to the plaintiff, but some time afterwards put it off, alleging he could not marry before his father died, when he should have the farm given up to him. Mr. CHAPELL married the other sister, Alice, and lived with her in Crowan. About four years ago, plaintiff, being under the influence of Edwards, and relying on his promise of marriage, yielded to his solicitations, and the result was that a child was born. The plaintiff was obliged to leave her service and go to Chapell's house, where she was confined. The conduct of the defendant was then all that could be desired. He behaved as a man should have done, visiting, treating her as he had done before, and providing for the child. The child, however, died in a few months, and after that plaintiff again went into service with persons who were aware of what had happened, but who were perfectly satisfied that, excepting that stain, her character was irreproachable. The defendant, Edwards, from time to time met her at Mr. Chapell's house, and other places, as before. Plaintiff, at length, fell out of spirits because the marriage had been so long deferred; and it would be seen from evidence defendant had endeavoured to console her, and that he again promised to marry her. This took place last year. To the utter surprise and dismay of plaintiff, in November last, the defendant, without giving her any intimation of what he was about to do, without formally breaking off the engagement, without apprising her that his affections were changed, or that her affections were altered, he, by license, was married to another woman. For eight years he had prevented her from receiving the suit of other men, and now, without any excuse, he deserts her, and throws her on the world to seek her fortune as best she may. He (Mr. Smith) thought that was most unmanly and cruel conduct on the part of the defendant. Upon the record, the defendant had excused himself by making the plea first being that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her promise to him to marry. The only observation he would make upon this was that she was too ready and willing to marry him at any time and thus she had the stain cast upon her. The other plea was that she had released him from his promise, and this plea he (Mr. Smith) considered to be quite a mockery. The learned Counsel then called to evidence

JOHN CHAPELL, who said - I am a sailmaker, and live in Crowan. I know JANE UREN, the plaintiff, and I married her sister Alice. [He corroborated the previous testimony, adding Jane was twenty-two or twenty-three and Mr. Edwards the same age when they met. Edwards lived at Boswarthen, in Madron. Witness married Alice about seven years ago, and lived at Horse Downs. Edwards told witness he intended to marry Jane when they attended the Praze fair. Four years later, Edwards brought Jane to witness's house, where she was confined, and he took her away. Witness had some conversation with Edwards about Jane; he said he would marry her, the child was his and he would maintain it. He did support the child while it lived, for about six months. He came to the house every three weeks thereafter, and said he was very sorry he had brought Jane to the state she was in; he said that when his father died he would take her home. Mr. Edwards and Jane afterwards met from time to time. Last Whitsunday, I went to Boswarthen, where Mr. Edwards lived, and after taking dinner I went over the farm with him. It was then his father's farm, and was a place of about sixty acres, fifty of which were tillable. In going over the estate, he told me not to be out of heart, for he would marry his cousin Jane. That same evening he met Jane between Madron and Penzance. Mr. Edwards, myself, and Jane were together, and he again said he would marry her. John Edwards has now got possession of his father's estate; it is a freehold, and worth about a pound an acre per year.

Cross-examined by Mr. Crowder: I do not know that a young man called RICHARDS ever kept company with Jane. [Counsel pressed him, he refused to acknowledge any knowledge of that person.]

ALICE CHAPELL, sister of plaintiff [testified and corroborated above. John Edwards visited the house seven years before, and he appeared to be making more of Jane than Alice; witness asked his meaning, and he said he intended to marry Jane. She was present when Edwards visited throughout the years. She, herself, was confined when Jane was brought to their house; Edwards brought her, and said he thought it would be the last time he should see me as I was so ill. I told him I could give up all the world except this one thing, that I had Jane on my mind. He asked me how that was, and I told him it was because she was brought into such a "wisht" state, with no father or mother, or friends, and no one but myself to offer her a home. He said she should never want, but he could not marry her before his father's decease, and before he had the place given to him. He also said it would be hard for him now to marry his cousin Jane, and then go to work like a labouring man; for she would be poor as well as himself, and it would be better for them to wait.

Cross-examined: Recollected Jane came to see her while she was in service with Mr. VIGURS. Some man came with her; she said she thought he was called JOHN RICHARDS. He said he was going to Camborne, and I have never seen him but that one time. I never heard Jane was going to be married to John Richards, or to any person besides John Edwards.

Mr. CROWDER then addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant. He contended that the evidence of John Chapell was not to be relied upon, because the witness appeared determined not to state the whole truth. There was no doubt that an engagement between the parties existed, but in 1845 and 46, that engagement had been entirely broken off, and Jane Uren, at the time she lived with Mrs. VIGURS, kept company with a man of the name of Richards. They could not, therefore, credit the statement of John Chapell when he said that on last Whitsunday, the 31st of May, defendant renewed his promise to marry Jane Uren. John Richards had been brought from Wales to give evidence in this case; he knew the plaintiff had had a child, but notwithstanding that, he offered to marry her, some persons not being very particular. (laughter) and she had stated her willingness to have him. He then called:

SUSAN MARTIN - [lived at Penzance, and did needlework for Mr. Vigurs. About twelve months ago, Jane Uren sent for her, and asked her to read a letter she had received from John Richards. Mr. Rowe asked what she said to Jane Uren while she had the letter in her hand. - Objections were made as the question "got to the contents of the letter indirectly." The letter, itself, could not be produced by either side. The Judge decided the evidence was admissible, but not as evidence of the words spoken being the words of the letter. - She then testified John Richards said in the letter he would make her his wife if she had no objections, and she was to write an answer. Jane Uren then asked witness to do so, and directed her to say that if he had no objections, then she had none (loud laughter) and he was to meet her on a certain evening in the week in the first field in Treneere. Witness could not remember any more of the letter. Witness wrote it on a piece of paper, folded it up, and directed it to the Duke of Cumberland Inn in Causeway Head Street, Penzance, then gave it to prosecutor. Before this had once seen her walking with John Richards. Had heard her mention John Edwards, but never saw him.]

Mr. Crowder then called JOHN RICHARDS, who jumped up on a high bench with an activity that excited laughter of all present On coming down to his proper place in the witness-box, he said - I am a mason working in Wales. I lived at Camborne in 1845 and 1846, and then knew a young woman by the name of Uren, living at Mr. Vigurs's. [Met her when he went to see an emigrant ship off at Penzance; she was with her cousin. Afterwards, he walked with her almost every Sunday, and sometimes in the week besides. Had to go by where she lived, and used to see her milking. Believed he once said something about marrying. He had to leave for Southampton, and said he'd return and marry her. She said she would be willing to become a wife at any time. Wrote her once from Southampton, and came back to Camborne in about two months. I then again wrote her and said I would meet her. Met her family at that time, including John Chapell. Thought to walk with her on Sunday, but she went with another man. (laughter) Several weeks later, again wrote her a note, and wished to have an answer left at the Duke of Cumberland. He then met her walking in the street; she said she received the note, and was thinking to put in an answer that evening. She said he had been drinking too much, and if he would stop, she would go with him again, and comply with his wishes in the letter to marry her. Witness said he had stopped drinking four weeks before, and they went out again together the next Sunday.

Mr. Crowder - And what passed then? Witness - Just like what has passed between you and your wife when you were young. (roars of laughter) Mr. Crowder - Did you say anything about being married? Witness - Oh, it was only to raise the money I believe, and then it would have been done at any time. (laughter) Saw her two or three times after, then the third or fourth Sunday met her coming out; she said for me to go down in the market, and he went and waited three hours. Then was told she was gone out with a chap of the name of Chapell. (laughter) Never went with her any more, and have never since spoken to her on the subject. This Chapell's father is a sailmaker. Jane Uren told me about three months after I became acquainted with her that she had a child by Edwards, and she spoke against him as much as she could. She said he had promised to marry her in times gone by, but she would not have him then if she could.

Cross-examined by Mr. Smith, who wanted to make out the witness was drunk, and an amusing dialogue ensued. Witness said he was not drunk, but only sleepy, having travelled two hundred miles without getting into bed. He would not tell whether he was now keeping company with any one, and considered that the counsel wanted to have some fun with him. Mr. Crowder indicated his case was complete.

MR. SMITH then replied, contending that he had fully made out his case. The learned Judge summed up [gave very extensive instructions to the jury,] and the jury deliberated for a short time, then returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages GBP 50.

Assizes

WILLIAM JAMES, 35, and JAMES HALL, 30, were found Guilty of stealing a pewter dish, the property of RICHARD PARSONS, a farmer residing near St. Austell, on the 17th of February. Against the prisoner James was proved a previous conviction, in 1841, for stealing a coat from a person called BEST. The learned Judge favourably presumed that the prisoner James may have lived honestly from the time of his imprisonment in 1841 till his commission of the present felony; and on this ground, gave him another chance of remaining in this country. He was sentenced to Twelve Months' hard labour. Hall was sentenced to Three Months' hard labour.

RICHARD BATE, an honest-looking young farm servant, was charged with stealing two gallons of barley, property of his master, Mr. BENJAMIN SNELL, farmer, of Wayton, in Landulph. Prosecutor stated that before the 25th of Jan., he had missed barley and other articles; on that day, prisoner, being in the granary with him, asked him to spare him some barley, as he wanted some for his fowls which he kept at his mother's, in Cargreen. Witness said he had heard reports about barley being stolen from him and was sorry to hear his (prisoner's) name mixed up in the matter. Prisoner replied that he had not taken any barley and carried to Cargreen. Witness told him he should make strict inquiry about it. The next morning witness saw prisoner again, when prisoner said "I was not aware yesterday when talking to you about the barley that James Brawn had told you that I had taken the barley. I did take some, but it was not all barley, there was some small wheat under the barley." Prisoner added that he had intended to tell his master of his having taken it, and to have allowed for it, if his master would sell him some barley; and he hoped his master would overlook it.

JAMES BRAWN, labourer, in the employ of Mr Snell, detected the prisoner in the act of stealing the barley, and charged him with the theft.

RICHARD LEMON, constable, who apprehended prisoner, proved that, at this time he said he did not intend to steal the barley, but to allow for it to his master. Guilty, Three Months' hard labour.

JAMES GILL, a boy, was found Guilty of stealing a watch, chain, and seals, the property of JOHN WEBB, engine man at Wheal Bucketts, in the parish of Redruth, on Monday last. The prisoner came into the engine-house about five o'clock, and stood by the bylinder; prosecutor being present. The watch was then hanging on a nail at the window. In the course of the evening, prosecutor went out, and on his return, the prisoner and the watch were gone. On the following day, prisoner offered the watch, chain, and seals for sale to Mr. HOCKING, watchmaker, at Redruth; but Mr. Hocking, having been spoken to by Webb, detained the boy, and handed both him and the watch to the constable LANYON. The prisoner was sentenced to Imprisonment in solitude for one week, and to be then whipped and discharged.

