cornwall england newspaper
1848 NEWS
AUGUST
4 AUGUST 1848, Friday
CORNWALL LAMMAS ASSIZES.
CROWN COURT. Tuesday, August 1. - The following prisoners who pleaded Guilty yesterday, received sentence this morning:-
WILLIAM OLIVER, Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
WILLIAM BADCOCK, Three Months' Hard Labour.
MARY DUCKFIELD, Three Months' Hard Labour.
CHARLES HARRISON, Nine Months' Hard Labour.
CHARLES ROGERS, Nine Months' Hard Labour.
JOSEPH HOCKIN, Two Months' Hard Labour. (This prisoner pleaded poverty in mitigation of his offence, and he received a good character from Mr. DAWE, constable of Liskeard, and Mr. MURRAY, sheriff's officer of the same town.
- THE HELSTON BURGLARY - JOHN MARTIN WILLIAMS, 43, FRANCIS O'NEALE, 35, and JAMES TRENOR, 53, were charged with having, on the 30th of June, feloniously and burglariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of PETER PASCOE, at the borough of Helston, and stolen therefrom forty yards of broad-cloth, twelve yards of doe-skin, thirty yards of kerseymere, one hundred and twenty silk waistcoat pieces, one cash box, two sovereigns, fifteen shillings, two silver fruit knives, one penknife, twelve pocket handkerchiefs, and twenty four cotton handkerchiefs, the property of the said Peter Pascoe.
Mr. GREENWOOD and Mr. BEVAN conducted the prosecution. The prisoners were undefended. Mr. Greenwood, in stating the case, said the prisoners were commonly known by nick-names:- Williams, as "Mevagissey Jack", O'Neale, as "One eyed Lankey", and Trenor, as "Jemmy the Rover." At the request of "One-eyed Lankey", all the witnesses were ordered out of the court.
The fact of the prosecutor's shop having been properly secured at eleven o'clock of the night in question, and of its having been broken into subsequently, before half-past five on the following morning, was clearly proved on the examination of Peter and Jane Pascoe, prosecutor's son and daughter, SUSANNAH PASCOE, his wife, EDMUND ODGERS, his apprentice, JONATHAN HODGE, a watchmaker, living near, and MARY JANE ROWE, who lived opposite Mr. Pascoe's, and, being disturbed about one o'clock by a noise in the street, heard footsteps on the pavement, and the latch of the house in which she slept tried; she then got up, and looking out saw three men at Pascoe's house. This young woman, unfortunately, gave no alarm beyond telling a young girl who slept with her. The Judge told her, if she had screamed out, she might have prevented the felony.
Peter Pascoe, the prosecutor, stated that when he came down stairs, about seven o'clock, on being called by his wife, he found, on entering the shop, that three large shelves were empty with the exception of one piece of cloth. There was stolen altogether about fifty yards of broad cloth, one hundred and fifty fore-parts of waistcoats, different pieces of doe-skin and kerseymeres, a remnant of canton and cords, and serges for lining of coats, and pieces of silk. The value of the whole was nearly as possible GBP100. There was a cash-box gone, and two sovereigns, fifteen shillings, two silver fruit knives, penknife and some other articles - invoices and receipts taken from the desk. The desk had not been locked. The lock of the shop-door was as it had been left; but the point of the key inside was scratched as if by a sharp instrument.
He went with constables FITZSIMMONS and BROADHURST about the country in search of the thieves. On Wednesday evening the 5th of July, they were at St. Agnes, and received information which led them to go to Perranzabuloe, where they went to a Mrs. RICHARDS's dwelling-house, and found two fore-parts of waistcoats, three silk handkerchiefs, and one figured cotton handkerchief, which were his property. They continued their search through the night; and divided into two parties, meeting afterwards by appointment at Newlyn [....?] in the morning.
They then went on the road, in consequence of information, and met the three prisoners, whom they took into custody. On the neck of "Jemmy the Rover" was a silk handkerchief which was witness's. Mevagissey Jack also had one of his handkerchiefs about his neck. There was also a waistcoat piece and another handkerchief showing out of one of their pockets. One-eyed Lankey had a pack of goods. The pack was opened, and all of its contents were witness's property. On Mevagissey Jack was found some keys, a jemmy and some thimbles, which were taken by the constable.
On the 11th of July, witness went to St. Austell with Fitzsimmons, and found a large parcel of goods, at Mrs. Bennett's, the London Inn, in St. Austell. The bundle contained cloth, broadcloths, beavers, doe-skins, and Verona serge; all of which were his goods, but he could not identify all, because the marks were torn off.
MARY ODGERS, wife of William Odgers, who keeps a lodging house at the Lower Road, in Helston [testified] Francis O'Neale came to her house, in the evening of Wednesday the 28th of June. Trenor had come to the house, the same evening, before O'Neale. O'Neale slept there that night. Trenor asked to sleep there but did not. The next morning, about eight or nine o'clock, Trenor came but O'Neale was gone, and he then left.
ELIZABETH BENNETT lives with her uncle, Mr. GOSS, an innkeeper at St. Day. On Saturday, the 1st of July, saw two men come into the house about one o'clock; one of the men had but one eye. Each of them had a brave large parcel. They came in and had some beer, and remained there till between five and six o'clock. Their packs were not opened. One of the men, not the one-eyed man, asked witness if she would treat her sweetheart to a pocket handkerchief. (Laughter). She told the man she should not buy a handkerchief.
WILLIAM GOSS, innkeeper at St. Day. The last witness, his niece, was on a visit at his house. Mevagissey Jack came there about one o'clock, on Saturday, the 1st of July, with another man. Saw two packs on the table. The two men drank some beer there, and remained till five or six o'clock. One of them, while there laid his head on the table as if he wanted to go to sleep. JOHN TAPPER lives at Mrs. SLEEMAN's lodging house, in Chacewater. On a Sunday evening, a month ago, two men came to the house; they were James Rover, and One-Eyed Lankey; they had two bundles with them; they asked for a room to stop in, and then put their bundles down; they then carried their bundles up-stairs, and slept there that night. On the same Sunday evening, a third man came there, but witness did not know who he was. All three slept in one room.
Cross-Examined. Trenor was a man who, for many years had carried a pack, selling handkerchiefs and such things. Could not identify the other man who came to the house with Trenor.
ELIZABETH SLEEMAN, wife of WILLIAM SLEEMAN, lodging-house keeper at Chacewater. About ten o'clock on Sunday morning, a month ago, saw Jemmy the Rover, and Lankey, at her house. Neither of them brought anything. Lankey went out in a little while, and came back about eleven or twelve o'clock. He brought a cheek of pork, a cabbage, and some potatoes for witness to cook, and said that three men were to dine. They both went up stairs. Jemmy came down in the early part of the afternoon and had dinner, and went up stairs; and afterwards, the other men also came down and had dinner, and went up stairs again afterwards. In the evening Mevagissey Jack came to the house, about eight o'clock. He slept in the room with the other two. They all left about eleven o'clock on Monday morning. Jemmy the Rover carried away a bundle on his shoulder. Saw nothing of any other bundle but that.
SAMUEL NORTHEY, miner, at Chacewater, was at Manley's public house in the morning of Monday, in the beginning of July. Trenor came there about nine o'clock, and asked for a pint of beer and drank part of it. He said he wanted a note wrote to put on a parcel to send to St. Austell. Witness offered to write it for him, and did write it on a piece of paper, which Trenor took away with him. In about three quarters of an hour he came back with the two other prisoners; they had three half-noggins of spirit. Trenor said to them of witness - "This is the friend that wrote the note for me." Then one of the others said, "Give him something to drink." A man called HOCKING came into the house soon afterwards, and one of the men said to him, "it is always the custom for a landlord, when out, to stand treat;" and Hocking said he did not mind a bottle of porter. One of the men asked Hocking what was the news in Helston. Hocking said there was a shop broken open there, and GBP 100 worth of property stolen, and GBP 10 reward was offered for the taking of the thieves. The three prisoners then drank up what they had and went away.
OLIVER HOCKING, innkeeper at Helston. Had seen Trenor and Williams on the 29th of June about nine in the morning, on St. John's Bridge, in Helston. Saw them next on Monday, the 3rd of July, at Manley's, in Chacewater, at eleven o'clock. All three prisoners were there. They asked witness to treat them with something to drink, and he gave them a bottle of porter. They then asked the news from Helston. Witness told them that a house had been broken into and GBP100 worth of broad-clothes and other goods stolen, and GBP10 reward was offered. They then drank the porter and left the house as quick as possible; Trenor carrying a bag. On the same day, witness gave information to Pascoe and Broadhurst, at Truro.
ROBERT WALTERS, driver of Phillip's van from Camborne to Truro. About a month ago O'Neale gave him a package, which witness took to Truro, and gave it to the driver of Kellow's St Austell van. That was on the 3rd of July.
HENRY ROWE, driver of Kellow's van from Truro to St. Austell, on the 3rd of July received a large pack from the last witness. Took it to Kellow's booking-office, and gave it to the book-keeper.
WALTER WERRY, bookkeeper at Kellow's received a pack from Rowe, on the 3rd of July, and the next day delivered it, according to the direction, to Mrs. BENNETTO, of the London Inn, St. Austell.
CHRISTIAN BENNETTO, of the London Inn, received a pack from Werry, and carried it into the cellar, and locked the door. It remained there, till she gave it up to a policeman. JOHN MANLEY, innkeeper at Chacewater, proved that when prisoners were there, Williams said he came from Helston.
ELIZABETH RICHARDS, of Perranzabuloe, bought a silk handkerchief, on Wednesday the 5th of July, from James Trenor. He was then alone. He took the handkerchief out of a bundle. Mr. Pascoe had it afterwards, on the same day. Should know it again by its being damaged in the corner. Got it for 1s. 6d. on that account.
THOMAS RICHARDS, lived with his mother, the last witness; bought a silk handkerchief and a waistcoat-front of Trenor. Delivered them on the same day to Mr. Pascoe and a constable.
JAMES RICHARDS, also bought a handkerchief and waistcoat piece of Trenor, for 4s.; they were carried off the same night. It was a Wednesday four weeks ago. MARY HOLMAN, on the first Wednesday in July, bought of Trenor, two figured cotton handkerchiefs, for 2d. each.
SUSAN LETCHER of St. Agnes; her husband keeps an inn; on the 4th of July, Jemmy the Rover came there about six in the evening, and asked for lodgings for himself and two others. He then offered some handkerchiefs for sale, and she bought three for 1s. After that, O'Neale came in and told Jemmy that Jack was sleeping on the road. Then Jem went away, and came back with Jack (Williams). Lankey asked her if she had bought anything; she told him she had bought three handkerchiefs for a shilling. She afterwards, a week since, gave up the handkerchiefs to Fitzsimmons. The three men slept at her house one night, and left next morning; they left a piece of cloth until they went to sell something to pay for the lodgings. In the afternoon, Lankey came back, paid the money and took away the cloth.
JAMES BROADHURST, constable of Helston, went with Mr. Pascoe and Fitzsimmons of Truro, on the 5th of July, to Perranzabuloe, and got at a house there, three silk handkerchiefs, a cotton handkerchief, and a figures waistcoat piece. Witness produced the articles, which were severally identified by the Richards, and by Mary Holman.
On the following morning, went with Mr. Pascoe to [.......?] and they arrived at three o'clock, and were joined at four o'clock by the other party in search. At five o'clock, they received information which induced them to go on the road, where they met the three prisoners. Witness took Jemmy the Rover, and found two handkerchiefs, a waistcoat piece, a razor, a bad shilling, and a snuff box. (Witness produced the handkerchiefs and the waistcoat piece).
JAMES FITZSIMMONS, policeman, of Truro, went with Broadhurst and Pascoe in search of the prisoners, and was present when they were arrested near Newlyn. Found on Mevagissey Jack a lot of picklock keys and a jemmy, and a silk handkerchief; and also some thimbles. (Witness produced these articles. Found on O'Neale, a silk handkerchief and a razor, and a bundle. These articles also were produced.) He said the bundle belonged to Trenor, which Trenor admitted. On Tuesday, 11th of July, went with Pascoe to the London Inn, St. Austell, and got a pack from the landlady there. It had a direction on it. (This bundle was produced; and its direction identified by Northey, who wrote it.)
Mr. Pascoe, the prosecutor, recalled, identified various of the articles produced, by selling marks of his own making, and by the production of pieces from his shop, from which these had been cut by himself. Was quite sure that he had never sold any of these, or any other articles to Trenor.
At the close of the case, the Judge observed, that it was exceedingly unfair to the prisoners, that out of nearly thirty witnesses who had been examined in court now, only three had been before the committing magistrates. If he had known this before, and the prisoners had asked for a postponement of the trial, he should certainly have granted that request. The learned Judge, in summing up, put the same point for the consideration of the jury, urging if as a reason why they should give to the case the utmost attention, since the prisoners had been deprived, he would not say intentionally of the ordinary advantages which the law provides to enable the accused to meet charges made against them, before the magistrate. The Jury found all the prisoners Guilty. They were sentenced each to Fifteen Years' Transportation.
- JOHN SAUNDRY BARRETT, 37, was charged with having on the 5th of July, at Truro, unlawfully uttered two pieces of false and counterfeit coin, resembling half-crowns, to SELINA HOOPER and REBECCA CHARLESTON. We gave the particulars of this case at the time of the inquiry before the committing magistrate at Truro. The prosecution was conducted, on the part of the Mint, by their counsel, Mr. MOODY and Mr. STOCK. It came out in the course of the trial, on the evidence of Mr. JACOB LEVY, silversmith of Truro, that the base metal of which these counterfeit half-crowns were made, would cost but about sixpence per pound which would probably make nearly forty such coins. Guilty - Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
- WILLIAM FORD, 10[?] and RICHARD HENDY. 14[?], were charged with having, on the 23rd of June, at Hurdon, in the borough of Launceston, burglariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of DAVID THOMPSON, a farmer, and stolen therefrom four legs of pork, one cheek of pork, one bullock's tongue, two fowls, one bag, and a quantity of eggs. They were both Acquitted.
- WILLIAM HEXT, 28 was charged with stealing a purse containing two sovereigns, some half-crowns, and other money, the property of JOHN GREY. The two parties were in the skittle-alley, of the Sportsman's Arms Inn in the parish of Lezant, on the evening of the 22nd of July; and, after Grey had once or twice, in the present of Hext, taken money from the purse in the pocket of his coat which was lying on a bench in the ground, Hext was seen to take up the coat, and lay it down again after shuffling it about behind him. On the following morning, Grey missed his money, having had at first, in the skittle-alley, GBP2. 18s., and GBP2. 14s. 6d. when he last put back his money in the purse. When the prisoner was subsequently searched, he, although working on the road for 5s. a week, had GBP2. 18s. in his pocket, and among this money was a half-crown which Grey identified on his own, by a mark. Guilty, Six Months' Hard Labour.
- CHARLES HARRISON, 16, and CHARLES ROGERS, 17, pleaded Guilty of stealing on the 2nd of July, at Callington, a pair of cloth trowsers, and a pocket-knife, the property of EDMUND SYMONDS. Sentence deferred.
WILLIAM BADCOCK, 37, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 17th of July, at Mevagissey, a pair of boots, the property of RICHARD TRETHEWY. Sentence deferred.
- WILLIAM OLIVER, 24, pleaded Guilty of stealing on the 30th of June, from the dwelling-house of JOSEPH EDYVEAN, at Roche, a purse containing a five-pound note, two sovereigns, and some silver. Sentence deferred.
- HANNIBAL USLER HARVEY, 34, was found Guilty of stealing, on the 6th of July, three ducks and two fowls, the property of WILLIAM INGRAM. A previous conviction was proved against him for stealing twelve barn door fowls, the property of THOMAS PASCOE; and it appeared that his term of imprisonment for this offence had expired only four days before his commission of the felony of which he was now convicted. The Learned Judge, after warning him that a third conviction for felony would inevitably subject him to transportation, sentenced him to twelve Months' Hard Labour.
- MARY DUCKFIELD, 20, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 25th of July, at St. Austell, a pair of [......?] the property of WALTER SAUNDERS, shopkeeper.
- JOSEPH HOCKEN pleaded Guilty of stealing a pair of boot fronts, at Liskeard, stating that he did it from poverty.
- ARSON - JAMES BASSETT, 15, and JAMES GRENFELL TREWHELLA, 17, charged with having on the 25th of March, maliciously and feloniously set fire to a workshop, at Penzance, in the possession of JOHN JAMES, coach-maker, their master. Mr. COLERIDGE conducted the prosecution; Mr. COLLIER defended Bassett, and Mr. SLADE defended Trewhella. JOHN MAY, foreman of the prosecutor, at his coach-maker's premises in Penzance, stated that the two prisoners were apprentices to Mr. JAMES. The jury, after a careful summing up, found both prisoners Guilty, but recommended them to mercy on account of their youth. The learned Judge sentenced each prisoner to Fifteen Years' Transportation.
- CHARGE OF SACRILEGE - JOHN BELLMAN, 19, whose appearance was idiotic, was charged with having, on the 6th of May, feloniously broken and entered the church of the parish of Gunwalloe, and with having, then and there, feloniously and sacrilegiously stolen six testaments, the property of the churchwardens of the parish. The property was also laid, severally, in the parishioners, and in the Reverend RICHARD GERVEYS GRYLLS, the vicar of the parish. Mr. BEVAN and Mr. ROGERS, conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended.
JOSEPH HENDY, one of the two churchwardens of the parish, stated that the church has two doors - north and south - the latter door being remarkable for having some iron grating about six or eight inches above the ground. On Tuesday, the 2nd of May, witness was at the church, and, after seeing the north door bolted, he locked the other door, and carried the key to Mr. SAMUEL HARRY's. All the prayer-books of the church were kept in the church, and also the books of the school - chiefly testaments. On the morning of the 6th of May, about eleven o'clock, in consequence of information he had received, he went to the church, and found that the grating of the south door had been broken open, making an opening large enough for a person to go through. He found that some person had been in the church - the box in which the school-books were kept had been broken open - and the north door was unbolted.
MARY POLLARD, daughter of the sexton of Gunwalloe, proved that, at nine o'clock on Saturday morning, the 6th of May, she got the key of the church at Mr. Harry's and went to the church for the purpose of cleaning it. She found the south door, and interior of the church, as described by the preceding witness, to whom she gave the information.
RENATUS TRIGGS[??], saw the prisoner, about half-past seven o'clock in the morning of the 6th of May, about twenty paces from the church and going towards it alone. Samuel Harry saw the prisoner about nine o'clock on the same morning, going from the church towards Pellew? Cove.
THOMAS THOMAS, in consequence of information he received from Mr. Hendy went about twelve o'clock the next morning, towards Pellew Cove, about [......... ........... ........?] the church, and saw the prisoner [...........?] tearing up a book - a find of tract. Witness asked him where he got it, and he said, at Porthhaven. Witness asked him if he had any more books; he said "no". But, on his standing up, witness searched, and found inside his shirt and waistcoat, six testaments. Inside the books was the name of Mr. BROADLEY, the curate of Cury and Gunwalloe. Witness waited with prisoner until two other men came, and then led the prisoner away; on the road he said he took the books from Gunwalloe church. Witness handed the testaments to Mr. Hendy. Mr. Hendy produced the books in court. On his lordship looking into them, he suggested that there was a difficulty on the part of the prosecution, as to the laying of the property, observing that the books with Mr. Broadley's name in them, and kept in a box of which as Mr. Henday said, Mrs. Broadley generally kept the key, could not be said to be in charge of either of the parties in whom the property was laid in the indictment. His lordship, however, did not stop the case on this point.
On the part of the prisoner, the Judge, having previously questioned the witnesses for the prosecution as to the state of the prisoner's intellect, now called and examined several witnesses specially on this question.
JANE BELLMAN, mother of the prisoner, said he had been weak in intellect all his life. She had put him to school to keep him out of harm's way, and there he learned to read a little, but he could never write, nor count twenty, nor say the Lord's Prayer, although she had frequently tried to teach him. She had tried in every way to keep him from evil; but at times he would get deranged, and would then go about and do mischief. He had been in prison many times for different things.
Mr. EVERETT, governor of the gaol, stated that he had had the prisoner under his custody several times during the last three years, and always considered that he was imbecile - that there was a decided want of intellect in him, and that at times he was decidedly not competent to know right from wrong. He could read very well. The Rev. N. KENDALL, chaplain of the gaol, stated that the prisoner could say a great part of his catechism, including the Lord's Prayer. As to his intellect, he was not so clever as other people, but Mr. Kendall did not consider him so weak intellect as not to be a moral agent. He was better at times than at others. If he were to commit a felony, should think he would know he was doing wrong.
JOSEPH HAMLEY, surgeon at the gaol, considered that the prisoner was of weak intellect, but that there were times when he knew right from wrong. The jury found the following verdict. - Guilty, but of unsound mind. The Judge observed that in that case the verdict would be - "Not Guilty, because the prisoner was insane." The Judge told the jury that the prisoner should [..........?] taken care of, and kept out of the way of doing harm.
- ELIZABETH TREVARTHEN, 19[?], and MARY WOOLCOCK, 35, were charged with having, on the 1st of July, at Truro, stolen one pint of British brandy, and a noggin of gin, from ZEPHANIAH JOB, of the Turk's Head Inn, Truro, Elizabeth Trevarthen, being a servant of prosecutor. They were both found Guilty and sentenced each to Six Months' Hard Labour.
- WILLIAM NICHOLAS, 25, was charged with having on the 2nd of July, broken into the dwelling house of MARY HUTCHINS, in the parish of Madron, and stolen therefrom a silver watch the property of THOMAS TREGURTHA. The prosecutor was foreman to Mrs. HUTCHINS, who was a widow and carried on the business of a blacksmith; and he lodged at her house. On Sunday the 2nd of July, they went together, about one o'clock, to a chapel at Sancreed. On their leaving, Mrs. Hutchins left Mr. Tregurtha's watch on the table in her bed-room and fastened the windows and locked the doors of the house. On their return from chapel, they found that the back window had been broken open; and, on entering the house, they found that the robbery had been committed, but did not miss the watch, or any other particular articles, till next morning.
On the Wednesday, with a constable they searched prisoner's house, which was near Mrs. Hutchins's; and although they found no stolen property there, he was taken into custody; and as he was afterwards being led away, the constable, saw that there was something unusual inside his stocking, just about the quarter of the shoe; and, on cutting open the stocking, found the prosecutor's watch. Guilty. Three previous convictions of felony were proved against the prisoner, and he was sentenced to Ten Years' Transportation.
The Grand Jury were discharged about mid-day. They had ignored the following bills:- JOHN SMITH for burglary at the dwelling-house of HENRY POOLEY, at Kenwyn. BELINDA SECCOMBE, WILLIAM HAMMER, WILLIAM MUCHMORE, and CHARLES LANGFORD, charged with four others with stealing GBP4. 15s. from RICHARD RICHARDS.
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2. - HANNAH HARRIS, 15, pleaded Guilty of stealing at the parish of St. Germane, on the 1st of July, a cotton dress, shift, pair of clogs, parasol, shawl, and bonnet, the property of MARY SHORT, the younger, also various articles, the property of MARTHA ANN SHORT. She was sentenced to Four Months Hard Labour.
RICHARD ORCHARD, 22, was indicted for assaulting MARY DABB, with intent to ravish her. Another account charged the prisoner with a common assault[?] Mr. ROGERS appeared for the prosecution and Mr. STOCK for the defence. The prosecutrix lives in the parish of Gwennap, and on Tuesday the 20th of June, she left her parents' house with an acquaintance, ELIZABETH PENPRAZE, to go to Portreath, to spend the day. They walked about, and in the course of the day met with ISAIAH ORCHARD and RICHARD ORCHARD, the prisoner. They went to two public houses and stayed several hours, and afterwards to a third public house near Wheal Mary. They remained there three hours and left to go home about one o'clock in the morning. It was on the road towards home that the assault, with intent, was alleged to have been committed, but respecting it, and the circumstances attending the occasion, very contradictory evidence was given.
Mary Dabb stated that the prisoner used bad language when he assaulted her, that he knocked her down, and on her resisting him, he bit her fingers and tore her clothing. On the side of the prisoner evidence was given to show that Mary Dabb had drunk a large quantity of liquor during the say, and that at the last public house where they called she was so intoxicated as to detain the party there longer than they would otherwise have remained. It was only three miles from that place to her parents' house, and they were two hours going that distance through her being so troublesome. It was deposed that she very much misconducted herself and used violent language.
Mary Dabb stated that Isaiah Orchard and Elizabeth Penpraze were only a short distance behind herself and the prisoner on the way home; but on the other hand it was deposed that the parties all went on together, and that Isaiah was with Mary Dabb. It was also stated that Mary Dabb had shown her violence on the night in question by throwing stones against the door of the house of JOHN ORCHARD, prisoner's father, and that she had broken one of his windows. He went to a magistrate about this, and complained of it to Mary Dabb's parents, on which Mary asserted that his son had bitten her fingers, but she said nothing further. Her story was that she had represented the matter to her mother, then went to a magistrate respecting it, and nine days afterwards applied to a surgeon.
The Learned Judge told the jury that the question they had to decide was whether the prosecutrix, or the evidence given on the other side was most worthy of belief. The jury gave a verdict of Not Guilty.
- WILLIAM PENBERTHY, 24, was indicted for assaulting ELIZABETH HICKS, with intent to ravish her, and he was also charged in a second count with a common assault. On the 15th of May, the prosecutor was at Falmouth, and left in the evening by the [........?] Point North Corner to go to Halton quay on the Tamar. When she arrived there, about eight o'clock, as she was becoming acquainted with the road to Callington, she asked the other passengers whether any of them were going that way. The prisoner said he was, and he then accompanied her, her intention being to go to her father's house at Stokeclimsland, three miles from Callington. They went on together till they came to a stop-gate, on which the prisoner proposed to go down a by-road, which he said was the nearest way to Callington. They proceeded some way down the lane, and he then assaulted her, first throwing a bundle and basket which she had, about the lane. She resisted him and cried "murder," on which two men came to her assistance, and the prisoner desisted from his attack upon her.
It was deposed by JOHN BENNETT and THOMAS DOLLEY, tailors at Callington, that they were walking with other parties on the evening of the 15th of May, that they heard cries of "murder" proceeding from Dewpath lane and on going thither they could [see] the prosecutrix and the prisoner, whose appearance and language they described. Verdict, Guilty on both counts. Sentence, Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
- MARTHA ABBOT, 29, was charged with stealing from the person of JAMES COCK, 7s. 6 1/4 d., his property. Prosecutor is a mason living at Camborne, and he was there on the 29th of June, which was fair day at Camborne. About eleven or twelve o'clock at night he saw prisoner in Basset-street, and they went together into a small garden place adjoining, where, as he alleged, she robbed him. When the policeman came, money to the amount which prosecutor had lost was found on her person, with the exception of 6d. As there was thus a failure in the identity of the money, it was suggested by the prisoner's counsel that the prosecutor had been robbed by some other person in the course of the evening. Verdict, Not Guilty. The Judge ordered that the prosecutor should not be paid his expenses, and that the money taken from the women should be restored to her.
- SELINA EDGCUMB, 15, was charged with stealing ten half-crowns, eleven shillings and a purse, from the person of JOHN ADAMS, of Linkinhorne. On the 8th of July prosecutor was at Liskeard, and went with a man called PROWER to witness the performance of the Ethiopian Serenaders at the Town Hall. About half-past ten or eleven o'clock they came out from the place, and passed the prisoner in the street, who spoke to the prosecutor, and afterwards robbed him. The prisoner was subsequently heard, while in prison, to make confession that she had committed the robbery. Guilty, Six Months Hard Labour.
- CHARLES HUDDY, 29, was indicted for maliciously shooting at RICHARD ANNEAR. The first count charged the prisoner with intent to maim, the second with intent to disable, and the third with intent to do the prosecutor some grievous bodily harm.
The prosecutor, Richard Annear, who lives at Probus church-town, said he was at home on the 14th of February last, and went to bed about nine in the evening. About five minutes before twelve, witness was awakened by hearing two violent knocks at the front door. He got out of bed, opened the window and looked out; saw Charles Huddy, the prisoner, standing at some distance, and asked him what he wanted there. He made no reply. Witness's son came to the window, and witness desired him to keep his eye on Huddy while he went down to take him. Witness again looked out and saw Huddy had a gun, he having come nearer to the house than he was standing before. He presented the gun at witness and fired. Witness drew back when he saw Huddy present the gun. He again looked out, and saw Huddy reloading the gun. He came one pace nearer and fired at witness the second time. Witness and his son again drew back. Standing at the window, witness's head would about reach to the top, an!
d the thatch came down close on the upper part. If the charge of the gun had gone into the roof, witness should not expect it to be visible considering the state of the thatch.
He sent his brother for the constable, and looking out of the parlour window, he saw prisoner still standing not far from the house.
The learned Judge here asked a question or two of the witness, and finding from his replies that he was not sure the gun was loaded, and there being no other proof to that effect, the jury were directed to return a verdict of Acquittal, as the indictment could not be supported.
- MARK MORCOM, 16, was charged with stealing, at Wheal Maiden mine, in the parish of Gwennap, on the 9th of June, two pounds of miners' candles and a key, the property of HENRY MORCOM. From the evidence it appeared that the candles and the key were taken from the changing-house, but it came out that the indictment was wrongly laid, as the key belonged to a person called ELISHA HALSE, and the candles to those men including the prisoner. The jury, in consequence, were directed to Acquit the prisoner, and the Judge addressed him in an impressive manner, cautioning him as to his future conduct.
ASSIZES.