WILLIAM TRUSCOTT, an errand boy in the employ of WILLIAM HENRY HEARN, druggist of St. Austell, was charged with stealing from his employer a sixpence, and twopence, the property of his master. The monies had been marked by Mr. Hearn, in consequence of previous suspicions, and the felony was by this means completely brought home to prisoner. Guilty - one week's solitary imprisonment, then once whipped and discharged.

RICHARD HAWKEN, 34, was found Guilty of stealing four eggs, the property of WILLIAM SOWDEN, of Padstow. One month's hard labour.

JOHN GOLLY, 24, pleaded guilty of stealing a quantity of barley, the property of EDWARD COWLING. Three months' hard labour.

MARY HICKS, a married woman, was charged with stealing 4 lbs. of tobacco, the property of JOHN HICKS TREMAIN and another, drapers, of Padstow, her husband's employers. On the 6th of March, prisoner went to prosecutor's shop as she had been accustomed to deal there, and afterwards went out and turned into their cellar. MISS CLEMENOW, a daughter of one of the prosecutors, watched her, and saw her go into the cellar with her apron down and apparently holding it open; but she came out with something in her apron. An apprentice at the shop followed the prisoner and asked her what she had got. She said, "Nothing belonging to you." He insisted on seeing, on which, she pulled down her apron and went back into the cellar where he saw her throw two packages into a cask of snuff. He then stopped her, and she begged to be allowed to go, making an offer to the apprentice to allow her to do so, and not to tell Mr. Tremain. He refused; but sent for Mr. Tremain, and a constable, by the latter of whom she was apprehended. Guilty - three months' hard labour.

JONAHTHAN HANCOCK, 13, charged with having on the 24th of December, stole a watch, the property of WM. HUTCHENS, of Choone, in the parish of Buryan. Prosecutor left his house, locking it up, about one o'clock in the afternoon, and on his return about six, found the doors broken open, and his watch, which he had left hanging at the dresser, gone.

WILLIAM WEDLOCK, eating-house keeper at Penzance, stated that prisoner had come to his house on the 23rd of December, and started on the 24th, saying he was going to Land's End for cattle for his father. [He returned in the evening, but on being asked, said he would have to return in five days for the cattle. He added as had bought a watch of a man whom he met on the road for 26s.; he had no money left. He said he would pawn it, and left the house for that purpose, and returned with 10s.]

MARY UREN HICHENS, daughter of a pawnbroker in Penzance, produced a watch which she received of prisoner on the 24th of December, about eight o'clock in the evening. When he came he offered the watch for 10s. She asked him whose it was; and he said it was his own - it was left him by his father, who died about three weeks ago - that he wished to pledge it because his father, before he died, purchased some bullocks at Land's End, but when he went there to get them, they were detained for three weeks' keep. He said his name was JONATHAN HANCOCK, and he would redeem the watch when he went for the bullocks. Prosecutor re-called, identified the watch.

Verdict, GUILTY. Against this very young prisoner, two previous convictions of felony were found - one in 1845, and the other in January 1846, when he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two whippings. He was now sentenced to Ten Years' Transportation.

The court rose at six o'clock.

FRIDAY, MARCH 26

EDWARD GLANVILLE, 19, pleaded Guilty to an indictment for having, on the 27th of December, at the island of St. Mary's, feloniously entered the dwelling house of JOHN EDWARDS, and stolen therefrom three five-pound notes, three sovereigns, and four shillings, the property of John Edwards. Twelve Months' hard labour.

ELIZABETH HOLLOW, 26, was indicted for burglary in the dwelling-house of JAMES WILLS, in the parish of Paul, and for having stolen therefrom two cotton shirts. Mr. Cole, for the prosecution, called GRACE WILLS, who deposed she put some clothes on a line, in a cellar in her father's house on Tuesday, the 8th of February, and on that night the house was broken into.

JAMES WILLS stated that the door of his house was bolted between ten and eleven o'clock on the night of the 8th. When he came down in the morning, the door was open, the bars having been by some means shot back; nothing had been broken in getting into the house. The clothes were all taken away from the line in the cellar.

HENRY JOSEPH, a pawn-broker from Penzance, said the prisoner came to his shop on the 13th of February, and offered to pledge two striped cotton shirts. She said they belonged to a woman of the name of Rowe, of St. Just, who had given them to her to pledge. Having received intelligence of the robbery, witness told the prisoner he thought the shirts were stolen; she said they were not. He detained the shirts, and she left the shop, but came again for them, upon which he sent to the police station to give information. By the Judge - The prisoner had been in the habit of coming to my shop with things to pledge. Since the shirts were stolen her husband has left the neighbourhood.

PRISONER, in her defence, said she had been from home, and when she came back she found the shirts on her table, and was told that a little girl had brought them there. She supposed that her sister-in-law had sent the things to be pledged, as she had at other times, and she therefore took them to Mr. Joseph. The learned Judge then summed up and the jury Acquitted the prisoner.

WILLIAM SAMBELL, 23, and CHARLES GLASSON, 25, were charged with stealing thirteen pounds of bacon from the dwelling-house of HENRY STEPHENS, landlord of the King's Heard, at St. Austell. From the statement of Mrs. Stephens, it appeared that the two prisoners came to her house on the night of the 5th of March, after eleven o'clock, when the door had been closed. Sambell asked if his friend could have a bed there, and she told him he might. They sat down and drank for some time, and then the landlord asked Glasson if he was going to bed. He said he was, and then paid for the bed, as was customary for persons to do who came so late at night. Glasson then said he would go and see where his friend lodged, upon which the landlord opened the door for them, and they went out together. The landlord said they appeared to be stooping as they went out, but he took no particular notice, and had no suspicion that they were taking any thing with them. After they were gone, Mrs. Stephens saw some salt on the kitchen table, in which room the prisoners had been drinking, and on looking up to the bacon rack, she saw that some bacon was gone. She told her husband, and he went out to look for the prisoners. He met a man named IVEY, and they went together to different public-houses, looking for the prisoners, but could not find them. At length, in consequence of what was told them, they went into a garden belonging to MR. MAC RYALL, and there in an outhouse they fancied they saw hats. They got lights, and on going into the outhouse, they found the prisoners there asleep. Mr. Stephens went for assistance, and in the mean time the two prisoners came out and were going away. Ivey got into conversation with them in order to detain them; he knew Sambell, having worked with him as a shoemaker. After some time Mr. Stephens came back with a man named GUMMOW, and then Ivey went for PERROW, a constable of St. Austell, who came and searched the outhouse, and under some straw, on which the prisoners had been lying, found a piece of bacon, which Mrs. Stephens identified from the particular manner in which it was cut. Glasson said, in his defence, that he and Sambell went together to the house where the latter lodged, and found the door locked. They then went to the King's Heard, and finding the door there also fastened, they were obliged to go to the outhouse to sleep; but they knew nothing whatever of the bacon being under the straw. Verdict, Guilty. The prisoners were each sentenced to Four Months' Imprisonment, with hard labour.

JOSEPH ELLIOT, 14, was charged with stealing three fowls, the property of RICHARD SNELL, a farmer in the parish of Callington; and ANN ELLIOT, 52, the mother of the prisoner, was charged with receiving the said fowls, knowing them at the time to have been stolen. The prisoners were both found Guilty; Joseph Elliot was sentenced to One Week's Solitary Confinement, and to be Whipped, and then Discharged; Ann Elliot, was sentenced to Twelve Months' Imprisonment, with hard labour.

SHEEP STEALING - WILLIAM WILLIAMS, 56, was indicted for stealing a ram, the property of JOHN SAUNDRY, of the parish of St. Buryan. [Mr. Williams, a farmer living about two miles from Buryan church-town, found he was missing a ram from his field on the 6th of March. He followed a trail, which had marks and wool about the gaps, through two hedges, two fields full of wheat, across a rivulet, until he came to an old mine shaft full of water, which held entrails of a sheep. He looked around and found the area where the sheep had been driven and slaughtered, by marks of blood. After this, witness offered a reward of GBP 5 for information. In consequence, he obtained a search warrant on the 22nd of March, and gave it to PROUSE, the constable. They went to prisoner's house in St. Buryan church-town, about eight in the morning. They found nothing until they came to prisoner's bed-room, where his wife was in bed. The constable searched on each side of her, and then got the key of the closet in the room, on opening which he found some mutton suet in a little pot. They then went to an out-house, which was locked, and found there a rope with wool about it. The rope was wrapped up in a small parcel under some turf. They found nothing more at that time, but went to the mine shaft, and then again returned to Williams's out-house, where they found a skin put in one corner in a small hole, and stuffed in under some turf.

JOHN TONKIN, a labourer at Buryan church-town, heard that the reward was offered, and went with JOHN ANGWIN to Williams's furnace-house. They went in the middle of the night and got into the out-house by drawing the staple of the door. They there found a kettle turned upside down on a pile of turf; they noticed that brine had been boiled in the kettle, where a rim of salt remained. They continued searching, and found "buzzas", or two earthen pots, in which were mutton. Afterwards, they carried it away to CHARLES PROUSE's house, who is a neighbour; they noticed that the meat was not cut up in a workmanlike manner. They did not put the turf as before, but they fastened the door again.

John Angwin called, and deposed to his being with the last witness searching Williams's out-house.

ROBERT PROUSE, a constable of Buryan, produced the mutton that had been found. Witness also found the skin of a sheep in the out-house.

JOHN SAUNDRY, being called, identified the skin by an ear mark.

JANE MATTHEWS, living in Buryan church-town, had noticed the "buzzas" produced when they were in possession of the prisoner.

THOMAS RODDA, a butcher of Penzance, said the meat in the "buzzas" was not cut up in a proper manner; he believed it to be part of a he-sheep. The prisoner was found guilty. Fifteen months' hard labour.

ELIZABETH STOCKER was found GUILTY of stealing, on the 13th of March, a piece of pork, the property of MR. WILLIAMS, a butcher living at St. Austell. Four Months' hard labour.

THOMAS VIANT was found Guilty of stealing, on the 16th of March, ten turnips, the property of RICHARD JACKA, a farmer of the parish of Redruth. One Week's solitary confinement, to be whipped and then discharged.

EMMA SMITHERM, 17, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 10th of February last, a pound of butter, from the dwelling-house and shop of GEORGE MICHELL, at Redruth. One Month's hard labour.

EMILY BERRYMAN, 16, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 28th of January, from the dwelling-house of JOHN RICHARDS, in the parish of Breage, one glass decanter, a tumbler, wood box, knife, pipe, and reel of cotton, the property of JOHN RICHARDS. One Month's hard labour.