- HENRY WYLIE, 29, was found Guilty of stealing on the 26th of June, at the parish of St. Stephens by Saltash, ten pounds of potatoes, the property of JOSEPH VIGERS[?]. The prisoner was recommended to mercy by the jury, because it appeared that he stole the potatoes when under the pressure of distress. The Judge said that persons in distress must not suppose that they might resort to stealing, as by the law of the land they were entitled to their support in another way. Sentence, Fourteen Days' Hard Labour.
- JAMES RICHARDS, 25, was charged with assaulting JOHN DOWNING, a constable of Gwennap, whilst in the execution of his duty. The following witnesses were called. WILLIAM GOSS, who keeps the Lion Inn at St. Day, and said that on Saturday evening, the 8th of July, some men were in his house drinking and making a noise. They were up stairs and he went up there to stop them, some of them being dancing. His wife afterwards went up to stop them and when she came down her nose was bleeding, and she had received a blow on the eye. He went for the constables, and shortly afterwards HAWKE and Downing came. Hawke required the peace, and when Downing came in he collared the prisoner, who also collared Downing.
JOHN DOWNING, constable of Gwennap, said that on going up-stairs at the Lion Inn, he saw the prisoner quarrelling and making a great noise. Mrs. Goss said that was the man who struck her; about a minute before she said he was not the man. Witness told Richards he must leave the room, on which he "wound up" against witness, saying, "d---n you Downing, you are not so good a man as I am; you broke my skull a fortnight since, and you shan't put me out of the room."
Witness had not before this taken him into custody. He struck witness, and collared him with both hands. The other constable tried to wrest his hand from witness's collar, but could not do it until he struck him with his staff. Witness went for another constable, and they took Richards into custody, after which he said to witness, "I owed you a grudge, and I intended to pay you; if it had not been for Hawke, you should not have got out of my hands."
Cross-Examined - Witness could not swear that he had not struck prisoner in a previous row; he believed he had not, and told prisoner so when he charged him with doing it.
Charles HAWKE, constable, said that when he got to the head of the stairs in the Lion Inn, there was a man called RENFREE, who was about to fight, and other persons were holding him. Witness got Renfree down stairs, and went into the room where prisoner was wanting to fight, and others were holding him. He said he was a better man than witness. (The constable Hawke went on to corroborate other parts of Downing's evidence.)
Cross-Examined - Witness struck Richards a pretty severe blow before he released his hold of Downing's collar. Mrs. Goss said it was a person named MORCOM who struck her. Downing asked who is the man, and pointed to the prisoner.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH then addressed the jury for the prisoner, representing that Downing had brought the assault on himself, through having insidiously pointed to Richards on entering the room without at first making due inquiry. The prisoner was found Guilty, but was recommended to mercy by the prosecutor. In reply to the Judge, the prisoner said he had no grudge against Downing; he was then ordered to enter into his own recognizances in the sum of GBP50 to be of good behaviour to all her Majesty's subjects, and especially to the prosecutor, for two years. He was then discharged.
- WILLIAM DOIDGE was charged with stealing a small sum of money, the property of JOHN WILLIAM INCH. The prosecutor lives at Cutmere, in St. Germans, and the prisoner stole the money, 1s. 4 1/4 d. during the absence of prosecutor's wife, who had left one of the windows open when she went away in the morning, and through that window the prisoner entered. Guilty, Four Months' Hard Labour.
- JOSEPH LOBB, 48, and JOSEPH LOBB, the younger, 20, were found Guilty of stealing at Stokeclimsland, on the 4th of July, a quantity of wood, the property of Mr. SARGENT, of Callington. One Month's Hard Labour.
FRANCIS CRAGO, 21, and WILLIAM COOK, 18 were indicted for stealing four sovereigns and fifteen shillings in silver from the person of RICHARD RICHARDS, a miner; and ELIZABETH ANN VINCENT was charged with receiving the money, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. HUGHES stated the case, and then called to give evidence Richards, the prosecutor, who said he was at Liskeard on Sunday, the 2nd of July, and in the afternoon he was drinking beer and gin at a public house called "the First and Last."
While he was there three women came in, GRACE BEST, ELIZABETH VINCENT and BELINDA VINCENT. He afterwards went with them to Lamellion, about a mile from Liskeard, to Crabbe's public house. About half-past six in the evening, he went into the skittle alley, and fell asleep on the ground. He awoke a little after seven and missed his money from his watch-pocket; he had GBP4. 15s. altogether in his pockets; it was all gone and his watch-pocket was cut off.
Cross-Examined - He was not very drunk when he went into the skittle alley. Grace Best (who was admitted as an approver in the case) said she went with Richards to the skittle alley, and left him there. On going a second time she saw the prisoners Crago and Cook there, and Crago cut off Richards's watch-pocket. Three men and two women had by this time left the public house; witness overtook them on the road to Liskeard by the canal, and the prisoners, Crago and Cook, afterwards also overtook them. Belinda Vincent asked Crago if he had robbed the man, and he told her there were four sovereigns, and on which she said there were more, that Richards had five in the day.
Cross-Examined - When the constable took witness into custody, he said it was for being concerned with those who robbed the man. It was after she was apprehended that she told what Crago and Cook had done, Richards was intoxicated.
WILLIAM CRABB, who keeps the public-house at Lamellion, said he saw Grace Best looking over Richards in the skittle alley, and afterwards he saw Crago, Cook, and Best there; on his approaching they walked away. Henry Roberts was also examined, but his evidence was unimportant. JOHN DAW, constable at Liskeard, apprehended Vincent on Sunday the 2nd of July, and charged her with robbing a miner at Lamellion, in company with other girls to the amount of GBP5. He took from her pocket a shilling and two-pence, and from her hand a sovereign and sixpence. She said that was her own money; at first she said she had none.
She afterwards, when in custody, said that Grace Best was concerned in the robbery, and was the right person to take up; on that witness went to her lodgings, and took from her bed 9s. 6d. and a penny. Mr. COLLIER, who defended Crago and Cook, then addressed the jury, contending that the circumstances showed Grace Best to have been the person who committed the robbery, and not the male prisoners, on whom no money had been found. The jury Acquitted Crago and Cook, but found Vincent Guilty. She was sentenced to Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
- JOHN DYER, 30, was charged with stealing twelve pounds of bell metal, the property of JOHN CARDELL and another; a second count laid the metal as the property of the churchwardens of St. Columb. The following witnesses were called:- John Cardell, one of the churchwardens of St. Columb Major, said there was a broken bell in the tower. WILLIAM PARKIN, a smith, repaired a fifth bell in the tower about two years ago; four pieces came off it which witness left in the tower; he saw them there about Christmas last.
ELIZABETH TIPPET, daughter of the sexton at St. Columb said Dyer, the prisoner, was employed to wind up the church clock between Christmas and March last. JAMES WHITE, marine store dealer, purchased bell metal of the prisoner in February and March last; bought of him about 16 lbs. and paid him 4d. per lb.; he believed prisoner said it was part of Trewan old bell. Witness sold the metal to JAMES TONKIN. James Tonkin, a wheelwright, bought about 12 1/2 lbs. of metal of the last witness on the 2nd of March.
HENRY COOMB, constable of St. Columb Major, produced bell metal which came from the tower, and with which the pieces sold by prisoner to Tonkin corresponded. Prisoner and DICK TIPPET, the sexton's son gave him the metal. RICHARD TIPPET denied having given the metal to prisoner. Guilty - Six Months' Hard Labour.
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE
ECCLESIASTICAL - The Rev. W. MILTON[?], vicar of St. Augustine's Bristol, and the Rev. E. H. PAUL, perpetual curate of Kentish Town, Middlesex, formerly of Truro and Probus in this county, have with the agreement of the patrons, exchanged livings.
INDEPENDENT CHURCH, TRURO - We understand that the Rev. JAMES ROBERTS, of Birmingham had accepted a call from the Independent Church in Truro, to become its pastor in the room of the late Rev. W. MOORE. Mr. Roberts is widely known among the congregational dissenters of England as a man of great general ability, and in particular as distinguished for the singular power of his pulpit addresses. His settlement in Truro is calculated, we think, to have an important influence on the interests of dissent, both in that town and throughout Cornwall generally. The reverend gentleman is expected to enter on his ministry on the second Sunday of August.
APPOINTMENT - Capt. CORY, of Falmouth, has been appointed Flag Captain to Admiral REYNOLDS, C.B., of Penair, and to command the "Southampton" frigate, the Admiral having been appointed Commander-in-Chief at the Cape of Good Hope.
APOTHECARIES' HALL - The following gentlemen passed their examination in the science and practice of medicine, and received certificates to practise, on the 27th ultimo:- JOSEPH DREW, St. Austell, and JOSEPH GEORGE THOMPSON, St. Mabyn, both in this county.
MELANCHOLY ACCIDENT - A young man, one of the crew of the "Ceres," LEWIS, master, of Bude, was so seriously injured on Sunday about 4 a.m., in Clovelly Roads, from the upsetting of the windlass during the weighing of the anchor, that he died on Monday morning.
CORONERS' INQUESTS - On Tuesday last, an inquest was held at Lower St. Columb, before JOHN CARLYON, Esq., coroner, on the body of a man which had been found washed ashore the day before, under Trevelga Burrows, a little to the eastward of Lower St. Columb Porth. It was identified at the inquest by two witnesses JAMES MAY and RICHARD PASCOE, as that of one of the unfortunate men who was drowned at Hayle, last Saturday week, by the upsetting of a boat in crossing the bar there, as described in our paper of the 21st ult. Verdict "accidentally drowned."
The same day at Mylor Bridge, on the body of THOMAS LOBB, labourer, aged 51 years, who whilst at work last Monday apparently in his usual health, suddenly fell to the ground, and almost instantly expired. From the evidence of Mr. JEWEL, surgeon, of Penryn, it appeared that the cause of deceased's sudden death was the rupture of one of the large blood vessels, and the jury returned a verdict to that effect.
An inquest was held at Hayle, on Friday last, on the body of JOHN GILBERT, one of the men who were drowned by the upsetting of a boat on Hayle Bar on the 15th ult. The body was discovered on the previous morning, by two men who were on the Towan Hills. Verdict, "accidentally drowned."
NISI PRIUS COURT - Monday, July 31.
- TURNER and ANOTHER v. MOYLE - Mr. COCKBURN, Mr. BUTT, and Mr. M. SMITH for the plaintiffs; Mr. CROWDER and Mr. KARSLAKE for the defendant. At the request of Mr. Crowder, the witnesses on both sides were directed to leave the court. Mr. Smith having read the pleadings, Mr. Cockburn gave a statement of the circumstances of the case.
Certain goods having been Seized by the defendant, Mr. MATTHEW PAUL MOYLE, under an execution against the effects of Mr. Edmund Turner, and those goods being claimed by the plaintiffs in this action, ELLEN LOUISA and EDMUND JOHN TURNER, the question was whether those goods were their property so as not to be available to be seized under the execution of Mr. Moyle. The present was in fact a feigned issue to try whether the goods were seizable by the sheriff under the execution. The plaintiffs claimed the goods under a mortgage made to them by Mr. Edmund Turner, their father, under the following circumstances.
The two plaintiffs were part of Mr. Turner's family, consisting of eight children. Miss MARY MAGOR was married to Mr. Turner in 1813, on which occasion a deed of settlement was executed by which GBP2,000 was vested in the hands of certain trustees on the part of Mr. Turner, and GBP1,000 in the hands of trustees, coming from Mr. REUBEN MAGOR, the father of Mr. Turner's wife. These sums being vested in the same trustees, they took a bond of Mr. Turner for GBP4,000, and left the GBP2,000 in his hands. In 1834, Mr. Reuben Magor made a will by which he bequeathed to the same trustees as under the marriage settlement, the sum of GBP9,000. Having made this will he died on the 29th of November 1834.
The trustees were to have invested the GBP 9,000 in securities, but instead of that they left the amount in the hands of Mr. Turner; they thought they were enabled to do so under the terms of the will, but they were mistaken. In consequence some Chancery proceedings were instituted, and this led to the execution of a deed in 1842 by Mr. Turner, the father, by which he declared that by virtue of his power under the original settlement, the GBP 2,000 and the GBP 4,000 should be disposed of, namely, be divided amongst all the children; and in July 1842 a deed was executed, in which all the children joined, and by which they authorised the trustees to let Mr. Turner retain the GBP 9,000 until the trustees should call in the money. According to that he was liable to pay to each child the eighth part of the GBP9,000, but in the GBP2,000 and the GBP1,000 he had a life interest.
He owed to his daughter, one of the plaintiffs, GBP 257. 10s. 6d., the sale of some shares in the South Wales Company; and he had an account with his son (whose commission in the army he had sold) to the amount of GBP 1,233. 1s. 1 1/2 d. As the money was not called in, he also owed to each child the eighth part of the GBP 9,000.
The other children at this time were married and settled in the world, but the two plaintiffs, were unsettled; the daughter was about to be married, and the one wished to go abroad, and they both wanted their money secured by their father. Mr. Turner was not in a situation at the moment to pay them the money; but he executed a deed, dated the 24th of December, 1846, which gave him six months to pay to each of them the amount secured by the mortgage, or if not paid they were to be at liberty to sell off all his furniture and effects, and to pay themselves. The furniture and things in the house were valued at GBP1,500, which would be GBP750 for each.
Mr. Moyle had, as executor of his uncle's estate, some claim against Mr. Turner, and after this security had been given by Mr. Turner to the plaintiffs, he obtained a warrant of attorney from him for GBP800, to be paid by instalments. The first instalment of GBP200 was paid by Mr. Turner, but there being a slight delay in regard to the second, an execution was directed, and the goods were seized which the plaintiffs claim as having been previously made over to them. The deeds and documents necessary to support the above facts were then pout in as evidence, and Mr. JOHN PENBERTHY MAGOR, of Redruth, who was executor under his father's will, was called to depose that he paid the GBP9,000 to Mr. EADE, one of the trustees under the marriage settlement, who handed the money to Mr. Turner, and witness had had a release from the trustees [case continued to August 1].
TUESDAY, AUGUST 1. TURNER and ANOTHER v. MOYLE. - This case was continued from Monday, and two witnesses, Mr. GEORGE SIMMONS, jun., solicitor of Truro, and Mr. TURNER, were examined. Mr. CROWDER then addressed the jury for the defendant in a lengthened and able speech, contending that the assignment of his goods by Mr. Turner to the plaintiffs was for the purpose of preventing creditors from seizing those goods in execution. The Learned Judge then summed up in a lucid and comprehensive manner, affording a full view of the facts and bearings of the case, and noticing the points relied on by the defendant's counsel.
The learned Judge said this was an interpleader issue sent down from the Court of Exchequer for the decision of the Jury. The question between the parties had thus arisen. Mr. Moyle, the defendant, had recovered judgment against Mr. Turner, and had directed the sheriff to levy for the [.....?] which he did by seizing certain furniture as forfeiture of Mr. Turner, but which the plaintiff [.........?] children of Mr. Turner, allege had [..........?] property before the time of Mr. Moyle's execution, and that he therefore had no right to seize these goods.