THOMAS MATTEWS was charged with stealing, in the parish of St. Austell, a donkey, the property of JOHN HAMBLY. On the 22nd of January, prosecutor went to the house of NICHOLAS HOCKIN, of St. Teath, and found that the latter had in his possession a donkey which prosecutor had lost about a week before. NICHOLAS HOCKIN deposed that the prisoner sold him the donkey on the 19th of January, for 11s. Prisoner said he had brought it from St. Austell, where he gave 13s. for it. He was found Guilty and a prior conviction was also proved against him. MR. EVEREST, the governor of the gaol, in answer to a question by the Judge, said the prisoner had been in his custody five times before. He was then sentenced to be Transported for Seven Years.

JAMES COUCH was charged with stealing in the parish of St. Teath, some deal plank, the property of JAMES WILLIAM ALLEN. The timber was missed on the morning of the 22nd of January from a house which prosecutor was in course of building. Marks of a man's feet were traced to near the prisoner's house, and on searching the premises, one piece was found concealed under the stairs, and another piece was found under a bed. Guilty. Six Weeks' Hard Labour.

JAMES BAWDEN, 24, and THOMAS MARKS, 51, were charged with stealing, at Truro, on the 18th of March, a five pound bank note, the property of JOHN DAW, of the parish of Newlyn. The prosecutor is a farmer , and attended Truro fair on the 17th of March. He stopped at the White Hart Inn for the night, and was there also drinking the next day. The prisoner Bawden came in with a basket of earthenware, and remained drinking with the prosecutor. Bawden, in the morning, said he had no money, and asked to be trusted for a pint of beer; but in the afternoon, he gave the servant two-pence to pay for beer, saying he had found 4s.6d. in his pocket, which he did not know of before. The prosecutor had a canvass bag in his pocket containing a five pound note and some silver; and in the afternoon, between four and five o'clock, he saw this bag lying on the table with nothing in it. He then discovered that he had been robbed, and a policeman being sent for, the five pound note was found in Bawden's basket, and some silver was found on each of the prisoners. The servant girl had seen Bawden go to his basket and place something in it. She also saw the other prisoner, Marks, whisper to Bawden, and they both left the room, and went to the back door. The servant had found the bag behind the settle, and placed it on the table; and Bawden, in going to the back door, had an opportunity to throw it where she had found it.

Bawden was found Guilty, and sentenced to Six Months' hard labour. Marks was Acquitted.

HORSE STEALING - WILLIAM TRENAMAN, 22, was indicted for having, in the parish of St. Ive, stolen a dark bay mare, the property of JAMES SOWDEN. Prosecutor said that on the 18th of January, he had a dark bay mare, with a white stripe on her forehead, which was taken from his stable.

JOHN CHUBB, a servant with Mr. Sowden, saw the mare in the stable on the night of the 18th of January; but on the next morning, he found the door open, and the mare gone. MARY ELMS, who plies a boat across the Tamar at the Saltash ferry, said that on the 18th of January, the prisoner crossed to the Saltash side, and told her he was going to Callington for a horse. On the next morning, he came with a dark bay mare, and again crossed the ferry. Witness saw Mr. Sowden with the same mare about a week after.

ABRAHAM CORRIE, a horse dealer at Plymouth, stated that prisoner had offered him the mare for sale at Plymouth. He gave prisoner six guineas for her, and she was afterwards sold to some gypsies, from whom witness assisted the prosecutor in again obtaining her.

NICHOLAS BRENT, a constable of Stoke Damerel, deposed to apprehending the prisoner in Guernsey. He was found Guilty. Fifteen Months' hard labour.

JAMES HARVEY, 51, was convicted of stealing a knife, on the 27th of January last, the property of THOMAS RODDA, a butcher, of the parish of Paul. Fourteen days' imprisonment.

WILLIAM PHEBY, 18, was Acquitted on a charge of stealing, on the 25th of January, in the parish of Illogan, a flannel shirt, the property of THOMAS ROWE.

WILLIAM RICKARD, 20, was charged with stealing, on the 19th of March, in the parish of Newlyn, three waistcoats, the property of SAMUEL HARVEY, of the parish of St. Clement. Prosecutor is a tailor, and is in the habit of going to Newlyn on East Wheal Rose pay days, in order to sell what clothing he can to the miners. It was on one of those occasions that the waistcoats were stolen by the prisoner, who now said he was drunk at the time, and did not know what he was about. Guilty. Three months' hard labour.

WILLIAM CARE, 16, and SAMUEL PHILLIPS, 18, were charged with stealing, on the 23rd of February last, from a field in the occupation of GEORGE WASLEY, of St. Ives, ten pounds weight of potatoes, his property. Guilty, Two Months' hard labour each.

BURGLARY - JEMINA PAUL, 18, was indicted for committing a burglary in the house of JOSHUA MAY, in the parish of St. Stephens in Branwell, and for having stolen bread and other articles the property of Joshua May. The wife of the prosecutor stated that she and her family went to bed on Saturday night, the 6th of March, and everything was all right; but in the morning, on coming down stairs, she found the kitchen door open, and all the meat was gone from the shelf over the window. Her husband was a tailor, and his sop window was open, it having been taken down, so that a person could very well get into the house. She missed two loaves of bread, and nearly half a pound of butter, a pasty, and a child's skirt. The prisoner afterwards came to the house, and prosecutor accused her of committing the robbery, It appeared also that JOHN YELLAND, a constable of St. Stephens, had accused prisoner of the robbery when he apprehended her on suspicion; and she, after some time, directed him to a house where he might find the things that had been lost. He went there and found a basket containing articles which were now identified by MRS. MAY as being her property. The prisoner was found Guilty, and a prior conviction was proved against her. Twelve Months' hard labour.

ANN WADGE, 17, pleaded Guilty of stealing, from the dwelling-house of JAMES WYATT, in the parish of Liskeard, a straw-bonnet, a silk dress, silk scarf, and handkerchief, the property of JAMES WYATT. Twelve months' hard labour.

JANE WARREN, 16, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on te 17th of March, a silver watch, the property of RALPH WILLIAMS, jun., of the parish of St. Just in Penwith. Six Months' hard labour.

HONOR WARREN, 21, was charged with receiving the silver watch and seals which the last prisoner had stolen, at the same time knowing them to have been stolen. It appeared that while Mrs. Williams was absent from her house, a neighbour saw JANE WARREN, the prisoner's sister, go into the house. She did not see her come out again, and when Mrs. Williams returned, she missed the watch, which had been hanging on the dresser. There was a back-door to the house, which led to a garden and some fields, and Jane Warren might have got out that way instead of by the front door, which the neighbour saw her enter. The constables, next day, went to search for the watch as the house where Jane Warren and her sister, the present prisoner, lived with their mother; and they found the watch in Honor Warren's pocket. The prisoner, in her defence, said she had put on the gown in which the constables found the watch just before they came to the house, and she had no knowledge of the watch being in her pocket, her sister having put it there. Guilty. One Month's hard labour.

SAMUEL HAWKE, 24, was charged with stealing, on the 15tgh of January, in the parish of Northhill, a quantity of cider, the property of EDWARD PETER. Guilty; and a previous conviction having been proved against the prisoner, he was sentenced to Twelve Months' hard labour.

THE COURT THEN ROSE.

SATURDAY , MARCH 27

JOHN SOWDEN, 21, pleaded Guilty of stealing a piece of pork and three shillings, and other articles, the property of WILLIAM HARPER CORNISH, at Liskeard. Three Months' hard labour.

KITTING - HENRY GREY, 22, was indicted for having feloniously removed 20 lbs of copper ore, the property of H. R. ANDREW and others, adventurers of the Consolidated Mine at Gwennap. A second count charged prisoner with concealing the ore with the same intent.

JOHN DAVEY, a tutworker at the mine, worked at the 188 fathom level with a partner. Prisoner, a tributer, worked in the same level. His pitch was about 80 fathoms from witness's; the eastern end. There was a shaft and a float between, and there was a cross. [Witness and partner were working on the 23rd of Feb., when prisoner came and asked to have a barrow to roll his stuff. The little boy said he could not have one. Prisoner then left the end.] Witness and partner left work about half-past one; as they passed by the flat, they asked prisoner for a candle to light them back in the level; but he wanted it, as he was going to stop down to roll his stuff. Afterwards, saw prisoner taking up several stones of copper ore from the adventurers' pile, where witness and partner had put their ores. Grey had a candle, and witness and partner were about four fathoms from him. They watched him about fifteen minutes. When he had put as many stones of ore in the belly of his shirt as he thought fit, he was about to go away, when witness's partner, THOMAS, called to him and said: "Neighbour GREY, you may as well stop; 'tis too late to run now."

JOHN THOMAS, partner of the last witness, stated that on himself and partner leaving their pitch, witness was in front, and on waiting a few minutes for Davey, he saw Grey at the pile picking up ores; he then put his candle aside, and went in about three or four fathoms to make sure what prisoner was about. Witness saw him put several stones of ore into his shirt; he ten took a large stone in his left hand, and was going away, when witness called to him. Prisoner did not stop; and witness and partner went back for their candle and then Grey was gone back to his place of work, west of the shaft. When they went back for their own candle, their boy, JAMES NORTHY, told him about a dangerous stone in the winze. Witness went to the winze, and found the stone lying on a bunch of ground, about seven fathoms; down the winze. This stone he believed to be the same that he had seen prisoner take up from the adventurers pile. They afterwards handed the stone to a constable.

WILLIAM SNELL, a boy who worked for Davey and Thomas rolling ore from their level to the 188 fathom plat. While doing so, saw prisoner at the plat six times that day, between nine and twelve o'clock in the morning. Witness marked the ore that he rolled out; and saw that ore was going away. Prisoner asked witness for a barrow, each time that witness saw him at the plat. At one time, he asked CAPT. JOHNS, who told him that he must not roll for the day. Prisoner went back to his level, and afterwards asked Capt. Johns a second time for a barrow; and Capt. Johns told him again that he should not roll for the day, because the adventurer's ores were in the plat.

JOSEPH NORTHEY was working in the Consolidated Mines in the beginning of February. Remembered covering up a winze from the 200 to the 188 fathom level. The winze comes out about twenty fathoms west of the E.. plat. Saw a stone between the ladder and the wall by the side of the winze. Took the stone and looked at it, and threw it down on the step of the winze, because it should not fall and hurt any one. JOHN DOWNING, constable, produced a stone he had received from the previous witness, Thomas.

JOHN DAVEY, re-called, stated that the stone was like the ore he was breaking; and that he had broken this very stone. Witness and partner did not crop the winze with their ore, either in taking it to the plat, of to grass. He identified the stone by some mundie appearance, which he said he had noticed when he broke it.

CAPT. ANDREW JOHNS, captain at the Consolidated Mines, proved that Mr. H. P. Andrew, and Mr. Richard Davey, were adventurers. GUILTY. Two Months' hard labour.