The following was the law as applicable to the case. Unless in the case of a person who was a trader, and within the operation of the insolvent and bankruptcy laws, by the law of this country every man had a right to prefer one creditor to another, and if he bona fide assigns his property in satisfaction of a debt, the assignment is good, although it may exhaust all his property and leave nothing for his other creditors. This was very different from the case of a trader who came within the operation of the law of bankruptcy; a [.......?] action preferring one creditor to another in that case would be void, because the bankruptcy laws provided for the equal distribution of the property among all the creditors.
The learned Judge then proceeded to read the evidence. The first witness called was Mr. George Simmons, who was a solicitor at Truro, and had acted for several years as solicitor for Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner had been a banker at Truro, but had discontinued business, and he was member of parliament for the borough. He consulted witness in June, 1848, about debts which he owed to two of his children, the plaintiffs in the present action, Mr. Edmund Turner and Miss Ellen Turner. He proposed to secure those debts by a mortgage of his furniture to the amount of GBP750 to each of the children. Witness was not then aware of the marriage settlement; but he understood that the money was due to the children under Mr. Magor's will.
The learned judge here explained what was meant by the witness. It appeared that by the marriage settlement of Mr. Turner there was provision made securing certain sums of money, to the amount of GBP3,000, for the benefit of the husband, wife, and family. Mr. Turner was to have the benefit of it for his life, and after his death it was to be divided among the children as he or the wife might appoint, or if there were no appointment, the money was to be divided equally.
Some years afterwards, Mr. Magor, the grandfather of Mr. Turner's children, died, and left the sum of GBP9,000 to be paid by his executor to trustees, to be held by them on the same trusts as the marriage settlement. The executor, Mr. John Penberthy Magor had been called and stated in evidence that he paid over the GBP9,000 to Mr. Eade, one of the trustees, who paid it to Mr. Turner. The result was that Mr. Turner had kept the GBP9,000 in his own house which should have been in the hands of the trustees, who had to pay him the interest during his life, and at his death, divide the sum among the children. He [doubted?] if the parties had stood on their strict right, Mr. Turner might have been compelled by proceedings in the Court of Chancery, to pay the GBP9,000 to the trustees. An arrangement, however, was come to between the parties and he was suffered to retain the money, and [......?] the plaintiffs were in the position of having to [.......?] him in respect of it, - not that they had a right to request it instantly, but to have it secured for their benefit after his life-time.
Mr. Simmons, in his evidence, went on to say that he did not see Mr. Turner again until December, 1846, when he received instructions from him to prepare a deed. Witness prepared it on the 24th of December. Mr. Turner informed him that the money due from him to his children exceeded the amount which he intended to secure, but he thought it sufficient to make the security, equal to the value of the furniture, which he estimated at GBP1,500.
Cross-Examined - Witness received instructions on the 23rd of December, he prepared the deed on that day, and Mr. Turner executed it on the 24th; it was engrossed before witness saw Mr. Turner on that day. It was in the month of June when Mr. Turner spoke of the debt being larger than the security; witness did not know of his own knowledge that Mr. Turner was then in embarrassed circumstances. He told witness that he expected to be attached as a shareholder in some railway companies. There was no reference then made to Mr. Moyle's debt or to the bank debt.
Mr. Turner had several attorneys; witness acted for him in some matters, and sometimes he consulted two gentlemen who had been previously witness's partners. Witness was in the habit of visiting Mr. Turner. The plaintiffs live with him, and have always done so, excepting when Edmund was absent in the army. Mr. Turner lives in Truro excepting when he is attending Parliament; Miss Ellen Turner was engaged to be married in December last. Mr. Turner, on being examined said he was father of the plaintiffs. He received GBP9,000 from the trustees under the will of Mr. Magor, and no portion had been repaid by him to the trustees or the children.
His son who was one of the plaintiffs, held a commission in the 9th Lancers in India, and in the 4th Dragoons in England. Witness received the money accruing from the sale of his son's commissions, and on a balance of account being struck, it was found that he was indebted to his son GBP1,233. 1s. 11d. That balance was struck in June 1845, and upon the amount interest was payable, but no part of the interest or principal had ever been paid by witness.
He was also indebted to his daughter, one of the plaintiffs, GBP257 for the sale of some shares in the South Wales line in 1846. He instructed Mr. Simmons to prepare the security for his children in December 1846; his daughter was then engaged to be married, and wished to have her money; both children applied to him to have their money sometime in 1846. Under their grandfather's will they were entitled to a large [amount?], witness's reason for securing to them GBP750 each was because that was the portion of the debt which he believed the furniture would return.
Cross-Examined - He mentioned to Mr. Simmons the amount he wished to have secured, and his reason for confining the security to that sum. The inventory of the furniture was taken in 1846 some months before the mortgage by his son, his daughter, and himself; it was not otherwise valued. The inventory included the furniture and plate, but not the fixtures; they belonged to the freehold, which was witness's property. He believed the valuation at GBP1,500 for the effects was a correct one. Neither in 1845 nor in 1846 was he much pressed for money; he left the bank four or five years ago; he was perfectly able to pay his debts in 1846; he did not owe Mr. Moyle's executors GBP8,000, because he had paid GBP1,800 in deduction in 1846, and he gave securities. He owed Mr. Moyle, the defendant, as executor to his uncle GBP800, in October, 1846, which was due in January, 1847. He did not then pay that amount because he had not the command of the money; he was not embarrassed as regarded property, but only as regarded the payment of money due.
During the whole of 1846, so little was he embarrassed that he paid in the middle of that year in one sum GBP650, and shortly after another sum of GBP1,800. He did not endeavour to pay the GBP800 to Mr. Moyle in January, 1847, because the parties were bound down not to call for it; the deceased left in writing what was to be called for. Previously to June, 1847, he paid GBP200 as an instalment, leaving GBP800, which an execution was put in for, and gave rise to this action.
If he had chosen to convert property, he should not have been embarrassed; he had not called for loans, and his debts were secured on freehold property. He disputed his liability to a claim of GBP400 by the bank; he knew that execution was issued for that sum. Parties holding insurances on his life had in two instances paid the premiums instead of his paying them. He considered himself rightfully excused from paying the GBP800 to Mr. Moyle in January, 1847. The money was due on a bill, and an arrangement was afterwards made to pay the amount by instalments. He paid the first of GBP200 some time previous to June, the instalments were to be paid at Mr. FAULKNER'S office, in London, but being detained in Cornwall at the election, he did not pay the second instalment punctually at the time, although he tendered it a very short time afterwards.
He had disconnected himself from mercantile pursuits for four or five years, and at the time he gave the mortgage he was perfectly solvent.
After reading this evidence, the Learned Judge continued. Then the question was, whether the debt of assignment made by Mr. Turner to his children was a valid instrument. Now in order to make a deed valid there must be a good consideration for it, and the jury would have to consider whether there really was a debt or claim to be secured between Mr. Turner and his children, the present plaintiffs. If they thought there was, they must next proceed to inquire whether the assignment was intended, really and bona fide, to operate as a security for the claim of the children, or whether it was colourable only, and designed to protect the furniture from Mr. Turner's creditors.
There had been many observations made on this part of the case by the defendant's counsel. First it was said that the recital of the deed of assignment was not accurate, because it recited that the two sums of GBP750 each were secured for money lent and advanced by the plaintiffs to their father. This it was said, was an untrue consideration; but although it was very proper for the jury to take this into consideration in coming to a decision on the bona fide nature of the transaction, still he should observe that the mere inaccuracy of the recital did not vitiate the deed. Another observation was that the property had not changed possession after the execution of the deed.
But although this should be taken into consideration, yet as the law now stands, the weight of evidence of this kind varied in almost every case submitted to a jury. Sometimes the circumstances were such that the retaining possession was almost conclusive evidence of the transaction bring fraudulent, while in other cases the retaining possession by the assignor was accounted for so as to be of no weight whatever. In the present case the deed first assigns the furniture absolutely to the children, and then after showing that it was a mortgage transaction, it goes on to say that if before the 24th of June, the money due was paid, then the property is to re-invest in Mr. Turner.
It provides for the payment of interest in the meantime, and Mr. Turner should have the use of the furniture during the interval between the date of the assignment on the 24th of December, and the 24th of June following, at the end of which time there was a power of sale given to the plaintiffs. Then there were one or two other circumstances in the case for their consideration. The date of the assignment was between the time when the debt due to the defendant seemed to have been ascertained, and the time when the bill became payable. It was not due till January, and the assignment took place in December. It had thus the effect of preventing the execution, but that would make no difference if they believed the assignment to have been done fide as a security for a bona fide debt; for the party had the right, in point of law, to make the assignment even with the intention of excluding the present defendant and every other creditor; and the nearness of the relations to whom the assignment was made occasioned no difference.
He would only observe on one other circumstance in the case, which was that Mr. Turner did not mention to Mr. Simmons the exact circumstances when the deed of assignment was prepared. And then there was some difficulty connected with the fact that the sum secured did not fit any debt that had been mentioned. It was too much for the GBP257 and the GBP1,233, and it was too little for the money secured under the marriage settlement. But Mr. Turner accounts for this by saying "I did not mean the security to fit the debt due to the children from me, or the money they had a right to have secured to them under Mr. Magor's will, but I calculated the furniture was worth GBP1,600, and I secured their claim as far as that amount would go."
It was to be regretted that the deed was not more explicit; but if they believed Mr. Turner was telling the truth, it prevented the imputation or grounding of fraud on that circumstance. Was the assignment of the furniture bona fide, or was it colourable with the view of protecting the property of the father as against his creditors? If the former, their verdict must be for the plaintiff; if the latter, they must find for the defendant.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In the course of the trial, Mr. Crowder objected to the deed by which the furniture was assigned, on the ground of an insufficient stamp. The deed was drawn on a GBP 6 stamp, which was proper for the security of GBP1500; but the deed also provided for the charges and expenses in the event of the furniture being sold. These charges, Mr. Crowder said, were uncertain in their amount, and as the deed secured an uncertain sum, it required to be drawn on a GBP25 stamp. The Learned Judge reserved the point, Mr. Crowder observing that if it were good, he should be entitled to a nonsuit, if bad, nothing would result from it.
- Doe Dem. ROWE and OTHERS v. HOWELL - (Special Jury). - Mr. CROWDER, Mr. COCKBURN, and Mr. TAPPING, for the plaintiffs'; Mr. BUTT and Mr. SERGEANT KINGLAKE for the defendant. This was an action of ejectment brought by Mr. RICHARD ROWE, a starch manufacturer at Crediton in Devon, to recover possession of three estates named Westcombe, Tregavethick, and Folgassic, situate in the parish of Lansallos, in this county, and now in the possession of Mr. FRANCIS HOWELL, the defendant.
The property in dispute between the parties consisted of about 112 acres of land. On the part of plaintiff it was sought to prove that he was descended from Mr. RICHARD RENFREE, of Redruth, who died in April, 1713, and from whom it appeared the defendant was also descended. It was also attempted to be shown that the plaintiff was the rightful inheritor of the property. A great mass of documentary evidence consisting of old wills, &c., was produced, the case being of no public interest, but only of importance to the parties immediately concerned. After it had proceeded a considerable time, plaintiff failed to supply a link in the evidence of his pedigree, and in consequence a non-suit was directed.
- BULLER v. LYNE and ANOTHER - This was a special jury case, but only six of the gentlemen appeared, and the Judge, after making inquiries of the summoning officers, seemed inclined to inflict fines by way of example. One or two of the officers were also threatened with penalties for not properly serving the summonses. At length, however, the full jury was made up by adding six petit jurymen, and the cause was proceeded with, Mr. CROWDER, Mr. BUTT, and Mr. M. SMITH appearing for the plaintiff; Mr. COCKBURN, Mr. SERGEANT KINGLAKE and Mr. COLE for the defendant; Mr. LYNE and Mr. GREENWOOD for the other defendant, Mr. PETER. Mr. CROWDER stated the case to the jury.
The plaintiff, Mr. JOHN BULLER was a gentleman residing at Morval in this county, and the defendants were attorneys carrying on business at Liskeard. The plaintiff had for many years employed, as his solicitor, Mr. BENJAMIN HART LYNE, who died in April 1844. Subsequently to his death Mr. EDWARD LYNE, his brother, who was one of the defendants succeeded to the business, and took into partnership Mr. SIMON PETER, (the other defendant) who had been a clerk with Mr. Benjamin Hart Lyne. It was arranged that the partnership should commence from the death of Mr. B.H.Lyne, and it was formed as soon as Mr. Simon Peter had served his articles. The partnership was continued till December 1846, when it was dissolved but during its existence the transactions took place with the partnership on which the present claim was founded. The defendants received rents and sums of money for the plaintiff and they also paid various sums.
There was a running account between Mr. Buller and the firm, and on a balance being struck there was found to be due to him GBP566. 10s. 2 1/2 d. to recover which amount the present action was brought. Mr. Crowder then called Mr. THOMAS MILTON, who was a clerk to the late Mr. B. H. Lyne, and was cashier in the partnership firm of Lyne and Peter, from Michaelmas, 1845, to the time of the dissolution of partnership. (The cashbook was then handed to witness, who deposed to having received rents and other payments for Mr. Buller to the gross amount of GBP1,680. 13s. 6d., payments had also been made on Mr. Buller's account). The monies received on account of the plaintiff from time to time were put into the common cash-box at the office; witness also retained money in that cash-box for the use of the firm. It was his business to supply money for the use of the firm, and from time to time he had advised what was wanted for that purpose from the cash-box.
He had also from time to time paid monies which he had so received to the East Cornwall Bank to the account of the partners; on the 5th of January, 1846, GBP150 was thus paid over; rather more than was wanted was kept in the cash-box, in order to save banker's charges. If the partners wanted money on their own private account he also supplies it from the cash-box.
The business done by Lyne and Peter for Mr. Buller was carried to the profit and loss account of the firm, which was kept by witness distinct from the cash-book. The partnership agreement between Mr. Lyne and Mr. Peter was then put in, after which the witness was Cross-Examined by Mr. Cockburn. He posted the entries from the cash-book into the ledger. He was now clerk with Mr. Peter, having left Mr. Lyne. Before Mr. Lyne and Mr. Peter dissolved partnership, he was not more especially Mr. Peter's clerk. Mr. Buller came frequently to the office, and generally asked for Mr. Peter; on one occasion he asked for Mr. Lyne, and had a letter written by him; he had then first asked for Mr. Peter. Mr. Buller directed his letters to Mr. Peter. Witness received Mr. Buller's rents; Mr. Peter attended the audits, but Mr. Lyne never did.
Mr. Cockburn then addressed the jury for the defence, stating that the only question was as to who should pay the balance due to Mr. Buller, Mr. Peter having come into Court in this case in order to fix Mr. Lyne as a partner. He contended that all Mr. Buller's pecuniary matters were transacted through Mr. Peter alone, who was solely liable for the balance. If any of Mr. Buller's money had got into the partnership accounts, that was only a matter as between the two partners, and did not affect Mr. Peter's single liability to Mr. Buller. He suggested that the present proceeding arose from Mr. Lyne having incurred the displeasure of Mr. Buller through the part he took in the last election at Liskeard.
Mr. Cockburn then called AUGUSTUS BAZELEY, manager of the East Cornwall Bank at Liskeard, who deposed that the bank had directions from Mr. Buller in 1844 and 1845 to honour the checks of Mr. Peter, no other name being mentioned. On one occasions Mr. Buller showed witness the account between him and Mr. Simon Peter; witness compared it with the solicitor's ledger, and believed the entries corresponded (Mr. Cockburn remarked on plaintiff not having had the ledger in evidence). JOHN LUSKEY COAD, articled clerk with Edward Lyne, remembered Mr. Buller asking at different times for Mr. Peter at the office, but never for Mr. Lyne. Letters were always directed by Mr. Buller to Mr. Peter; on one or two occasions, [.......?] believed they were directed to be opened by Mr. MILTON[?] in the absence of Mr. Peter. Mr. Crowder briefly replied, after which the learned Judge summed up, and the jury after retiring from the Court to deliberate, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2 -
- WARREN, Clerk, v. LUGGER and OTHERS - Mr. COCKBURN and Mr. M. SMITH for plaintiff; Mr. CROWDER and Mr. COLLIER for defendants, a Special Jury case, in which, however, but seven special jurors attended; the jury being completed with common jurors. The actions was brought by the Reverend R. P. WARREN, the present rector of Tregony with St. James's against MARY LUGGER, JOHN LITTLE, and WILLIAM JOSEPH LITTLE, executrix and executors of the late Reverend JOHN LLOYD LUGGER, the plaintiff's predecessor in the rectory. The object of the action was to recover the sum of GBP178. 8s. 9d., the amount estimated to be necessary for repairing dilapidations of the glebe existing at the time of the plaintiff's entering on the living.
The legal liability of an incumbent to keep the glebe in repair being admitted, and also the fact of the alleged dilapidations, the only question between the parties was as to the amount - the defendants alleging that the dilapidations did not exceed GBP100, which amount they had paid into court.
An examination of surveyors on both sides, on the details of the required repairs, was gone into very minutely; and, the glebe being extensive, upwards of ninety acres, the inquiry occupied a considerable time. The surveyors examined on the part of the plaintiff were HENRY BADCOCK, and ROBERT LEE BADCOCK, both of Launceston. They examined the glebe in the winter; and the results were as follows:- Mr. Henry Badcock estimated the amounts necessary to put the dilapidated premises in substantial repair, as required by the law in such cases, to be as follows:- Buildings, GBP52. 15s. 1d.; Fences, GBP76. 2s. 2d.; Gates GBP44. 11. 6d.; - Total, GBP173. 8s. 9d. Mr. Robert Lee Badcock's estimate was:- Buildings GBP52. 4s. 5d.; Fences, GBP76. 11s. 5d.; Gates, GBP36. 6s. 6d. Total GBP165. 2s. 4d. On the part of the defendant, Mr. COAD and Mr. TOLL, surveyors, who examined the premises in May, estimated as follows:- Mr. Coad:- Buildings GBP32. 15s. 6d.; Fences, GBP36. 15s. 1d.; Gates, GBP23. 7s.; Total GBP88. 5s. 1d. Mr. Toll :- GBP34. 3s. Fences, GBP23; Gates, GBP26. 11s. 6d.; Total GBP89. 0s. 2d. A farmer named THOMAS MARTIN, estimated the whole amount at GBP91. 6s. 6 1/2 d.
The Jury, at about half-past four, retired to consider their verdict, and after deliberating some time went to the Judges' lodgings and returned a verdict for Plaintiff for GBP5 beyond the GBP100 paid into court. Point reserved ad to the description of the living.
- CARDELL v. GILBERT. This was an undefended action by the draper of Plymouth, against a draper of Marazion, for GBP33. 8s. 5d., for which amount a verdict was given.
- TURNER AND ANOTHER v. CLOUTER - This was an action brought by EDMUND JOHN TURNER and ELLEN LOUISA TURNER, against the public officer of the Western District Banking Company. The question being whether certain goods which had been seized by the Sheriff under an execution, against Mr. Edmund Turner, were his property; or whether those goods had become the property of his two children, the present plaintiffs. The circumstances were stated by Mr. COCKBURN to be the same as in the case of Turner and Another v. Moyle, tried on Monday and Tuesday. The documentary evidence then put in, and Mr. Magor's evidence, were adopted by consent, as if given originally to day. Mr. George Simmons, jun., was then examined; and at the conclusion of his examination, Mr. Edmund Turner was called. It being, however, now six o'clock, the Judge declined to sit longer, and the case was adjourned until the next morning.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 3 - TURNER and ANOTHER v. CLOUTER - At the sitting of the court this morning an arrangement in this case was suggested by the learned Judge. The counsel on both sides consulted together and the solicitors retired from the court for a short time. On their return the terms of the arrangement were drawn up by counsel and a verdict for the plaintiff was directed to be given, subject to a rule.
NISI PRIUS COURT - Monday, July 31.
STEVENS v. STEVENS - This was an undefended action. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH stated the case. The plaintiff was Mr. JOHN STEVENS, a miller, living near Penzance, and the defendant was Mr. VIVIAN STEVENS, who was formerly an attorney's clerk, and at present an auctioneer at Penzance. The action was brought on a promissory note, and there was a plea demurred to, but Mr. Smith said he should not go on that, he sought to recover on an account stated. There was an acknowledgment on the back of the note by defendant that he had paid GBP 10, and by that and other payments the claim of plaintiff on the note had been reduced to GBP 63. 11s. 6d.
There was an attesting witness to the note named PARKINSON, who had not been heard of for seven years, and [he?] should call a witness to speak to the hand-writing of the defendant.
JAMES PEMEWAN[?], an auctioneer at Penzance, was then sworn and deposed that he had made inquiry at Penzance at Mrs. CUNNACK's[?], where the attesting witness formerly lived, and she told him that [he had] left about seven years since. He was a Primitive Methodist preacher, and had gone abroad. Witness had ascertained from another preacher of that connexion that he was not now in England, and it was generally believed that he was dead.
The note was then handed to witness who proved that it was in the hand-writing of the defendant; witness did not know the writing of Parkinson, the attesting witness to the note.
On this a difficulty arose, it being held by the learned Judge that the hand-writing of the attesting witness must be proved. Mr. Smith submitted that it was more satisfactory to give evidence of the defendant's hand-writing than of that of the attesting witness. The case of BUCKLEY v. SMITH, in Harrison's reports, showed that where a party becomes incapacitated, proof of that party's hand-writing is admissible. There was no case which decided that the party's own hand-writing would not do, and he contended that it was sufficient in the present case, where the instrument did not require any form to execute, and did not want any attestation.
The learned Judge believed the word "witness" in the case of Buckley v. Smith to mean the subscribing witness, and not the party interested in the bill.
Mr. Smith then proposed to rely on the indorsement at the back of the bill, which was as follows:- "7th of September, 1843 - Paid Mr. John Stevens GBP 10 on account of the within note - Signed, Vivian Stevens." The learned Judge thought the note could not be read without proving the signature of the attesting witness. Mr. Smith submitted that he might use the indorsement as evidence of an account stated between the parties at the time, "in the within note." On the part of plaintiff, he said, every possible search had been made in order to prove the hand-writing of the attesting witness, and if the action were delayed for any length of time, the plaintiff would not be in a better position than at present. The learned Judge, after consideration, (there being no previous case on the point) admitted the indorsement in evidence as proving the account stated in the note. Verdict for plaintiff for GBP 63. 11s. 6d.
KEAST v. MORSHEAD - Mr. KINGDON opened the pleadings and Mr. CROWDER stated the case. The plaintiff was Mr. WILLIAM PENWARNE KEAST, a coal merchant at Liskeard, and the defendant was a gentleman at Calstock, who had become an adventurer in the Caradon United mines. Coals had been supplied for the use of the mine by the plaintiff, who now sought to recover from the defendant, as an adventurer, the sum of GBP 73. 3s. 4d., as a balance of account. The action was undefended. Verdict for plaintiff for GBP 73. 3s. 4d.
11 AUGUST 1848
PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED - A. KENT, and M. H. JENNER, Bissoe, Cornwall Manufacturers of goods.
BANKRUPTS - WILLIAM MENADUE, Liskeard and Camborne, Cornwall, watchmaker, August 17, at one o'clock, September 13, at eleven, at the Exeter District Court of Bankruptcy; solicitors, Messrs. KEDDELL, BAKER and GRANT, Lime-street; and Mr. STOGDON, Exeter; official assignee, Mr. HERNAMAN, Exeter.
CORNWALL LAMMAS ASSIZES - (concluded from our last paper.)
Thursday, August 3. The following cause was tried at Nisi Prius this day, before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS:- BICKFORD v. PARSON and ANOTHER. Mr. BUTT and Mr. MAYNARD for the plaintiff; Mr. CROWDER and Mr. GREENWOOD for the defendants.
The plaintiff, Mr. JOSEPH BICKFORD, of Stonehouse, Devon, brought this action against the defendant, Messrs. NICHOLAS and LEWIS PARSON, to recover compensation for the breach of an agreement. Plaintiff who is the owner of St. John's mills and premises, situate in the neighbourhood where he resides, alleged that defendants became tenants of those mills and premises, and that their term expired at Midsummer, 1846, but as they left sometime before the preceding Christmas, he claimed GBP 10. 8s. as due for the half-year's rent. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants agreed to keep the mills and premises in repair; that they had failed to do this, and consequently he claimed GBP 70 as compensation for dilapidations.
In answer to this defendants denied their liability, and pleaded a small set off to the claim. Mr. JAMES JENKIN, of Plymouth, and Mr. JAMES HILL, millwright, Torpoint were called to give evidence of dilapidations on the premises; but after some time had been consumed, the counsel on both sides came to an agreement to refer the question of damages to arbitration, should the defendant be found liable, which was the question next submitted for consideration. On this point we shall give the summing up of the Learned Judge, as it embraces all the important parts of the case.
Defendants denied their liability, first, on the ground that they never became the tenants of the plaintiff, in the way the latter had alleged; and he (the learned Judge) would tell the jury that they could not split their verdict, they must find both the defendants liable or neither of them. On the part of defendants it was said that although Nicholas Parson became tenant by signing a document which amounted to a lease, that Lewis Parson never signed that document. To support this there was the evidence of a man named SHEPPARD, who had seen both the defendants write on other occasions and believed the signatures to the document produced to be in the hand-writing of Nicholas Parson, and the body of the documents to be the writing of Lewis.
On the other hand, there was the testimony of Mr. Chapman, the plaintiff's attorney, who called on Lewis Parson in December, 1846, eleven years after the date of the document, to serve him with a writ for the balance of rent due to the plaintiff, and for dilapidation. Lewis said he had nothing to do with it, he had left the mill for some time. Mr. Chapman replied, you are still liable, you signed the agreement. "I know that, but I have had nothing to do with it for some years by leaving my brother in possession." This evidence was confirmed by Mr. Pearce, who went with Mr. Chapman, and whose testimony was that Lewis Parson did not deny that he signed the agreement.
The jury were therefore to consider whether the witness, Sheppard, was mistaken in supposing both the signatures to the document to be by Nicholas Parson. The names of both the brothers were appended and it seemed off that the man who wrote the body of the document should not sign his own name to it.
Then on the part of defendants, receipts were put in as evidence, commencing with 1840, and given by Mr. Bickford to Nicholas Parson alone, as acknowledgments for receiving the rent half-yearly; these receipts were continued down to 1842, and as to the accounts after that period a book was produced which treated Mr. Nicholas Parson as the sole tenant. It was however remarkable that although the tenancy commenced in 1835, no receipts had been produced for earlier than 1840; and it appeared from the evidence that whether Nicholas or Lewis signed the agreement, both of them originally carried on the business, although Nicholas had subsequently carried it on for some years alone, Lewis having left the mill and gone to another. The failure to put in receipts earlier than 1840 was not positive proof in the case, but it was a matter which the jury should take into consideration.
Then there was another question arising out of the case. It was said on the part of defendants, that even if the two brothers were the tenants by reason of both having signed the lease, that at all events they surrendered the lease, and the landlord accepted the surrender before or at Christmas 1845. To prove this JOHN MATTHEWS, a farmer, gave evidence that on the 27th of November, 1845, he went with Nicholas Parson and a man called SAMUEL HEARLE to the plaintiff's house; the plaintiff then accepted Hearle as tenant, and said to Nicholas Parson, "you must take possession of the mill at Christmas, and when your rent becomes due, come and pay me."
The mere agreement to pay the rent, said the learned Judge, would not be sufficient, but another witness John Pearse, a farmer, showed that the agreement had been executed, and that Hearle had taken possession. He gave evidence that in May, 1846, plaintiff said to Nicholas Parson, "I don't look to you {for the?] rent, it is for the repairs. Parson said, "it is {the ....?] thing after the lapse of four or five months that I should be called on for [.......?] when Hearle came with me and examined the mill he said he was perfectly satisfied and never saw mills in a better repair." Plaintiff replied that when Hearle paid him the rent he said, unless the mills were put into better repair he could not remain there. Plaintiff then urged Nicholas Parson to take the mills again, but he declined, saying he had suited himself.
But in opposition to this evidence of surrender, there was the following testimony on the part of plaintiff:- Mr. Chapman, plaintiff's attorney, said that when he served Lewis Parson with the writ, the latter said he understood his brother had given Mr. Bickford notice to quit, and that he had accepted Samuel Hearle as his tenant. Mr. Chapman said it was not so, for Hearle's tenancy did not begin till Midsummer, 1846. Lewis Parson replied, "well, I have nothing to do with the mills now, and I shall pay no attention to it;" he also said that he and his brother used to pay the rent together, but he had had nothing to do with the mills for some years.
It did not, however, follow, said the learned Judge, that because two partners paid the rent, they both paid as tenants. Then there was the testimony of ELIZABETH EATON, who had put her mark to a document now produced and dated November 1845, which, if the jury believed it correct, showed that at that time the agreement with the plaintiff was that Hearle's tenancy should not commence till June, 1846. Opposed to that was the testimony on the part of defendants that the tenancy of Hearle was to commence at Christmas, 1845, and it was for the jury to decide which was the accurate view of the case.
The following were the questions which they were to consider:- First, did Lewis Parson sign the document or lease? If he did, they must then inquire whether or not Samuel Hearle was substituted as a tenant in place of the two defendants at Christmas, 1845, by an agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff? Then thirdly, did the two defendants, as tenants, pay the rent jointly to the plaintiff? If they found neither the first nor the third questions in the affirmative, they need not trouble themselves with the second; If otherwise they must proceed to consider the second.
The case had already lasted nearly ten hours, and the jury were now locked up to consider it. They afterwards went to the Judges' lodgings, and gave a verdict for the defendant on the first and third questions put by the learned Judge, being in fact a verdict entirely for the defendant.