WILLIAM GROSE, 17, CHARLES GILES, 16, and FRANCIS BRENTON, 15, were charged with stealing on the 29th of January, ten fowls, three ducks, and a drake, the property of JAMES NANKIVELL, a farmer at Penrose, in the parish of Luxulyan. The prisoners were all his in-door servants. In the course of the evidence, the following extraordinary letter was read. It had been sent to the prosecutor, and was proved to have been concocted jointly by the three prisoners, and written by Giles: MR. NANCIVELL, We took opportunity to rite you a few lines about ducks and foles, we found them very nice, we found them very fat, a few we left for you to see their fat; we have not found Grose's hens, but we hear they are very fat.

This is the truth what I do say, Grose care (carry) his hens away, It was on one night we told you when, We took a fine cock for Grose's hen; When we come again for cocks and hens, We shall shave your horses; teals and means; On Thursday next, The day is fix'd, This is truth; what we do mean, We came one night, and took them off clean; When your foels are done, we shall have some beef, And then we shall you with a breaf.

The Court could affix no meaning to the concluding line; but it has been suggested that it conveys a kindly intention to furnish the prosecutor with a brief to beg the county. The prisoners were all found Guilty. Brenton was recommended to mercy. Grose was sentenced to Twelve Months;, Giles to Six months', and Brenton to One Month's hard labour.

KITTING - EDWARD HELSON, 25, and WILLIAM HELSON, 21, were charged with taking and removing, with intent to defraud THOMAS TRELEASE and another, a quantity of silver ore, the property of Thomas Trelease and another. A second count charged the prisoners with taking and removing the property of Thomas Trelease alone; and another count charged them with taking and removing ore, the property of RICHARD HODGSON and others, the adventurers in Callington Mines.

THOMAS TRELEASE said he was a miner working in the Callington mines, where he had taken a tribute pitch at the ninety fathom level, and worked it with his partner, SAMPSON.

SAMUEL HENWOOD said he was at the mine on the evening of the 18th of January. He knew Trelease and Bullen's pitch; the prisoners worked in the 100 fathom level. [Witness saw a tram wagon about forty or fifty fathoms from the prisoner's pitch. Didn't think more about it.] Next morning, when he came to the plot again the kibble-fillers were in the ninety fathom level. Witness went into Trelease's pitch, and saw William Helson hauling down Trelease's pile of silver lead ore. The wagon was at the pile, and Edward Helson was standing by it. One stone of ore was in the wagon. [Witness then went up to the 80 fathom level, and went south to Hooper's pitch directly over the prisoner's pitch. He heard some one filling a wagon apparently in Trelease's pitch. In two or three minutes, he saw William Helson come back through to the ninety fathom, from Trelease's pitch, with a tram-wagon full of silver lead ore, and he tipped the ore into his own pitch by a pass. Witness went towards him, and he ran away. [He inspected the prisoner's pitch, and looked at the ore,] then went to Trelease's pitch, and saw that the pile was much altered from what it had been. He went to where prisoners were standing, and said to Edward Helson, "Ned, aren't you ashamed of it?" He said, "Sam, I know you saw us, but don't tell," upon which prisoner said he would give him something to drink; he would give him anything not to tell. He said he had a wife and two children, and should be obliged to leave his country, if witness told upon him. The men should not lose anything by it, he said, for he would pay them. Witness then went up, and reported the matter to CAPT. PHILLIPS. JOPE, a kibble-filler in the mine, said he saw Edward Helson, on the morning of the 19th of January, drive the tram-wagon in the ninety fathom level. CAPTAIN PHILLIPS said Mr. Hodgson was an adventurer in the mine, and he pointed out in a book a memorandum of the setting of the pitch to Trelease and Bullen. The jury found the prisoners Guilty on the first count of the indictment. [Mr. Greenwood objected no offence was stated in the first count as defined by Parliament. Mr. Slade presented his view.] The learned Judge retired to consult with MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS, and on his return overruled the objection. Two Months' hard labour.

CUTTING AND WOUNDING - THOMAS PRATER, 25, was indicted for having, on the 9th of January last, in the parish of Gwennap, maliciously cut and wounded NICHOLAS WELCH, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. MR. ROGERS appeared for the prosecution, and called NICHOLAS WELCH, who said � I am a butcher living at Mylor Bridge. On the 9th of last January, I was returning from St. Day market about eight o'clock in the evening. MISS GRACE WILLIAMS was with me in the cart. When we got about a mile from St. Day, four men came behind the cart; this was not far from Consols account-house. Thomas and NICHOLAS PRATER, two of the men, asked me to let them ride. I said I could not. Thomas Prater said he would; I said I could not let him. He then got up behind, and leaned over so far his head was near my shoulder. I saw him take some meat and some market cloths out of my cart. Nicholas Prater put his hand to the tail of the cart but did not get upon it. When Thomas Prate! r took the things out of my cart, I took up my cleaver, held it back with my left had, and struck him by the side of the head. Nicholas Prater then went and stopped the horses. Thomas came to the fore part swearing to murder me. Nicholas Prater then left the horse, pushed away Thomas, and said to him, "let him alone." When I got about a hundred yards further, I received a blow from a stone between my shoulders. I then looked over my shoulder and saw Thomas Prater very close by me; he said "I�ll murder thee." and he then struck me a violent blow over my left eye. I do not know what he struck me with, but the blow stunned me, so that I fell into the cart quite insensible. When my senses returned, I asked Miss Williams to put me back to St. Day. She turned the horse, and Nicholas Prater came forward with some meat, my market cloths, and cleaver, which he said he picked up in the road. Nicholas offered to put me back to St. Day, and Thomas said "let him alone; let the b�r die."

CROSS-EXAMINED: The prisoners are miners. I thought at first they intended only a frolic, but when I found Thomas Prater would take no denial, I thought he intended to rob me. I merely held the cleaver back, and the sharp end happened to be towards him. I have lost the sight of my eye through the injuries I received. I have been told that the blow I gave Thomas Prater with the cleaver drew blood. By the Judge � When you were struck, was your face much cut? Witness � No, my lord, but it swelled a great deal.

THOMAS HUNT said � I am a surgeon at St. Day, and was called to attend the prisoner [yes, it says prisoner � should have been prosecutor] after he had been wounded. The only appearance his eye presented was that the upper eyelid was very much swollen. I could not ascertain the injury to the ball of the eye on account of the injury to the upper eyelid. There was a trivial wound indeed; the skin was scarcely cut through.

The Judge - Should you, as a surgeon, call it a wound, or was it an abrasion of the surface of the skin? Witness - Yes, I should rather call it an abrasion of the skin. The Learned Judge then said, the prisoner was indicted under the statute which makes the wounding with intent to do a grievous harm to be a felony. But to be a wounding it was required that the skin should be completely divided, while here it appeared from the surgeon that the skin was only rubbed a little, and was scarcely cut through. Therefore the jury must acquit the prisoner. A verdict of Not Guilty was then given.

JAMES NICHOLLS, 24, was charged with stealing from the premises of JOHN EDMONDS WALES, of Camborne, several pieces of beef, the property of MR. WALES, and a piece of beef suet the property of JOHN JENKIN. Mr. WALES said he was a butcher at Camborne, and on Friday, Feb. the 5th, he locked up his slaughterhouse at night. [There were two bullocks and a pig which had been slaughtered; the next morning, he found the meat had been stolen. He found a large hole had been dug through the wall, large enough to admit a man. He missed fifty or sixty pounds of beef from his shop, cut from a steer ox.] On the Tuesday following, he went for STEPHEN PRIDEAUX, a policeman, and they went to JAMES NICHOLLS's house. His wife was at home, and after some conversation, she showed them some small pieces of beef which she took from under the table. On searching [further, they found a buzza full of beef in the up stairs, under the bed. They found in the � a rib of beef, which he knew to be his by the grain; there were not two pieces of beef to be found alike after it had been killed. The piece of rib was cut tolerable well, but the rest was not cut up in a butcher-like manner. There were the carcasses of a large ox and a pig in the slaughter-house besides what belonged to him.

JOHN JENKIN was then called, and identified some suet that was found in the prisoner�s house as being his property; it had also been taken from Mr. Wales�s slaughter-house. Other witnesses were also examined, and the prisoner was found Guilty. A previous conviction was proved against him and he was sentenced to Fifteen Months hard labour.

SHEEP STEALING - WILLIAM SMITH, 36, was indicted for stealing, in the parish of St. Agnes, one ewe lamb, property of JAMES COCKING. �.RICHARD EDWARDS, constable at St. Agnes, corroborated the statements of the last witness, and added that on searching the next day they found in a chimney the liver and lights of a lamb. The prisoner was found Guilty. Twelve Months' hard labour.

HENRY BENNY, 61, was charged with having, on the 13th of March, stolen at Moorswater, in the parish of Liskeard, 90 lbs of coals, the property of EVAN HOPKINS, of Plymouth, lime-burner and coal merchant. Guilty. One month's hard labour.

WILLIAM VOSPER, 28, was charged with stealing 16 lbs. of beef, the property of WILLIAM RICHARDS JAMES, a butcher at Torpoint. The property was alleged to have been stolen at Millbrook, on the 6th of March. Guilty. Six weeks' hard labour.

JAMES HAWKE, 54, was charged with stealing a brass pan, the property of ELIZABETH SANDY, on the 31st of December last. Guilty. A former conviction was proved against the prisoner, of stealing oats in 1841, the property of MR. HICKS. Seven Years' transportation.

RACHAEL WHITFORD, 36, was charged with stealing a bucket at Camelford, the property of WILLIAM HOCKIN, on the 28th of January. Not Guilty.

ELIZABETH FRANCIS, an elderly woman, was indicted for uttering a forged order for goods, for the purpose of defrauding ANNA TEAGUE, a widow, and shopkeeper at Redruth. The forgery was a note from CAPT. CARTHEW, a mining captain, at West Wheal Basset, on which prisoner obtained credit for goods to the amount of GBP 12.7d; the alleged authority being for twenty shillings. Guilty of Uttering � Four Months' hard labour. The Court then rose at half-past six.

MONDAY, MARCH 29
This morning, the Grand Jury returned no bills against FREDERICK HILL, JOHN VIVIAN, and JOHN KENDALL, for perjury. We understand those bills were preferred by MR. THOMAS SAUNDERS CAVE, and arose out of some Chancery proceedings.

WILLIAM TREGONING, 33, was indicted for violently assaulting and ravishing REBECCA DROWN, on the public high-way, in the parish of Quethiock. The prosecutrix stated that she was servant with MR. WM. MAY, of Quethiock. She knew Tregoning, the prisoner, who was a miner, and a married man. She was sent to Quethiock between eight and nine o'clock in the evening of the 1st of August, and returned home between ten and eleven at night. She met the prisoner, and they wished each other good night. She went towards home, but on proceeding some distance she was again met by the prisoner, who came out from the corner of a garden into the road, and caught hold of her. She escaped from him twice, but notwithstanding her screaming and resistance e accomplished his purpose. MRS. MAY and other witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution; but she declined to answer various questions put to her both by the counsel and the Judge, and thus it could only be submitted to the jury ! whether the prisoner was guilty of a common assault. Guilty of a common assault. Eighteen Months' hard labour. This Court rose shortly before seven o'clock.