ROYAL CORNWALL POLYTECHNIC SOCIETY - We are informed that the bust of Mr. J. C. ADAMS has been recently modelled by Mr. N. N. BURNARD, at the request of Sir CHARLES LEMON, Bart., and that a cast from it will be placed in the Polytechnic Hall at the approaching exhibition. The likeness is considered extremely good. It is well known that both the mathematician and the artist are natives of this county, and it may be remarked that they were born within about eight months of each other, and in adjoining parishes, Mr. Burnard having first "seen the light" in Alternun, and Mr. J. C. Adams so justly celebrated for first calculating the place of the stars" in Laneast. The annual exhibition of the society is to take place in September.
THE COST-BOOK SYSTEM - LIABILITY OF ADVENTURERS - The following cases were tried last week at the Devon Assizes. SKINNER and SON v. MAY. The plaintiffs in this case are ironmongers and general dealers residing at Tavistock, and the defendant, the Rev. E. T. MAY, is a clergyman, living in Cornwall. In July, 1845, a company was formed to work Wheal Concord mine, and the defendant subscribed for twenty shares. The mine had been worked through 1845 and 1846, but was now closed, and the plaintiff had brought this action against the Rev. Gentleman to recover from him the sum of GBP68. 10s. 11d., for goods supplied to the mine during these years.
It was contended on the part of the defendant that he was not liable, because he had transferred his share more than twelve months. The rules by which the mine was worked were expressly that debts should not be incurred, but that a call should be made to meet the mine's liabilities. It was also elicited from one of the witnesses (Mr. SNELL), that he had previously commenced an action against another adventurer, named OSBORNE, for this debt which had since been abandoned. Mr. Crowder replied. His Lordship, in summing up told the jury, that if they believed the goods were supplied according to the custom of the district, notwithstanding any rule, or regulation, which the adventurers might make among themselves, the defendant was liable, as these rules, although binding on the adventurers, could not be conclusive against creditors. The jury at once found for the plaintiff, in the amount claimed.
FOX and OTHERS v. BLAND - This was a similar case to the last; the plaintiffs are merchants, residing at Perranwharf, near Truro, and brought their action against the defendant, a general carrier, carrying on an extensive business at Bristol, who was an adventurer holding six shares, in Sourton Consols mine, for timber supplied to that mine. The amount claimed was GBP16. 9s. 10d. His Lordship directed the jury to find for the amount claimed; certifying also that it was a fit case to be tried at the assizes - otherwise the amount, being under GBP20, plaintiffs would only be entitled to the scale of charges in the new County Court.
SMUGGLING - In consequence of information laid at the Custom House, the stores of Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS, coal and porter merchant, Harvey's Dock, Falmouth were searched, when six cwt. of coffee and about three gallons of rum were found by the officers.
FALMOUTH POLICE - Capt. JAMES EDGWICK, of the barque "Javerna," of Waterford, was on the 28th ult., convicted of having concealed forty-three boxes of cigars. He was sentenced to a fine of GBP100, or in default to be imprisoned for six months.
EDWARD TOY, a fisherman, living at Falmouth, was committed to prison on the 31st ult., charged with a violent assault on his wife. It appeared from the evidence that he had struck her on the head with a poker, and injured her so severely, that for some time her life was considered to be in danger. The prisoner was brought up on Tuesday last for examination before the magistrate, but his wife was too ill to attend, and the case was remanded to Friday the 11th.
ST. AUSTELL PETTY SESSIONS - On Tuesday last, a man named WILLIAM HANCOCK, was committed for one calendar month for stealing apples from the garden of Mr. JOHN HAMMER, tailor &c., on the night of Saturday last.
HELSTON - On Monday night the 24th ult., a robbery was committed at Boscawen Farm, in Mawgan; Mr. BARLETT's back kitchen is detached from the dwelling house, and by forcing the lock, the thieves effected an entrance; they also effected an entrance into the cider cellar, which is adjoining, and succeeded in carrying off about half a hogshead of cider, and about six pounds of salt beef, after which they wantonly drew out the spike of a puncheon which was full at the time and left it running. We regret that no clue has as yet been obtained of the thieves.
ST IVES - On the night of Monday, a house in this town occupied during the day by Mr. ANDREW ROSEWALL, was entered through a back window and 10s. taken from a cupboard which stood in the kitchen, together with some other articles of no great value. After committing the robbery, the burglars appear to have endeavoured to set fire to the premises, and various articles of furniture were destroyed or broken.
NARROW ESCAPE FROM DROWNING - On Wednesday the 2nd instant, Mr. WEATHERBY and daughter of Torpoint, accompanied by Mr. THOMAS TRELIVING, builder, of Torpoint, left Torpoint Quay, in a boat, for the purpose of viewing the Devonport Regatta, almost immediately after starting the boat was struck by a river barge, and was so much injured that she immediately filled with water. By the exertions however of Mr. BALL, surgeon of her Majesty's packet "Crane" who witnessed the occurrence, Mr. Weatherby and his daughter were rescued from the water, and Mr. Treliving save himself by laying hold of the chain attached to the anchor of the barge.
FATAL MINE ACCIDENTS - On Thursday, last week an accident occurred at Treleigh Consols mine, by which a miner of the name of WILLIAM BRAY unhappily lost his life. Bray was working at the bottom of the shaft, and a large stone out of an ascending kibble struck him on the head. The external wound was comparatively small but instant death appears to have occurred.
An inquest being held on the body of JOHN CARLYON, Esq., a verdict of accidental death was returned.
On Wednesday morning about eight o'clock whilst a miner named WM. JENKINS, aged 19 years, was at work at in [.........?] mine, a stone fell from above and struck him on the neck. Presently afterwards he was heard to exclaim "I am in the dark," and his little brother, who was working near went to him with a light. He found him standing up leaning against the side of the level, and the latter stretched out his arm and lit his own candle, but he had no sooner done so than he fell down insensible, and his brother then perceived that he had a deep wound to the back part of his neck, from which the blood was issuing very profusely. His brother attempted to lift him up, but not being strong enough to do so, he went to the surface and got assistance but before any one arrived he was a corpse. There were no means of knowing where the stone fell from. An inquest was held on the body the same day before J. Carlyon, Esq., and a verdict of "accidental death" returned.
CORONER'S INQUESTS - The following inquests have been held before J. HAMLEY, Esq. At Bude, on the 2nd instant, on the body of JOHN MOYSE, a sailor, belonging to the smack "Ceres." It appeared by the evidence of the captain and mate, that the vessel was coming from Newport to Bude with coals. They had squally weather and were obliged several times to come to an anchor. On weighing the anchor near Clovelly, the windlass slipped and threw deceased over it on the deck. He was taken up insensible and brought into Bude, where he was attended by Mr. DINHAM, surgeon, but died soon after. The jury were perfectly satisfied with the evidence of the captain and mate, and returned a verdict of "accidental death."
On the 7th, at Morval, on MARY BARTLETT, an old woman burned to death by her clothes taking fire. Her daughter had gone out for some milk, leaving the old woman in the house. A short time after, a child, in passing her door, saw her all on fire. An alarm was made and the neighbours came in, and got out the fire, but she was so dreadfully burnt that she died almost immediately. Verdict, "accidental death."
On the 8th instant, at St. Teath, on WILLIAM FRENCH, killed in Delabole quarry. He was boring a hold immediately under the chain which lifts the waggons with slate to the top of the quarry, when the chain snapped and on falling struck him on the head before he could get out of the way, and killed him on the spot. The chain snapped and on falling struck him on the head before he could get out of the way, and killed him on the spot. The chain was considered to be perfectly strong and safe. The jury returned a verdict of "accidental death," but recommended that the chains used for the purpose above-mentioned should be more frequently examined by some one appointed for that purpose.
EXETER DISTRICT BANKRUPTCY COURT (Before Mr. Commissioner BERE.) Wednesday, August 2. - CHARLES EMANUEL PEARSE, of Bodmin, grocer applied for his certificate, and was supported by Mr. STOGDON. Mr. J. H. TERRELL opposed the application on the part of Mr. BIRD, tobacconist, of Plymouth, a creditor for GBP11. 10s. 6d. The ground of opposition was on 1st[?] of January last, when he must have known that he was hopelessly insolvent, he had sent to Mr. Bird an order, for more goods, and at the some time, had written him a letter, in which he assured him that he need not doubt his paying him the balance due to him. No portion of that balance had been paid, from that time to the present, and Mr. Bird had not executed the order.
The bankrupt admitted that, at the time he sent the order his circumstances were not materially better then when he became bankrupt. He had hoped, however, by industry and steadiness, to redeem himself, and he defied any one to charge him either with immorality or extravagance. The order was but for a small amount - he believed for 14 lbs. of tobacco only; he had paid Mr. Bird GBP5 upon account, a short time previously; and his debt to Messrs. BURNELL, BROWN, and Co., who were large creditors, would have been considerably less than it was, if they had not pressed him to take goods, contrary to his expressed wish.
Mr. HERNAMAN (the official assignee,) in answer to a question by the Commissioner, said that all the money that had come into his hand was a small sum of GBP18 odd, the surplus of a sale of the whole of the bankrupt's effects, under an execution by the Sheriff of Cornwall. The Commissioner observed that many of the bankrupt's debts had been contracted, according to his balance sheet, since the commencement of the present year. He also appeared to have been dealing in accommodation bills.
Mr. Stogdon, on the part of the bankrupt, said it was fair the Commissioner should be informed, that Mr. Pearse, some months ago, had found himself unable to meet his liabilities, and had come to Exeter for the express purpose of making himself bankrupt. He (Mr. Stogdon), finding the estate so small, and thinking there was probably enough to pay 3s. or 4s. in the pound, if the expenses of a bankruptcy could be avoided, drew an assignment, to which it was hoped the whole of the creditors, would agree. Mr. Bird, the present opposing creditor, refused to assent to that arrangement, and went on with proceedings which resulted in the whole of the bankrupt's property being taken in execution at his suit. A fiat then became inevitable, in order that the little that was left might be fairly and equally distributed among the creditors.
The Commissioner said it would not do to permit persons in insolvent circumstance to order any quantity of goods, however small, when they knew they had no means of paying for them. In addition to that, he felt that he ought not, too readily, to grant a certificate to a person owing debts to the amount of GBP600, and having literally no estate. He [.............?] he could not do less than suspend the granting of the certificate for six months from the present time.
THOMAS CAIRNS, of Redruth, grocer and draper, came up, pursuant to adjournment, to pass his last examination. Mr. Stogdon, who appeared for the assignee, reminded the Commissioner that the bankrupt in his balance sheet had returned his book debts at upwards of GBP 1, 477, as doubtful, and only GBP 8. 7s. 4d. as good. Messrs. DUNCAN and CO. of London, who were the largest creditors, and who had sold to the bankrupt a large portion of these debts, were of opinion that this represented of their [...?] value was not correct, and were willing to go down to Redruth, and assist the Assignee to disposing of them at a fair price, if the Court would sanction an allowance of their expenses out of the estate.
The trade assignee, however, who was not a large creditor, did not appear to be inclined to allow of Messrs. Duncan's interference, and had written him to that effect, that he felt it to be his duty to make the best he could of the estate; that the debts would be offered for sale by public competition; and that he thought himself as competent as they were to make the necessary arrangements.
The Commissioner said, the act of Parliament had left the time and manner of disposing of a bankrupt's property in the sole discretion of the assignee appointed by the creditors; he had, therefore, no power to interfere.
The bankrupt, in answer to some questions, put to him by the court, stated that the debts which he had purchased came into his hand some twelve or fourteen months ago; that he had paid nearly GBP800 for them, that he had bought them at the rate of 10s. in the pound; and that he had received nothing on account of them, because the parties from whom they were due had had goods of him since, to an amount fully equal to any money that they had paid him.
The Commissioner said, he did not feel himself at liberty to pass the bankrupt's last examination, until an opportunity had been given to the creditors of testing the accuracy of his representation, as to the value of these debts, by an attempt to realise them. He should, therefore, adjourn the examination for two months from the present time.
JOHN MICHELL, of Devoran, mine agent. A meeting had been fixed for proof of debts, and choice of assignee, in this estate, whose father was made bankrupt some few weeks ago. The father, being more than eighty years of age had not come up to Exeter to be examined, but in his absence, very long inquiries had taken place, into the state of his affairs, and into the nature of the connection between himself and his two sons. An old gentleman, named BRAY, is a creditor of all the three, for a sum of GBP600 lent to the father upon their joint and several liability; and Mr. Bray's brother is a creditor for a further sum of GBP200. Independently of these two sums, and of a heavy liability for GBP1000 for calls upon some mining shares, the debts of the present bankrupt, John Michell, were stated to be very small.
Mr. Bray expressed his confident belief that the bankrupt had the means of paying him; that his property had been disposed of collusively, and was still within his control; and that he had come into this court for the sole purpose of evading the payment of a just debt. He applied, therefore, to the commissioner, through Mr. J. H. TERRELL, to withdraw his protection at once, giving, as a reason, that he (Mr. Bray) had sued him in the Stannaries Court, and expected soon to get judgment.
The bankrupt, in answer to questions by the court, said his property had been seized and sold, under an extent from the crown, to make good the default of a cousin, who was employed by the Post-office, and for whom he and his father were sureties. He did not know the amount of the default, and he could not explain why his cousin, after having been a defaulter, had been allowed to continue to the Post-office. The business however was still under the surveillance of an officer from London. He denied most positively, that he had any property which he had not given up; avowed his anxiety to do what he could for his creditors; and stated that Mr. Bray had proposed to him to cancel his present securities, and give him others which would have amounted to a preference.
The Commissioner said, there were many suspicious circumstances connected with the case. The bankrupt's property had been nearly all sold to his relations, and he, himself, professed to know nothing about it. But the question now before him was, whether he should continue the protection, which the bankrupt had received at the time of his surrender, or leave his person at the mercy of his creditors. His property had already been vested in the official assignee, so that no judgment could possibly affect that, and he thought the intention of the legislature was, that the bankrupt should be protected for the full period of forty-two days, which the act allowed him for coming in to surrender. He could not, therefore assent, at present, to Mr. Bray's application; but he warned the bankrupt that if, at the time of the last examination, any property should appear to have been kept back, the question of further protection would be entirely in the discretion of the court.
NICHOLAS TREVENEN HAWKE, of Penzance, grocer, obtained his certificate.
CORNWALL COUNTY COURTS - TRURO - This Court was held on Friday last, before G. G. KEKEWICH, Esq. The following case involving the jurisdiction of the Vice-Warden's court was heard.
NEWTON v. NANCARROW. Mr. BENNALLACK for plaintiff; Mr. ROBERTS for defendant. This was an action by the plaintiff, who carries on a general business in grocery and hardware at St. Agnes, against the defendant, a labouring tin tributer in St. Agnes, to recover the sum of GBP2. 17s. 1d. for candles and other goods, supplied to the defendant for the purpose of working his tribute pitch.