SECOND COURT

JOHN PEARSE, 19, was indicted for assaulting and beating JOSHUA DAWE, in the parish of St. Austell, and robbing him of a half-sovereign and two half-crowns, the goods and chattels of the said Joseph Dawe. The prosecutor said he was a farmer, living at St. Blazey, and on the evening of the 17th of October, had been at St. Austell, and left there about half-past seven. On his way home, he called at a public house at Holmbush, and had two half pints of beer, sitting between prisoner and a MR. FURMIDGE. Afterwards, witness offered Furmidge to give him a pint of beer, as he (Furmidge) was an adventurer in Buckler�s mine, from which witness had been receiving money that day. Witness left the house alone, about nine o'clock, and had gone about one hundred and fifty yards when prisoner overtook him. Witness asked him where he was going, and he said to St. Blazey. Witness proposed that they should walk together, and he (witness) would give him a pint of beer at the Britiannia Inn. As they went on, the prisoner shoved up against him now and then, and when they got by a grove of trees near Cuddra House, it being dark under the trees, witness received a blow on the head, which struck him towards the hedge. As he recovered himself, prisoner came up, hitting him with both hands. Witness said, "Don�t murder me; what do you want? Money?" Witness then put his hand in his trouser�s pocket, and gave prisoner sixpence. Prisoner said, "Is that all you have got?" Witness said he had some pence in his waistcoat pocket, and prisoner put his hand in his pocket and took it out. Prisoner again asked if that was all; and witness said yes. Prisoner said "let me feel," and put his hand in witness's side coat-pocket, where witness had a half-sovereign and six shillings. Prisoner then ran back, towards Holmbush. Witness presently heard voices coming on in the other direction, and two men call TREWIN came up; he told them he had been knocked down and robbed, and asked them to go back with him to the Holmbush public-house. They went back there together, and found prisoner there with the same company that witness had previously left there. Some one in the room asked who it was had done it, and witness said it was the prisoner, and pointed him out. Prisoner swore out, hit witness in the face, and said "you won't say that I robbed you?" and added that he had not been out of the house. Mr. FURMIDGE said the prisoner had been absent from the room long enough for it to have happened. Prisoner was not then apprehended; and soon after, witness went home, accompanied by Furmidge. SAMUEL TREWIN, senior, corroborated a portion of the evidence of last witness; but, on CROSS-EXAMINATION, admitted that he was somewhat the worse for liquor at the time.

SAMUEL TREWIN, junior, spoke to the same facts as his father, and added that when they came back to the Holmbush Inn, he saw that skin was cut on prosecutor�s face, and his nose was bleeding.

TREDINNICK, landlord of the public-house at Holmbush, said that, after Dawe had accused the prisoner of having robbed him, prisoner offered that any one in the room might search him; but Furmidge replied that they had no authority to do so; and consequently, prisoner was not searched.

On CROSS EXAMINATION, he said that prisoner, after Furmidge said he had been out of the room, admitted that he had been out, but not more than two or three minutes. When Dawe came to the house, at first, in the evening, he was not drunk, but looked like a man that had been drinking. It was nearly three quarters of an hour from the time Dawe left the house in the evening to the time when he came back again. The distance from the public-house, at Holmbush, to the road by Cuddra, was about a quarter of a mile.

JOSEPH FURMIDGE corroborated the evidence of the preceding witness. For the defence, Mr. Holdsworth adverting particularly to the absence of proof, beyond the prosecutor�s own statement, that he had lost any money; and also to the fact that no search was made of the prisoner, when he offered himself for search at the public-house. Verdict, Guilty. Mr. VIVIAN, a tailor, gave the prisoner a good character, and, in consequence of this, the Learned Judge said he would not pass sentence of transportation as he would otherwise have done. The sentence was Fifteen Months' hard labour.

CHARGE OF BURGLARY - RICHARD BURROWS was charged with having burglariously entered the dwelling house of WILLIAM LEVERS, at Bodmin, and stolen therefrom three silver spoons and a silk handkerchief, the property of the said William Levers. The prosecutor kept the Railway Inn, at Bodmin.

HANNAH LEVERS, wife of the prosecutor, stated that about eleven at night, on Tuesday the 9th of March, she went into the cellar of her house, and locked the drawer of the spirit cupboard there, and fastened the window. In the cupboard she placed some tea-spoons which she had had in use that evening. Three of these spoons were missing the next morning, and also a bottle of brandy, some seed cakes, and a bundle tied in a silk handkerchief. The window was closed, but not fastened, and a pane of glass was taken out of the window, within reach of the fastening.

SARAH BRAY, servant of the last witness, stated that she came down into the cellar about six o'clock on the morning of the burglary, and saw the state of the window, &c, as described by the last witness. WILLIAM SNELL, a labourer, living at St. Germans, was at a beer house in that place, kept by ANTHONY COLLEY, saw prisoner there, who offered witness a silk handkerchief for sale, and witness gave him sixpence for it. Witness afterwards delivered it to the constable, TRUSCOTT. ANTHONY COLLEY, beer-shop keeper, at St. Germans, remembered prisoner coming to his house about five minutes before twelve noon, and offering witness, on sale, three tea spoons, some silk handkerchiefs, and razors, and said he had come from Truro that night.

SAMUEL VILE, licensed hawker, was at the Market House Inn, in St. Germans, on the 10th of March; and about four or five o'clock in the afternoon, prisoner offered him some silver spoons for sale, saying he was "hard up"; and after a time witness gave him half-a-crown and a pint of beer for the lot. Witness afterwards handed them to the constable.

JAMES TRUSCOTT, constable of Antony, on Tuesday, the 23rd of March, went to the New Market Inn, Cornwall-street, Plymouth, and received two silk handkerchiefs and three spoons from the witness Vile; had previously received one silk handkerchief from Snell. Witnesses were here recalled, and identified the property.

ROBERT ELLIS, constable of Devonport, went with BRENT, another constable, on the 15th of March, to the prisoner's house at New Passage. Brent apprehended the prisoner; and witness apprehended his wife. Prisoner, on being charged with committing a burglary at Bodmin, said he had not been there since Christmas, nor across the water. The next day, witness and Brent took prisoners across the water at New Passage into Cornwall; after he was committed at Bodmin, and was being taken to gaol, he said he did not break into Levens�s house, but he knew who did; but he would sooner be transported than split. NICHOLAS BRENT, constable, stated that when he apprehended prisoner, he said he had not been in Bodmin for five weeks. GEORGE SOWDEN, tailor, of Bodmin, had known the prisoner for two or three years, and recollected seeing him between four and five o'clock in the afternoon of Monday, the 8th of March, between Dubwalls and Liskeard; prisoner was going towards Bodmin. Guilty. Nine Months' hard labour.

CHARGE OF MURDER

MARY TREVERTON, 30, was indicted for the willful murder of SAMUEL HOCKIN, in the parish of St. Mabyn, on the 10th of October last, by striking, and beating him with a stone on the head, thereby giving him divers mortal wounds on the head, and divers fractures of the skull, whereof he died. The prisoner, on being arraigned, pleaded not guilty.

The case excited considerable interest, the Court being crowded to excess throughout the proceedings, and outside there were hundreds of persons who could not gain admittance. MR. ROWE and MR. CORNISH appeared for the prosecution, and MR. SLADE defended the prisoner. She is a large woman, of strong and masculine appearance, and of coarse exterior. On coming into the Court she looked anxious and dejected; and on the opening of the proceedings she appeared at times to be a good deal affected. After stating the case to the jury, Mr. Rowe called: HENRY COOM, who said - I am a surveyor at Bodmin, [drew the plan, showing the houses in St. Mabyn; the measurements are correct.]

JOHN CLEMENTS said - I live at St. Mabyn. On Saturday, the 10th of October, I had occasion to go early in the morning along Denham Bridge Lane. I arrived there about a quarter before six. As I passed on, I found a man lying in the lane. I know the house of the deceased SAMUEL HOCKIN, and of a person called POOLEY; it was between the houses of those persons that I found the body lying. The man was living when I came to him, and was lying on his left side, and somewhat on his face. [Saw a hat lying about 3 feet away, and a tobacco pipe about a foot from the man's head. I then called WILLIAM PERRY's wife; she came first, he afterwards. The deceased's head was close to the wall. There is a small window just below where the man lay. (The prisoner here became much excited and began to cry.)

The witness continued - When the woman Perry came, she said the man was SAMUEL HOCKIN, and then I recognized him. I saw his head was very much cut behind; and I observed blood about his head. There were brains scattered against the wall. The man's coat pocket was pulled down, as if some person had caught hold of it; he wore a light fustian coat with pockets outside, and it was one of those pockets that was torn; the coat was also torn up the back. The collar of the coat was wet; there were eaves to the house, and the collar of the coat was just under the droppings from the roof. [I went to fetch Mr. GAVED, the surgeon, and saw the body removed under his direction. I did not assist. I was afterwards assisting the constable on the day of the inquest, in having charge of Mary Treverton, at Bates's Inn. I was with her at the time that some one came back from searching John Treverton's house. Her mother, and a boy of the name of SIMMONS were also in the room at that time. There is a thin partition between that room and the next. I heard a person in the next room say there was a pair of shoes found with blood about them; the person also said "this will hang her I think." Prisoner then said to her mother "You know what a state I have been in - that will clear me from that."

CROSS-EXAMINED - The mother, in reply, said "yes she knew." [Repeated testimony as to wetness of coat - coat appeared as if it had been in a shower. To Judge, there was not much blood spattered; none on his clothes; but there was a large pool under his head. - jm]

WILLIAM PERRY deposed as follows: I live at Saint Mabyn. [John Clements came to his house; his wife went after John, and he followed to a place on the lane, where he saw Hockin lying. He was living, but insensible. His head about 2 inches from the wall. Went for Mr. Gaved, the surgeon. Found a stone about five feet from the body, saw blood on the upper part. Showed it to different people, then replaced it before the constable or doctor came. Later saw William Barrett take it up, and then saw it in possession of West, the constable. The bottom part of the deceased's coat was not very wet; his trousers and stockings were quite dry.]

Samuel Hockin was a married man; he married his last wife about twelvemonth ago last January. I was at his house the Sunday before he was married. The prisoner was living at that time in his house, and had been living with him for some time before that. There were two men, called PHILIP DART and GEORGE STEPHENS at the house that Sunday. When I came into the house, I saw Samuel Hockin standing with his head bleeding. After two or three minutes, Mary Treverton came in, and began to take down some "clome" from the dresser. She said it belonged to her. Hockin told her she should take what was her own, but none of his. She then went up stairs, and I heard what were apparently boxes [moving?]. Samuel went up stairs with the candle in his hand, which was put out by some means, and he came down to light it again. Hockin asked Dart to go up with him, and he did so. I heard the prisoner say to Hockin that if he went up she would knock his brains out.

The Monday after he was married, I saw Samuel Hockin coming from his house in the town, and Mary Treverton was throwing mud and stones at him. In the latter part of the same day, I heard a noise, and came to the shop door, and then saw Mary Treverton coming from Samuel Hockin's house with an apron full of chair legs. Samuel Hockin came out of JOHN LEWIS's house, the carpenter. Mary Treverton was going towards her mother's, and as he came out she threw two chair legs at him; she then attempted to strike him with one of the legs, but he stepped back and avoided the blow. He then came out and picked up one or two of the legs, upon which she beat him over the back of the body and the arm, for about fifty or sixty feet up the village; then he turned round, and she beat him all the way back again as far as her house, where he made a stand. She then began to beat him about the head, and I called to him to knock her down, and not to stand to have his brains beaten out in that way. He then held up the leg of a chair to keep her off. I afterwards asked her if she was going to kill the man, upon which she threatened to throw mud on me and another man. Then her mother came forward and ordered her in, and shut the door.

CROSS-EXAMINED - I was asked last week for the first time to give an account of this quarrel. After some time Samuel Hockin went from his wife to live with Mary Treverton; that might be a fortnight or three weeks after he was married. He lived away from his wife with Mary Treverton for some weeks. He went away from the village with Mary Treverton.

Re-EXAMINED - After the body was found I had spoken of the quarrel between the parties to the neighbours, but never before last week to any gentleman.

(The witnesses for the prosecution were here all ordered out of the Court until called upon.)

WILLIAM BARRETT said - I was present on the morning that the body was found, and I picked up a stone from the ground, which I gave to MR. GAVED, the surgeon.

ARTHUR GAVED deposed as follows - I am a surgeon at St. Mabyn. I was called on the morning of Saturday, the 10th of October last, to see the deceased Samuel Hockin. I found him with his head near a wall, and his legs lying towards the road; he was lying a little on his left side, nearly on his face. The man was breathing heavily when I came to him, and was evidently in a dying state; pulsation had ceased at the wrist. [There were blood and brain splatters on the building walls in three or four places, up to four feet high. The skull was extensively fractured, the wound about five or six inches across. I took a stone that was handed me, and saw blood upon it. I gave it to West, the constable.] The man died in five or ten minutes. I made a post mortem examination of the body on the same day. I found several flesh wounds on the man's face; there were cuts and bruises on the face, and both eyes were swollen so as to be closed. The largest cut was on the right temple! , and was from an inch to and inch and a half long. I examined the skull, and beneath the wound in the right temple I found a very extensive fracture. The bone at the back part of the head was also completely beaten in. I attribute the death of the man to extreme violence, - to some very heavy blows.

[Transcriber here left out rest of details of description - jm]. The stone I was given could have produced such wounds and fractures. Those effects could not have been produced by a fall. After that I was present when the house of John Treverton was searched, and was in a bed-room up stairs with West, the constable. I saw West find a pair of shoes, between two bed-ties, or mattresses filled with chaff. There were two beds in that room. I know the tenement occupied by Ham adjoining.

By the Judge - The window in Treverton's bed room looked toward the road. The shoes were found in the bed farthest from the partition between Treverton's and Ham's.

The heels of the shoes, when found, were pressed down. They were wet, the left more so than the right. The right shoe appeared to have been scraped, or wiped with some rough thing. The left shoe, which had not been scraped, was wet and very dirty. I observed some spots on the right shoe, which I believed to be blood. The spots were all small, the largest being probably half-an-inch in diameter. The spots were on the outer side of the shoe, and on the shoe thong. I did not see any thing else on the shoe at that time. The constable, Mr. West, then took possession of it. I looked at the shoe again on the inquest the same day, about four or five hours after. I then saw on the shoe four or five hairs just between the sole and the upper leather. The hairs were on the outside. I took the hair off the shoe by order of the coroner, and preserved it. I wrapped it up in some paper, and gave it to the constable; it was human hair. On Sunday, cut off a portion of deceased's hair, and also gave that to West. On Saturday afternoon, by order of the coroner, I examined the prisoner; I had received a communication from Clements. I found her linen perfectly clean, without any stains. On the Monday night after, I again examined her.

CROSS-EXAMINED by MR. SLADE - I examined her with reference to the communication I had from Clements. She had some time previously been in the state alluded to. I cannot say that she had been so a day or two before, but she might have been. I do not think the wounds on deceased's head could have been produced by a fall. Mr. SLADE - Supposing a man had received a violent blow, and he had fallen down on that stone, might not his skull have been fractured in the same way as deceased's was?

Witness - I think not; I cannot believe that so extensive a wound and laceration could be occasioned by a fall on a stone.

Witness's deposition at the coroner's inquest was then handed to him, and he was desired to look at it. In answer to the Judge, he then said - In my opinion she might have been in the state alluded to a day or two before, because there were stains on some of her outer garments. There was mud adhering to that part of the shoe from which I took the hair. I did not see any thing on that shoe besides a slight twinge of dirt and the hair.

ANN HOCKIN - I am the widow of SAMUEL HOCKIN, who at his death was fifty years of age. I was married to him on the 12th of January, 1846. He was a strong and tall man. I know that MARY TREVERTON had been living for some time with my husband before I was married to him. After we were married, he still continued to visit her; he was absent from me four nights. Three weeks after we were married, Samuel Hockin left St. Mabyn with Mary Treverton, and came back again in about three weeks. He had been living with me before the 10th of October last, ever since he came back. I have seen him more than once at John Treverton's house, the prisoner's father. I had been there to look for him about five or six weeks before his death; he was coming away with me, and she pulled him back, saying he should not go out. He stayed there with her, and she shut the door in my face. She turned him out of the back door in five or ten minutes afterward. He had not been absent from me by n! ight for the last three months before his death. On the evening of Friday, the 9th of October, he left my house at seven o'clock. I went to bed at twelve o'clock. He had not then come back, and I never saw him again alive. My husband did not carry a watch. He never gave me any money, and I do not know whether he had any on the 10th of October. He was in the habit of smoking.

CROSS-EXAMINED - It was after he came back with Mary Treverton that he was absent from home four nights. After the time when she pulled him back, I saw him at her house again. He was continually going to Mary Treverton's up to the time of his death. I have one child by him, about seventeen months old. The last night he left my house he was sober, but he had been drinking a little that day.

JOHN HOCKIN said - I am the son of Samuel Hockin, the deceased, by a first wife. I recollect seeing my father and Mary Treverton together about a month before my father's death. I was sent by my master to see the cattle, and when I came out of the field into Denham's Bridge Lane, I saw my father there. We went up the village, and I saw the prisoner waiting for him. She came forward, and began to abuse him. She said, "I'll blow thee and thy wife up with gunpowder if there's any to be got this night between this and Bodmin." I went with him, and she followed us up the lane; she ran forward and took his hat, saying "thee shan't have this hat then." She afterwards went down across the meadow, and my father said he would go to her house, as he had another hat there. We went there together, and she came in and gave him his hat again. I came away and left my father there.

EDITH HAMLEY said - I live at St. Mabyn. The prisoner, Mary Treverton, gave me a letter on the Thursday or Friday week before Samuel Hockin's death. She told me to give it to him, but I refused. She then said it had come from MR. ANDREW. I took it, and seeing Samuel Hockin in about two minutes, I gave it to him. While I was standing with him, the prisoner came down. I heard him say "that if he was never spared alive he never said any such thing." She said "he was a liar, and he did." She appeared to be in anger. She said she would "scat or dash his d----d old brains out." She had a basket which she fenced against him two or three times, but she did not strike him.

CROSS-EXAMINED - I do not suppose Mary Treverton meant to do what she said at that time.

MR. ROWE and MR. CORNISH appeared for the prosecution, and MR. SLADE defended the prisoner. She is a large woman, of strong and masculine appearance, and of coarse exterior. On coming into the Court she looked anxious and dejected; and on the opening of the proceedings she appeared at times to be a good deal affected. After stating the case to the jury, Mr. Rowe called:

HENRY COOM, who said - I am a surveyor at Bodmin, [drew the plan, showing the houses in St. Mabyn; the measurements are correct.]

JOHN CLEMENTS said - I live at St. Mabyn. On Saturday, the 10th of October, I had occasion to go early in the morning along Denham Bridge Lane. I arrived there about a quarter before six. As I passed on, I found a man lying in the lane. I know the house of the deceased SAMUEL HOCKIN, and of a person called POOLEY; it was between the houses of those persons that I found the body lying. The man was living when I came to him, and was lying on his left side, and somewhat on his face. [Saw a hat lying about 3 feet away, and a tobacco pipe about a foot from the man's head. I then called WILLIAM PERRY's wife; she came first, he afterwards. The deceased's head was close to the wall. There is a small window just below where the man lay. (The prisoner here became much excited and began to cry.)

The witness continued - When the woman Perry came, she said the man was SAMUEL HOCKIN, and then I recognized him. I saw his head was very much cut behind; and I observed blood about his head. There were brains scattered against the wall. The man's coat pocket was pulled down, as if some person had caught hold of it; he wore a light fustian coat with pockets outside, and it was one of those pockets that was torn; the coat was also torn up the back. The collar of the coat was wet; there were eaves to the house, and the collar of the coat was just under the droppings from the roof. [I went to fetch Mr. GAVED, the surgeon, and saw the body removed under his direction. I did not assist.

I was afterwards assisting the constable on the day of the inquest, in having charge of Mary Treverton, at Bates's Inn. I was with her at the time that some one came back from searching John Treverton's house. Her mother, and a boy of the name of SIMMONS were also in the room at that time. There is a thin partition between that room and the next. I heard a person in the next room say there was a pair of shoes found with blood about them; the person also said "this will hang her I think." Prisoner then said to her mother "You know what a state I have been in - that will clear me from that."

CROSS-EXAMINED - The mother, in reply, said "yes she knew." [Repeated testimony as to wetness of coat - coat appeared as if it had been in a shower. To Judge, there was not much blood spattered; none on his clothes; but there was a large pool under his head. jm]

WILLIAM PERRY deposed as follows: I live at Saint Mabyn. [John Clements came to his house; his wife went after John, and he followed to a place on the lane, where he saw Hockin lying. He was living, but insensible. His head about 2 inches from the wall. Went for Mr. Gaved, the surgeon. Found a stone about five feet from the body, saw blood on the upper part. Showed it to different people, then replaced it before the constable or doctor came. Later saw William Barrett take it up, and then saw it in possession of West, the constable. The bottom part of the deceased's coat was not very wet; his trousers and stockings were quite dry. jm]

Samuel Hockin was a married man; he married his last wife about twelvemonth ago last January. I was at his house the Sunday before he was married. The prisoner was living at that time in his house, and had been living with him for some time before that. There were two men, called PHILIP DART and GEORGE STEPHENS at the house that Sunday. When I came into the house, I saw Samuel Hockin standing with his head bleeding. After two or three minutes, Mary Treverton came in, and began to take down some "clome" from the dresser. She said it belonged to her. Hockin told her she should take what was her own, but none of his. She then went up stairs, and I heard what were apparently boxes [moving?]. Samuel went up stairs with the candle in his hand, which was put out by some means, and he came down to light it again. Hockin asked Dart to go up with him, and he did so. I heard the prisoner say to Hockin that if he went up she would knock his brains out.