There was no question between the parties as to the facts; but Mr. Roberts, admitting them, objected on behalf of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the County Court to entertain the action against the defendant. Mr. Roberts proceeded to argue in favour of protection to the Vice-Warden's Court. He first drew his Honor's attention to the Charters of 33 Edward I, 16 Car. I, and the parliamentary confirmation of the 50th Edward III, pointing out the distinction between the clauses which gave to the Vice-Warden jurisdiction in the matters therein referred to, and showing as the result of the whole that the Vice-Warden's Court had jurisdiction where labouring tinners claimed their privilege of objecting to the jurisdiction of other courts over them, and also in those cases where the Vice-Warden had power to hold please[sic] between tinner and tinner, or tinner and foreigner.
[please = pleas?]
Mr. Roberts then referred to the statute of 6, and 7, William IV. c. 106, being the statute establishing and confirming the Vice-Warden's Court, and extending its jurisdiction; and Mr. Roberts said that without arguing the question whether that statute extended the personal privilege of tinners to miners generally (which at present he did not think necessary to argue,) it was now clear beyond all doubt that the Vice-Warden's Court had power to hold pleas, not only in cases connected with tin and tinners, but also in cases connected with copper, lead, and other metals and metallic minerals. The jurisdiction therefore of the Vice-Warden's Court, although confined in its nature, was clear and well defined.
Mr. Roberts then directed attention to the County Courts Act, referring generally to the clauses and admitting that but for the clauses of exception contained in the Act, the general exclusions of the Act would give to the County Court a concurrent jurisdiction with the Vice-Warden's Court; but Mr. Roberts particularly observed that the jurisdiction so given would be only a concurrent jurisdiction, and not otherwise affecting the Vice-Warden's Court. His Honour said, that the question having been brought before him and having already given an opinion, he could only now repeat the opinion that he had jurisdiction; and if he was wrong, the parties would have the opportunity of going to the Superior Courts and rectifying him, and with that view he gave judgment for plaintiff with a stay of execution.
FALMOUTH - BENNETT v. OSLER - In this case application was made for a new trial. The judge stated that he certainly took a different view of the case from that which was adopted by the jury, who gave the verdict against Mr. Osler, but he considered that the matter could not again be opened up. The application was, therefore, refused, as well as that for the plaintiff's solicitor's costs.
MAYNE v. PETERS - Plaintiff sued for goods supplied to Ennis mine. Defendant contended that he was not an adventurer, there being no deed executed. Plaintiff proved by the cost-book that defendant had paid calls, and otherwise identified him as a shareholder. Verdict for plaintiff.
HELSTON - At the sittings of this court on Monday last, there were eighteen cases entered for trial, but the majority of them were settled out of court. Only one case tried was of any importance, viz:- PRISKE v. RULE and OTHERS. It was tried before a jury, and was an action of trespass brought by Mr. THOMAS PRISKE against WILLIAM RULE, JOHN DREW, and RICHARD CHAPPLE, for unlawfully seizing plaintiff's goods under a fi, fa, against plaintiff's brother, J. H. PRISKE, and detaining the same for the space of eighteen days to the plaintiff's damage of GBP13.
It appeared in evidence, that on the 24th of June last, defendant Drew, who is a bailiff, assisted by Chapple, levied on the goods of plaintiff, under an execution against J. H. Priske, at the suit of Rule, removed the same goods and detained them for eighteen days, when they were returned and 10s. offered for damages which plaintiff refused to accept. It also appeared, that at the time of the levy, defendant Drew acted very officiously, committed an assault and refused to pay any attention to plaintiff's notice of the illegal levy. Subsequently to the levy, and before the goods were returned, defendant Drew admitted his error in taking the goods, by offering to return them and make some compensation for the injury done by their detention, provided plaintiff would consent to pay his brother's debt, for which the fi. fa. was issued. The jury after retiring and consulting together, returned and gave a verdict for plaintiff, GBP9 damages.
18 AUGUST 1848, Friday
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE
AGED EMIGRANTS - A man named BILLING, aged 78 years, together with his wife aged nearly 70 years, last week left St. Agnes, for the purpose of emigrating to the United States of America.
ST. AGNES - The pulling down of the old church at this place has been commenced. It is expected that the new building will be opened for divine service in about eighteen months. The present structure was erected about the reign of Richard the III. The plans and specifications for the new building are prepared, and Tuesday next is appointed for the ceremony of laying the first stone.
THE SAILOR'S HOME - On Monday evening last, a public meeting was held in the national School room connected with St. Mary's Chapel, Penzance, for advocating the interest of seaman in connexion with the with the London Sailors' Home. The Rev. E. SHUTTLEWORTH presided as chairman, and introduced the Rev. Mr. GRIBBLE to the meeting, who stated that the Sailors' Home was built on the site formerly occupied by the Brunswick theatre, and was capable of boarding two hundred and fifty sailors comfortably. There were two halls and appropriate dormitories in the building, and there was a church in connexion with the same, in which the inmates of the building had an opportunity of regularly attending divine service. There is a bank connected with the institution, in which, during the last year, about GBP6,000 was deposited by seamen, of which sum, more than GBP2,000 had been sent thence to the wives and families of the depositors. There are ten thousand seamen constantly on shore in London. The Institution involved considerable expense, and hence he was induced to appeal to the Christian public for assistance. The Rev. E. SHUTTLEWORTH, and Captain JACKSON, of Paul, then addressed the meeting, and at the close a collection was made.
THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF FOR THE CAPE - Rear Admiral REYNOLDS, the newly appointed Flag Officer to the Cape, has visited the Admiralty during the past week, and had interviews with their Lordships. Orders have gone out to Vice-Admiral DACRES to return to St. Simon's Bay from the Mauritius. It is expected that the "Southampton" will leave England about the first week in September, and that she will arrive at the Cape by about the middle of October, by which time Vice-Admiral Dacres will be there to transfer the command-in-chief to his successor, and he will then return to Spithead, and his flag ship (the "President," 50, Captain STANLEY,) will be paid off at Portsmouth. In consequence of the officers of the "Southampton," not having joined so promptly as the Admiralty desired, orders were sent last week, that their appointments would be cancelled if they were not on board the ship by a certain day.
The following biographical notice of Rear Admiral BARRINGTON REYNOLDS, C.B., of Penair, in this county, is copied from the Nautical Standard :- Admiral Reynolds entered the navy in 1795, and successively served in the "Druid," "Amazon," "Pomone," and "Indefatigable" frigates, and the "Impetueux" and "Orion," of 74 guns. He was at the capture of the French frigates "Unite" and "Virginie" and was in the "Amazon," commanded by his father, when that ship, in conjunction with the "Indefatigable," engaged and drove ashore the French 74-gun ship "Droits de l,Homme," in Audierne Bay, 13th January, 1797. The "Amazon" was also unfortunately wrecked, and the crew made prisoners. In the "Pomone" he was at the capture of the French privateer "Clidri,"[?] of 24 guns [...........] after a resolute defence; and was employed in various boat expeditions in Cluiberon[?] Bay and the [...........?]. On the 29th of August, 1800, Mr. Reynolds assisted in the gallant attack and capture of the !
French privateer Guepe, of 18 guns, laying at anchor in Vigo Bay; and on the 18th of September following, he obtained his promotion. As a lieutenant, he served eight years on the home and Irish stations, in the "Courageous," "Hussar," "Niobe,", "Diomede," and "Russell, when he was promoted to the rank of commander, in December, 1809.
After serving in the East Indies in command of the "Arrogant," in April, 1811, he joined the "Hesper," and was at the capture of Java, and served on shore with the brigade of seamen acting in conjunction with the army, at the reduction of the colony, and the storming of Fort Cornelis. For this service, Captain Reynolds obtained post rank, November 3rd, 1811; and for two years afterwards he commanded the "Sir Francis Drake" and the "Eucephalus" frigates, in the East Indies. In July, 1838, this gallant officer was nominated a Companion of the Bath, and in October following, was appointed to the "Ganges," 84, which he commanded on the Mediterranean station until April, 1842.
DEATH OF SIR HARRIS NICOLAS - We have to announce the death of Sir NICHOLAS HARRIS NICOLAS, K.H., G.C.M.B., which took place on the 3rd instant. Sir Harris was a native of this county, and a lieutenant of 18[?]5. He served in the boats of the "Pilot" at the capture of several armed vessels and convoys in the Mediterranean. He was also a barrister-at-law of the Inner Temple. He recently published the "Nelson Letters and Despatches," and had previously distinguished himself in literature by his "Chronology of History," and numerous works connected with historical antiquities and the orders of knighthood. In his practice at the bar he confined himself to peerage and divorce questions, upon which subjects also he published more than one work remarkable for that patient research which characterises all his productions. Sir Harris Nicholas was Chancellor of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and was a Knight Grand Cross of the Order.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS - Mr. T. CROCKER, Launceston, and Mr. THOMAS MICHELL, St. Austell, after undergoing the necessary examinations, have been admitted members of the Royal College of Surgeons.
A SHIP NEARLY SET ON FIRE BY THE SUN - The Oldenburg schooner,
"Gesine," Capt. ROBE, lying in Falmouth harbour, was placed in imminent
danger of being destroyed by fire, by a rather singular circumstance.
The common mode of obtaining light in the cabins and berths of small
vessels, is by what is usually called a "bull's eye," a piece of thick
plano-convex glass, of about four or five inches in diameter, let into
the deck. The convex part, being under, diffuses a strong light below;
such is the case in the "Gesine." It appears the steward had placed an
umbrella on a rack, which came at the point of concentration of the
sun's rays in the cabin, and was by such rays set on fire; happily it
was discovered in time to prevent the fire extending beyond the
destruction of the umbrella, otherwise the ship might have been
destroyed.
FALMOUTH POLICE - On Friday last, EDWARD TOY, who had been in prison
from the 1st instant, charged with a violent assault on his wife, was
brought before J. BLATCH COX, and J. HILL, Esqrs. The wife being in a
very feeble state, was accommodated with a seat; her head was bound up,
and her left hand was tied up in splints, some of the bones being
broken. She stated that her husband had taken up a jug from the table,
dashed it down and broke it; and that he then went to the fire place
and took up a small poker, with which he struck her twice. She put up
her hand with her apron to wipe the blood from her face, when the third
blow from the poker struck her hand and broke some of the bones; had it
struck her head she believed it would have killed her. She said she
had given him no provocation. The prisoner held he was much
intoxicated and did not know what he did. The magistrates considered
him guilty of a most brutal attack and fined him GBP5, or in default to
be imprisoned for two months. The parties had been before separated,
she having sworn the peace against him, but on his promising better
behaviour she had again lived with him.
DEFECTIVE WEIGHTS - At a petty sessions held at Truro on Thursday,
the 10th instant, before H. P. ANDREW, W. P. KEMPE, G. WIGHTMAN, J. D.
GILBERT, Esqrs., and the Rev. T. PHILLPOTTS, JOHN HICHENS, of Feock,
butcher, was fined 10s. and costs for having several defective weights.
GEO. MASON, of Kenwyn, was fined GBP5 and costs, for having several
defective weights. It was stated that a servant of Mason, having a
knowledge of the approach of ROWE, the inspector, commenced throwing
the weights into an orchard for the purpose of concealing them.
JOHN FERRIL, of Ladock, carrier, was fined 10s. and expenses, for having a defective weight and measure.
APPLE STEALING - Mr. WILLIAM HAWKE, a corn dealer, of Wadebridge, was
on Friday last, brought before E. STEPHENS, Esq., of Trewornan, county
magistrate, for stealing apples from the orchard of Mr. R. POLLARD, of
Bodieve, in the parish of Egloshayle. Hawke, who is a man of miserly
habits, was employed by Mr. SIMMONS to hoe turnips in a field adjoining
the orchard, and was seen by police constable LOVELL, to enter the
orchard at a secluded part. Lovell kept constant watch whilst Hawke
tasted the apples on about a dozen of trees. He returned to one tree
four times, but being then disturbed by a noise which was made in an
adjoining road, he speedily retired from his place of plunder by the
same way as he got access, on which the policeman gave chase, and
speedily overtook him. On the policeman coming up, Hawke said he knew
nothing of the matter, but twelve apples corresponding with those
remaining on the trees which he was seen to visit, were found on his
person, and produced before the magistrate. To compromise the matter
and to prevent exposure, Hawke offered the constable any sum of money
he would ask, but Lovell greatly to his credit insisted in bringing him
to justice, when he was fined GBP1 and directed to offer an apology for
his conduct, which he quickly submitted to. The gentlemen of
Wadebridge and its vicinity, at a police meeting, greatly applauded
Lovell for his conduct in this affair.
FATAL ACCIDENT - On Tuesday last, THOMAS SPEAR, cartman to the
Honourable Mrs. AGAR, of Lanhydrock, was found dead in the road leading
from Lostwithiel to Bodmin about a quarter of a mile from the former
place, where he had been with a cart and two horses for brick, &c.
An inquest was held on the body before A. H. LANGSTONE, Esq., coroner
for Lostwithiel, but there being no evidence to show how death was
occasioned, the jury returned a verdict of "accidental death."
CORONERS' INQUESTS - The following inquests have been held before JOHN CARLYON, Esq., coroner. On Thursday the 10th instant, at Mabe, on the body of WILLIAM FRANCIS, aged 49 years. It appeared that on Wednesday deceased was at work in Carnsow Granite Quarry; he and another man called WILLIAM JOHNS, had tamped a hole in which they had put about two pounds of Powder, and had lit the safety fuse, but it missed, when instead of cautiously picking out the hole with a small picker, they adopted the dangerous but more expeditious plan of boring it out, and the consequence was that the hole went off about them. The deceased was so dreadfully injured that he only survived a few hours, and his companion, William Johns, is likely to lose the use of both his eyes. Verdict, "accidental death."
On Tuesday last, at the Red Lion Hotel, Truro, on the body of RICHARD FERRY, who had hung himself that morning in a loft over the stables connected with the hotel. The following witnesses were examined:-
JAN BENNALLACK, a servant at the hotel, saw the deceased that morning, at twenty minutes to eight o'clock. He wished her "good morning," and she returned the salutation. He was not then working, and he appeared to be perfectly sober. GEORGE HARRIS, who is employed in the hotel stables, said the deceased had frequently assisted him since last Whitsuntide, whenever he was busy. Previous to that time, deceased was in witness's place, and was constantly employed, but he was discharged for keeping holiday and being absent from his work. Since Whitsuntide, he had been generally about the yard, even when not employed; he lived with his mother, but had his meals at the hotel when employed there.
He was in the yard and stables on Monday, but was not at work; witness saw him once or twice in the course of the day, and he was perfectly sober. About half-past eight that morning (Tuesday), witness went to the loft over the stable to take in a wagon-load of straw, after which he turned to come down over the ladder, and then saw the deceased before him hanging. The body was behind him when he went into the loft and therefore he did not see it.
Witness did not think deceased knew they were going to take in straw about half-past eight; he was too much frightened to cut him down, and that was done by Mr. MANUEL. Witness had never seen him much in liquor; he appeared to be rational and reasonable; never heard him threaten to commit self-destruction, nor did he seem likely to do such an act; he always appeared to be a very quiet young man.