The Monday after he was married, I saw Samuel Hockin coming from his house in the town, and Mary Treverton was throwing mud and stones at him. In the latter part of the same day, I heard a noise, and came to the shop door, and then saw Mary Treverton coming from Samuel Hockin's house with an apron full of chair legs. Samuel Hockin came out of JOHN LEWIS's house, the carpenter.

Mary Treverton was going towards her mother's, and as he came out she threw two chair legs at him; she then attempted to strike him with one of the legs, but he stepped back and avoided the blow. He then came out and picked up one or two of the legs, upon which she beat him over the back of the body and the arm, for about fifty or sixty feet up the village; then he turned round, and she beat him all the way back again as far as her house, where he made a stand. She then began to beat him about the head, and I called to him to knock her down, and not to stand to have his brains beaten out in that way. He then held up the leg of a chair to keep her off. I afterwards asked her if she was going to kill the man, upon which she threatened to throw mud on me and another man. Then her mother came forward and ordered her in, and shut the door.

CROSS-EXAMINED - I was asked last week for the first time to give an account of this quarrel. After some time Samuel Hockin went from his wife to live with Mary Treverton; that might be a fortnight or three weeks after he was married. He lived away from his wife with Mary Treverton for some weeks. He went away from the village with Mary Treverton.

Re-EXAMINED - After the body was found I had spoken of the quarrel between the parties to the neighbours, but never before last week to any gentleman.

(The witnesses for the prosecution were here all ordered out of the Court until called upon.)

WILLIAM BARRETT said - I was present on the morning that the body was found, and I picked up a stone from the ground, which I gave to MR. GAVED, the surgeon.

ARTHUR GAVED deposed as follows - I am a surgeon at St. Mabyn. I was called on the morning of Saturday, the 10th of October last, to see the deceased Samuel Hockin. I found him with his head near a wall, and his legs lying towards the road; he was lying a little on his left side, nearly on his face. The man was breathing heavily when I came to him, and was evidently in a dying state; pulsation had ceased at the wrist. [There were blood and brain splatters on the building walls in three or four places, up to four feet high. The skull was extensively fractured, the wound about five or six inches across. I took a stone that was handed me, and saw blood upon it. I gave it to West, the constable. - jm]

The man died in five or ten minutes. I made a post mortem examination of the body on the same day. I found several flesh wounds on the man's face; there were cuts and bruises on the face, and both eyes were swollen so as to be closed. The largest cut was on the right temple, and was from an inch to and inch and a half long. I examined the skull, and beneath the wound in the right temple I found a very extensive fracture. The bone at the back part of the head was also completely beaten in. I attribute the death of the man to extreme violence, - to some very heavy blows.

[Transcriber here left out rest of details of description - jm]. The stone I was given could have produced such wounds and fractures. Those effects could not have been produced by a fall. After that I was present when the house of John Treverton was searched, and was in a bed-room up stairs with West, the constable. I saw West find a pair of shoes, between two bed-ties, or mattresses filled with chaff. There were two beds in that room. I know the tenement occupied by Ham adjoining.

By the Judge - The window in Treverton's bed room looked toward the road. The shoes were found in the bed farthest from the partition between Treverton's and Ham's.

The heels of the shoes, when found, were pressed down. They were wet, the left more so than the right. The right shoe appeared to have been scraped, or wiped with some rough thing. The left shoe, which had not been scraped, was wet and very dirty. I observed some spots on the right shoe, which I believed to be blood. The spots were all small, the largest being probably half-an-inch in diameter. The spots were on the outer side of the shoe, and on the shoe thong. I did not see any thing else on the shoe at that time. The constable, Mr. West, then took possession of it. I looked at the shoe again on the inquest the same day, about four or five hours after. I then saw on the shoe four or five hairs just between the sole and the upper leather. The hairs were on the outside. I took the hair off the shoe by order of the coroner, and preserved it. I wrapped it up in some paper, and gave it to the constable; it was human hair. On Sunday, cut off a portion of deceased's hair, and also gave that to West. On Saturday afternoon, by order of the coroner, I examined the prisoner; I had received a communication from Clements. I found her linen perfectly clean, without any stains. On the Monday night after, I again examined her.

CROSS-EXAMINED by MR. SLADE - I examined her with reference to the communication I had from Clements. She had some time previously been in the state alluded to. I cannot say that she had been so a day or two before, but she might have been. I do not think the wounds on deceased's head could have been produced by a fall. Mr. SLADE - Supposing a man had received a violent blow, and he had fallen down on that stone, might not his skull have been fractured in the same way as deceased's was?

Witness - I think not; I cannot believe that so extensive a wound and laceration could be occasioned by a fall on a stone.

Witness's deposition at the coroner's inquest was then handed to him, and he was desired to look at it. In answer to the Judge, he then said - In my opinion she might have been in the state alluded to a day or two before, because there were stains on some of her outer garments. There was mud adhering to that part of the shoe from which I took the hair. I did not see any thing on that shoe besides a slight twinge of dirt and the hair.

ANN HOCKIN - I am the widow of SAMUEL HOCKIN, who at his death was fifty years of age. I was married to him on the 12th of January, 1846. He was a strong and tall man. I know that MARY TREVERTON had been living for some time with my husband before I was married to him. After we were married, he still continued to visit her; he was absent from me four nights. Three weeks after we were married, Samuel Hockin left St. Mabyn with Mary Treverton, and came back again in about three weeks. He had been living with me before the 10th of October last, ever since he came back. I have seen him more than once at John Treverton's house, the prisoner's father.

I had been there to look for him about five or six weeks before his death; he was coming away with me, and she pulled him back, saying he should not go out. He stayed there with her, and she shut the door in my face. She turned him out of the back door in five or ten minutes afterward. He had not been absent from me by night for the last three months before his death. On the evening of Friday, the 9th of October, he left my house at seven o'clock. I went to bed at twelve o'clock. He had not then come back, and I never saw him again alive. My husband did not carry a watch. He never gave me any money, and I do not know whether he had any on the 10th of October. He was in the habit of smoking.

CROSS-EXAMINED - It was after he came back with Mary Treverton that he was absent from home four nights. After the time when she pulled him back, I saw him at her house again. He was continually going to Mary Treverton's up to the time of his death. I have one child by him, about seventeen months old. The last night he left my house he was sober, but he had been drinking a little that day.

JOHN HOCKIN said - I am the son of Samuel Hockin, the deceased, by a first wife. I recollect seeing my father and Mary Treverton together about a month before my father's death. I was sent by my master to see the cattle, and when I came out of the field into Denham's Bridge Lane, I saw my father there. We went up the village, and I saw the prisoner waiting for him. She came forward, and began to abuse him. She said, "I'll blow thee and thy wife up with gunpowder if there's any to be got this night between this and Bodmin." I went with him, and she followed us up the lane; she ran forward and took his hat, saying "thee shan't have this hat then." She afterwards went down across the meadow, and my father said he would go to her house, as he had another hat there. We went there together, and she came in and gave him his hat again. I came away and left my father there.

EDITH HAMLEY said - I live at St. Mabyn. The prisoner, Mary Treverton, gave me a letter on the Thursday or Friday week before Samuel Hockin's death. She told me to give it to him, but I refused. She then said it had come from MR. ANDREW. I took it, and seeing Samuel Hockin in about two minutes, I gave it to him. While I was standing with him, the prisoner came down. I heard him say "that if he was never spared alive he never said any such thing." She said "he was a liar, and he did." She appeared to be in anger. She said she would "scat or dash his d----d old brains out." She had a basket which she fenced against him two or three times, but she did not strike him.

CROSS-EXAMINED - I do not suppose Mary Treverton meant to do what she said at that time.

GEORGE STEPHENS said - I am a shoemaker at Saint Mabyn. I was in the house in which prisoner lives the night before Samuel Hockin was found dead, and I saw him there. John Treverton, Mary Andrew, Samuel Hockin, Mary Treverton, Jane Treverton, and Ann Treverton were there. John Treverton and Ann Treverton are man and wife, and Mary and Jane Treverton are the daughters living in the house. Jane Treverton is there by day, but I do not know whether she sleeps there or not. When I saw Samuel Hockin he appeared to have been drinking. I left about ten, and about ten minutes or a quarter of a hour before that time, Mary Treverton went out of the room, and Samuel Hockin in two or three minutes afterwards followed her. I have frequently seen Samuel Hockin at the house. JANE HAM lives under the same roof. There is a passage leading to both houses, and the doors of the passage open one against the other.

CROSS-EXAMINED - When I was at Treverton's house the night before Samuel Hockin's death, the prisoner and deceased appeared to be good friends. They appeared at times to be very fond of each other.

MARY POOLEY said - I live at St. Mabyn. [Knows the spot where the body was found, in sight of her bedroom window. Her house is between Treverton's and Hockin's house. She was awake at 4 am. The cock was growing, and the day soon broke. I heard at that time a scuffle outside my house in the road, as if some person was dragged on by the wall. I could distinguish Samuel Hockin's voice, I am sure of that. He said "let me go," twice. I have long known him, and knew his voice well. I also heard another voice, but it was in an "under" tone. I did not know that voice. When Samuel Hockin spoke the second time, he was further on in the direction where his body was found, then in about five minutes I heard a person run backing the direction of Treverton's house. It was neither a light nor a heavy step.

CROSS-EXAMINED - I do not remember whether it had been a rainy evening; but some time before I heard the scuffle I heard a heavy shower. The roads were very dirty the evening before. By the Judge - There is only one house between mine and the place where Samuel Hockin was found. I heard no cry, nor scream - nothing besides the voice.

JANE HAM - I am the wife of JOHN HAM, and live at St. Mabyn. The apartments I occupy are under the same roof with those of JOHN TREVERTON. There is a passage from the road going between the two tenements. There is a door across that passage, and I go into that door to get to my tenement; I then come in a .. leads to Treverton's. On Friday, I was at home. My bed-room adjoins the bed-room in John Treverton's house; there is only one bed-room in his house. Between my bed-room and his, there is a slight partition. My husband slept in that room that night; I had a sick child at that time, which kept me awake or some time during the night. I heard several voices at Treverton's house that night after I went up to my room. [Witness heard Treverton's door open and close frequently; the last time, about four o'clock, gauged by the moonlight. I was one and a half or two hours before dawn. Just before she heard the passage door open, she heard some one walk down before her wi! ndow, which is between the passage and the place where Hockin was found. After I heard the passage door, I heard some one go up the stairs at Treverton's house.] The passage door was opened in the course of the night about seven or eight times. It opened three or four times after I heard the voices.

By the Judge - I can hear from my house the door of Treverton's dwelling open as well as the passage door. I did not at all hear Treverton's door open in the night. I can hear a sound of voices from my bed-room in treverton's kitchen; I heard voices there that night about twelve o'clock, but not after.

WILLIAM HARRIS - [Lives across the street, opposite Treverton. His bed-room faces the street. He was awake about four o'clock on that Saturday morning, and heard some one coming down the road from up the town, and going toward John Treverton's. I got out of bed, and looked out the window. It was very good light, but I could see no one. I heard a footstep go into the passage of Treverton's; if the person had not gone in there, I must have seen them.] I looked around a little, and went into bed again.

By the Judge - The footsteps I heard seemed to proceed from the middle of the road, and the person was walking on at a good pace.

PHILIP DART deposed - I live in St. Mabyn, near John Treverton, but further from where the body was found. [Was going to go out about four, but there was a heavy rain shower, and he went back to bed. Had a watch, and the clock downstairs struck four just after rain started. About twenty minutes before five, he again got up, and it was not raining. The prisoner was at his house about six weeks before Samual Hockin's death; she said she would "scat the b...r's brains out," referring to deceased. He believed that was a very common expression with her when she was angry with him.] Samuel Hockin was married on the 12th of January. I saw Mary Treverton with him on the Sunday before. He was lying on the ground, she having knocked him down with an old iron milk-pan. He told me she had knocked him down, and she said she would scat the old b----r's brains out; she then reached up to the bacon rack to take something to strike him; I said "stop, you hav'nt Hockin only to deal with."

CROSS-EXAMINED - Last Thursday morning, Mr. Gaved asked me a question about this. I and my wife had had words, and that was the reason my wife stayed up on the night Samuel Hockin was killed. She stayed up on purpose to vex me. After the fight with the milk-pan, I saw the parties taking tea together.

MARY DART - I am the wife of Philip Dart, [and was sitting up in my house the night Samuel Hockin was killed. I had had some words with my husband. Was in the kitchen, which had a window looking into the road in the direction of Treverton's house. I had a fire, but no candle. Between one and two a.m., I had occasion to go fetch some coals for my fire. I observed a light in the kitchen window of Treverton's house.] It was a beautiful moonlight, and as I was sitting in my kitchen, between two and three o'clock in the morning, I saw a man pass. He passed first from the direction of Treverton's house, and in about ten minutes after he passed back again. He had on a light fustian coat and trousers, and a black hat. I thought it was Samuel Hockin. He passed by nearly in the middle of the road.

[Between five and six, I went from my house to the Treverton's passage door. That was not bolted; went in and tried Treverton's door, but it was locked. I went out to the other door again, and heard John Treverton call his wife Ann; afterwards he spoke to Mary. In a few minutes I heard Mary come down and unbolt the door. I went inside the passage door; she had the chamber utensil in her hand, and went out at the back door with it. She returned into the hosue, struck a light, and lighted the fire. She had then on a day-cap; I fancied her clothes appeared "crammed", and I asked her if she had been to bed for the night; she said yes. I was then blowing the fire, and heard a noise in the street of much people talking. The prisoner said, "Hark, what is that?" She then got up on a chair, and took down the window blinds. A person then came to the outside door and said, "he is dead' or 'is he dead?" Soon after this my little girl came in, and said Samuel Hockin was out by! Barrett's shop just dead. The child went out and came back again, saying he was murdered; his brains were dashed out. Mary Treverton said "who could be so cruel?" I asked her why she did not go out; she said "she could not whatever."

After I heard of the murder, I said to Mary Treverton "I thought I saw Samuel Hockin pass my window last night;" but she made no answer to that. I recollect George Stephens coming as far as Treverton's kitchen door. He said "you may depend the house will be searched in a minute." Mary Treverton then went up stairs. I remained in the house until West, the constable, came, and she did not come down before he came. Ann Treverton, the mother, was there sitting by the fire, and a child of Mary Treverton's sister, about five years old, was there. When West came in, he said something to Mrs. Treverton, and she called up to Mary, who came down. When I first saw Mary Treverton that morning, she had no shoes on, but she took a pair of slippers from under the foot of the stairs and put on. When the constable came I did not observe what she had on. The constable said "Mary, you must go with me;" she said "What do you mean by that?" and then I went away.

By the Judge - After her father called to her, before I saw her, I should think it was about five minutes; I do not think she could have got her clothes on in that time.

JOSEPH WEST - I am a constable of St. Mabyn, and was sent for on the morning of Saturday, the 10th of October, about seven o'clock, to go to John Treverton's house. As I entered the passage, between Treverton's and Ham's houses, I observed a spot of blood against the "dern" of the passage door, close by the catch. It was a thumb latch attached to the door, and this spot of blood was on the door post near the latch. It was as if it had been made in opening the door, and the spot was fresh. I took the prisoner and her mother into custody. The mother locked the door, and I took them to the public-house. I afterwards got the key of the door of the mother, and went back to search the house. I went up stairs into the bed-room, where there were two beds. I searched and found a pair of shoes in the bed opposite the window. [He described them precisely as previous witnesses had done; the same with the shoes, the hair on the shoe, and the hair the doctor cut, which he produ! ced.] I also produce the stone which Mr. Gaved gave me. (The stone was here laid on the table, being a large sharp-edged stone, and apparently about a dozen pounds weight.)

CROSS-EXAMINED - There were a great many persons in the inquest-room. The table in the room was not of a very large size. The body was lying at the house in the lower part of the village. The jury went to see the body, and a great many persons went with them.

RE-EXAMINED - I cannot say how long the shoes were out of my sight at the inquest. When the jury came back from seeing the body, I believe the shoes were on the table where I left them. By the Judge - By the appearance of the shoes when found, I should think they had been worm slip-shod; the heels were turned down. (Mr. Rowe, the counsel for the prosecution, had some folded papers before him, which contained the hair alleged to have been formed on the prisoner's shoe, and also that which the surgeon cut from deceased's head. As, however, the shoes had not been kept in sight by the constable on the day of the inquest, Mr. Rowe said he thought he should not be justified in a case of this kind, in pressing that part of the case. The hair was not therefore produced.)

JOHN TREVERTON was then called, and said - I am the father of Mary Treverton, the prisoner. At the time Samuel Hockin was found dead, Mary was living in my house. There is only one bed-room and there are two beds in it. I and my wife slept in one, and the child. Mary slept in the other. The night before Samuel Hockin was found dead, I went to bed at seven o'clock. After that my son brought me up some ale. I do not know what shoes my daughter Mary wore. I cannot swear to the shoes that the constable produced to me. I do not know how many pair of shoes my daughter Mary had; I never took any notice of her shoes. The shoes now produced are not mine, nor are they my wife's.

CROSS-EXAMINED - My wife came to bed that night before twelve o'clock. Mary came to bed at half-past eleven. I was unwell all that night, and never slept sound through the night. My daughter Mary did not go out of the door that night after she came to bed. I saw Mary come out of bed in the morning and put on her clothes. She was not down stairs more then ten minutes before me. I left Mary Dart with my daughter, and went to my work. I heard Samuel Hockin down in the kitchen that night. He used frequently to come to my house, there was no keeping him away; he promised my daughter, Mary, marriage, I believe, at one time. When I was in bed, I heard Samuel Hockin, who was below, say good night, and leave the house; and my daughter Mary came to bed directly after.

GEORGE STEPHENS, a shoemaker, was re-called, and said - It appears to me the shoes now produced are those that have been worn by Mary Treverton. I cannot swear to them - I did not make the shoes. I generally observe people's shoes, and I have observed them; I used to make shoes for some of the family.

JOHN BLIGH said - I am a shoemaker, and made a pair of shoes for Mary Treverton last year. Those shoes now produced are of my making.

The Judge - Are these the shoes you made for her? Witness - I cannot say. The shoes I made for her were of that description.

MARY MARTIN said - I knew Mary Treverton quite well. The Wednesday or Thursday week before Samuel Hockin was killed, I heard Mary Treverton say that people had brought out an evil report about her; they said she was in a family way, and that was not the case. Instead of that, she said, she was very ill, and asked me to speak in behalf of her.

This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Slade then proceeded to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner. [He impressed upon them the very serious responsibility which rested upon them, and besought them to dismiss all rumours that might have been current, to lay aside all prejudices, and do their duty.] He then remarked upon the various points of evidence. It had been shown that the parties had quarreled at different times, but this was no proof the prisoner at any time cherished the deliberate purpose of murdering Samuel Hockin. There was no doubt that they loved each other, and when Samuel Hockin married after living with the prisoner in the manner he did, it was no wonder that she should quarrel with him. It was a very common thing for some people, when excited, to use coarse and revolting language.

[One witness heard a 'scuffle' as if some person was dragging along by the wall, but not in the direction of Treverton's house. If Mary Treverton had been one of the parties, the witness would have known her voice. Hockin was stated to have been a strong man, and she could not have dragged him in this way. The witness heard some one running back afterwards. If Mary Treverton had worn her shoes down at the heel, as stated by the constable, she could not have run back in that way. Her shoes were found dirty, but that might be expected from the state of the weather the day before, when she was pursuing her occupations. The spots of blood on her shoes were doubtless caused by the state she was in previously. Then she might have thrown these shoes, partly wiped and partly dirty, on the bed; and her mother, coming to make up the other bed in the same room, threw the tie upon the bed where the shoes were, and thus covered them. If she had been guilty of murder, she would mo! st certainly have more effectually wiped the shoes, and concealed them.

.. Another witness spoke of a person going into their passage about four o'clock in the morning; but that any one might have done who committed the deed, that being the quickest manner of getting away, by going through the garden at the back into the fields. They had heard in what manner Samuel Hockin was found; Mary Treverton could have had no motive for dragging his coat pocket out and tearing his coat. A tobacco pipe was found near him; but there was no evidence to show that was Samuel Hockin's pipe, or that he had been smoking. The pipe might have belonged to a person at present unknown, who had robbed and then murdered Hockin. In conclusion, Mr. Slade said that to find the prisoner guilty, the jury must satisfy themselves of the fact as clearly as if they saw her strike the mortal blow; and he now confidently appealed to them for a verdict of acquittal.

The Learned Judge summed up with great clearness, and strongly in favour of the prisoner. He remarked that there was no evidence of any quarrel between the prisoner and the deceased on the evening in questions; and that she was not seen out of her own house after the deceased had left it. He remarked upon the different points of the evidence at considerable length; and the jury, after about ten minutes deliberation, ACQUITTED the prisoner. On hearing the verdict, she first laughed, and afterwards cried; and then walked out of the dock as soon as she was permitted to make her exit.

[ BACK ]