JOHN MANUEL said he was passing the stables about a quarter before nine, and being alarmed by a scream from Mrs. GILL, and inquiring what was the matter, he was told the young man had hung himself and was asked to cut him down. He immediately did so, and found he was quite dead. (Deceased had jumped off from a considerable height, and must have died instantly.) He was suspended by a horse's halter, with a running knot in it, and his legs were eighteen inches or two feet from the ground. His neckerchief had been taken off, and was placed on the partition.
JOSEPH HOPE, the boots at the hotel, saw deceased at eleven o'clock on Monday night, sitting in a gig which was at the entrance of the yard, with no horse in it. (This gig, it was stated, was taken away the same night, so that deceased did not sleep in it.) Witness spoke to deceased and he then appeared to be sober and rational. Witness had known him for the last twelve months, and had seen no difference in his manner lately.
THOMAS JENKIN, brother-in-law of deceased, stated that for the last three or four weeks he had been labouring under great depression of spirits. He had run in debt whilst in a situation, and when out of it, it preyed on his mind because he could not pay his debts. He earned nothing besides what he got at the hotel. His age was twenty-six; he was a very reserved man, but witness had no reason to suppose him likely to commit self-destruction. Witness saw him on Sunday, and he appeared very depressed, particularly when not in company. He did not sleep at home on Monday night, witness never heard him say he was going away anywhere.
The Coroner explained to the jury that formerly a man committing self-destruction was assumed to be in a state of temporary insanity, but that had been held to be unwarrantable. In such cases, juries now returned either a verdict of felo de se, of temporary insanity, or that the deceased committed self-destruction, but in what state of mind there was no evidence to show. Which of these verdicts they would return was a matter entirely for their consideration, looking at the evidence before them. The jury gave a verdict of "temporary insanity," founding it on the evidence of deceased's depression of spirits.
25 AUGUST 1848, Friday
Local Intelligence
ST AGNES NEW CHURCH - The ceremony connected with laying the foundation-stone of this edifice took place on Tuesday last, under circumstances of great pomp. No less than nineteen of the clergy of the surrounding parishes were present on the occasion. The first stone was to have been laid by JOHN SAMUEL ENYS, Esq.. of Enys, one of the largest landowners in the parish, but from his having been detained elsewhere, it was laid by the Venerable the Archdeacon of Cornwall.
The inhabitants, desirous of witnessing the ceremony, began to assemble about eleven o'clock. The clergy met at Trevaunance House, the residence of the vicar, the Rev. A. A. VAUDRY, and were joined by the principal gentry of the neighbourhood and the "Loyal St. Agnes Lodge of Odd Fellows"; a procession was then formed from the vicarage to the site of the new church; the Odd Fellows, wearing their sashes and aprons, and bearing the banners of their order, took the lead, and were followed by the contractors for the building, the building-committee, and the clergy; the Venerable the Archdeacon, and two other ministers who were to officiate on the occasion, wearing their surplices, and the rest in their gowns; next and last followed the principal inhabitants and visitors from neighbouring districts, the whole presenting a very imposing spectacle.
On arriving at the intended place of the building, the Rev. A. A. Vaudry commenced a form of prayer which had been prepared for the occasion, the Rev. Messrs. HAMILTON and LORD, the ministers of St. Agnes district churches, assisting in the service. The corner-stone was then lowered and laid in its proper situation, a hole having been cut in it in which several coins of the present reign were deposited, along with a brass plate, on which the following inscription was neatly engraved :- "This corner-stone was laid, August the 22nd, 1848, by the Venerable the Archdeacon of Cornwall."
After the stone was laid, short addresses, appropriate to the occasion, were delivered by the Rev. Canon ROGERS and the Rev. Prebendary CORNISH, the ceremony concluding by singing a suitable hymn. The service having been ended, the whole of the clergy present, together with a great number of laymen and ladies, proceeded to the residence of WILLIAM CARNE, Esq., at Rosemundy, in front of which a spacious booth had been erected, and a splendid [...llation?] provided, of which the parties partook, and also regaled themselves with wine, drinking the usual loyal toasts, and congratulating the people of St. Agnes on their piety and zeal, as manifested in their [determination?] to build, in this season of general depression [.......?] a new and spacious [......?] church.
THE REV. JAMES SHORE - On Tuesday evening last, a meeting was held in the Wesleyan Chapel, Redruth, for the purpose hearing Mr. Shore's statement of his grievances, and considering the propriety of petitioning the legislature for a repeal of the laws under which he has been prosecuted.
GEORGE SMITH, Esq., of Camborne, presided on the occasion, and commenced the proceedings with a very able address, pointing out the injustice of visiting religious nonconformity, or ecclesiastical indiscipline, with civil penalties and disabilities.
Mr. Shore then gave the history of his case, which we fully reported to our last number, and, in particular, denied, on the authority of his counsel, and of the chaplain and secretary of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the statement made in a paragraph of a contemporary of last week, that it was possible for him, by any process of deposition to put himself, or to be put beyond the reach of the law under which he had been so cruelly prosecuted.
The Rev. JAMES GROSE, Wesleyan minister, then proposed the adoption of a petition to parliament praying for an abrogation of the law under which Mr. Shore had been condemned. The petition was seconded by the Rev. J. HIBBS, Primitive Methodist preacher, and unanimously voted by a meeting of nearly three thousand persons, of all the nonconformist bodies of the town and neighbourhood, amidst the most enthusiastic cheering. The meeting was then addressed by Mr. R. GRYLLS and other speakers, and a liberal subscription having been made in aid of Mr. Shore, and a vote of thanks warmly seconded to the chairman, the proceedings were concluded with singing and prayer.
FALMOUTH WATER WORKS - The Water Works Company are now in course of laying their pipes, having commenced on Wednesday se'nnight, in about the centre of the town. When completed, it will be one of the greatest boons which Falmouth has received for many years, the town at present being lamentably deficient o a supply of good water.
EXETER COURT OF BANKRUPTCY - In the Exeter Court of Bankruptcy, on Thursday, the case of WM. MENADUE, of Falmouth and Camborne, watchmaker, Mr. HENRY CARTER, of the firm of "GEORGE CARTER and CO., of Birmingham, was appointed Trade Assignee.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS - In the list of those examined for the diploma, and admitted members of the 18th instant, we observe the name of Mr. JOSEPH GEORGE THOMPSON, of St. Mabyn, in this county.
Mr. ARTHUR BULLER - This gentleman, the brother of Mr. CHARLES BULLER, M.P., and, who some years since was a candidate for the representation of the borough of Helston, has received the honour of Knighthood, on his appointment as one of the Judges in India.
STEALING FROM GARDENS - Various depredations have lately been committed in gardens at Truro. On Monday last, JAMES BURT the younger, was committed to the House of Correction for one calendar month for stealing a quantity of plums from the garden of JOSIAH RANDLE, in Bosvigo-lane. Two lads were previously convicted of stealing gooseberries from the garden of Mr. LUXTON, of Chapel-yard, and others are to be proceeded against for stealing from the garden of Mr. LEMON.
COMMITTALS - On Monday last, a man named MATHEWS, of St. Austell Downs, was brought before Mr. J. S. G. SAWLE, Bart., and E. COODE, jun., Esq., charged with stealing pigeons from Mr. WILLIAM HAMMS[?]. He was fined GBP1. 6s., and in default of payment, was committed to hard labour for one calendar month.
On Tuesday a man named JOHN OSBORNE was charged before the magistrates with housebreaking. There has been a running warrant out against him since the 11th of June last, for having in company with others, broken into the dwelling house of Mr. E. NETTLE, of Carvath, and stolen therefrom a quantity of pork, &c. No clue could be obtained of Osborne until last week, when Mr. E. STEPHENS, constable, of St. Austell, was dispatched in pursuit, and took him when at work in a tunnel at Matlock, in Derbyshire; and he is now lodge in Bodmin gaol to take his trial at the next assizes.
HELSTON POLICE - On Tuesday last, a boy )a well know thief,) called SCOLLAR alias TOWSEY, was detected in robbing a till, at the higher end of Meneage-street, Helston. He had succeeded in taking 3s. when Mrs. MEDLYN caught him. Information was given to chief constable PENHALL, who took charge of him, and on Wednesday he was fully committed for trial. It has since transpired that the same boy robbed two innkeepers' tills a few days before, one of 4s. and the other of 2s. 6d.
DARING ROBBERY - Last week, Mrs. SIMMONS, who keeps the Halfway House between Helston and Falmouth, missed a gold chain from the dressing table in her bed room. Suspicion has fallen on a servant who has recently left the house, and who has been offering such an article for sale, but for want of a material witness she has escaped the ends of justice.
A CHILD KILLED - On Monday evening last, a child about two years old, was struck down, near the quay, at Penzance, by a horse which was drawing a cart heavily laden with coal. The wheel passed over the child, and although Mr. COUCH, surgeon, was speedily in attendance, every effort to save life was ineffectual, the child expired in about three house after the occurrence. He was the son of Mr. WILLIAM QUICK, carpenter. Mr. Couch found the child's face much bruised on both sides, and the [............ ........?] on either side was compressed severely? and overlapped, from which circumstance several blood-vessels must have been ruptured, and the child died from suffocation. An inquest was held on the body before JOHN ROSCORLA Esq., coroner for the borough, when a verdict was returned of "accidental death." The cart was driven by a boy of about twelve years of age, and the jury animadverted on the practice of allowing persons so young to drive carts.
CORONERS' INQUEST - On Thursday last, an inquest was held in the parish of St. Kew, before JOSEPH HAMLEY, Esq., coroner, and GILBERT HAMLEY, Esq., deputy coroner, to inquire into the circumstances of the death of a newly born child, supposed to have been born of the body of a woman called JANE CARNE, a servant living on the farm of Mr. CHAMPION, of that parish.
It appeared from the evidence that the girl was taken unwell on the previous Thursday morning. She remained in bed all that day, and the following. On the Saturday morning, she went into her mistress's room to fetch a box of lucifer matches to light a fire in the brew-house. She then went down stairs, and about half an hour afterwards, her master, on opening his door, saw her going towards the back kitchen with a large wash pail. Suspecting something wrong, he desired his wife to search the girl's room, and she discovered certain marks on the bed and the bed-tye which full satisfied her that the servant had recently had a child.
Her master then went down stairs and charged the girl with the fact, and also charged a servant man with having given the girl something to destroy it, but they both denied knowing anything about it. Mr. Champion then went to a magistrate who issued a warrant to a constable to search the premises and in searching the house, the found in the girl's box her clothes saturated with blood, and in searching the brew-house, the bones of a child were found under the grate.
Mr. KING, surgeon of Camelford, stated that he was desired by Mr. Champion to accompany him to a house to see a girl, in consequence of his having some suspicion that she had recently been delivered of a child. On his arrival, he made the necessary examination (the girl readily consenting), and found that she had recently given birth to a child.
There was no evidence of the child having been born alive, and the jury therefore returned a verdict, "that the bones now shown to the jury were those of an infant, but whether the infant had been born alive, or how it came, there is not [consistent?] evidence before us to determine." The woman has since been committed to take her trial for the concealment.
STANNARIES COURT - This Court commenced its sittings on Saturday last, at the Town Hall, Truro, before the Vice-Warden J. L. DAMPIER, Esq. The following motions were made:- HUTCHINSON v. GILBARD - This was a petition by the purser of South Roskear mine against the defendant, as an adventurer. Mr. STOKES had obtained a decree for payment of the amount sought to be recovered, GBP112. 1s. 10d., and now moved, on affidavit of special service and of non-payment for a rule nisi to show cause why the shares of the defendant should not be sold. Rule nisi granted. A similar rule, on production of the necessary affidavits, was obtained by Mr. Stokes in the case of the same plaintiff v. DAVEY, the amount sought to be recovered being GBP560. 8s.
In the case of HUTCHINSON, the same purser, v. WADE, being a petition for recovery of GBP11. 1s. 10d., Mr. Stokes also obtained a rule nisi to show cause why defendant's shares should not be sold. In the case of the same purser v. MABYN, Mr. Stokes obtained a similar rule, the amount sought to be recovered being GBP87. 1s. 10d.
In the case of the Purser of South Roskear v. JEFFERY, the petition was for recovery of GBP112. 1s. 10d. As in the previous cases, Mr. Stokes had obtained a decree for payment, and now moved, on affidavits of special service, and of non-payment, for a rule nisi to show cause why defendant's shares should not be sold. Rule nisi granted.
JAMES ANDREW and OTHERS v. EDMUND TURNER and OTHERS - Mr. SIMMONS moved, in his own behalf, as one of the defendants in this case, to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution, it being in the matter of Trewavas mine. He had the Registrar's certificate that the petition was filed on the 22nd of November last, and by the 8th of January all the defendants had appeared. On the 26th of January he filed an answer by way of demurrer for himself personally, and on the 27th of January he filed an answer in demurrer for defendant PASSINGHAM; defendants TURNER and BENNALLACK had filed no answer. This was the third sitting of the Court since the case was ripe for hearing; it was ready, and notice was given for hearing at the February sittings, but it was then countermanded.
The Vice-Warden granted the rule nisi, but observed that he suspected, when the case came to be examined into, it would be found to be not one of those that might have been heard at once. On the application of Mr. Simmons, the Vice-Warden also granted a rule nisi for dismission of the petition in the case of the defendant. Mr. PASSINGHAM.
EDMUND NORWAY and RICHARD LEAN HAWKEN, of Wadebridge v. JOHN BELLING - Mr. STOKES stated that this was a creditors' petition against the defendant, as purser of Wheal Kekewich mine, near Bodmin. He obtained, on the 31st of July, a decree for payment of GBP56. 12s. 9d. within fifteen days after service on defendant. Since the decree was obtained, defendant had left the county. He (Mr. Stokes) therefore produced an affidavit stating that on the 2nd of August, he served the decree by delivering a copy of it to the wife of defendant, at his last known place of residence at Bodmin, within the Stannaries; that he shewed to Mrs. Belling the original decree, and she informed deponent that defendant was not there, and had not for some time been within the Stannaries, and deponent believes the information he received from defendant's wife to be good.
Further, that on the 2nd of August, he proceeded to the mine, and found it deserted, and that he affixed another copy of the decree to the material and changing-house of the mine, within the Stannaries. He now moved that the service of decree be, under the circumstances, deemed good service, and on affidavits of non-payment of the sum sought be recovered, he moved for a rule nisi for sale of the mine and materials. The Vice-Warden deemed the service of decree sufficient, and granted a rule nisi for sale.
RICHARD LEAN HAWKEN v. BELLING - This was a petition by one of the plaintiffs in the last case against the same defendant, as purser of Wheal Kekewich, for recovery of GBP10. 15s. 4d. On production of the necessary affidavits, Mr. STOKES obtained a rule nisi for sale, as in the previous case.
MAGOR v. PASCOE - This was a small-debt case, and Mr. SIMMONS applied to amend a clerical error in the plaint, the name of plaintiff in the summons being stated as John instead of James. The Vice-Warden granted the application to amend, as the error was in a Christian name, and on the part of plaintiff; if the mistake had been in the name of the defendant, the amendment, he said, might be a case of difficulty.
[ BACK ]