West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday 8th August, 1856. THE LATE CHILD MURDER AT TRURO (From the Times.) - A Cornish jury the other day - it was on Thursday of last week - most grossly failed in their duty to the public, and delivered one of the most scandalous verdicts on record. At Bodmin on the day named, ANN MATTHEWS, aged 32, JAMES GEORGE, aged 19, and RICHARD JOSE, aged 35, were indicted for the wilful murder of an infant born of Matthews, at Truro, on the 27th of March last. This woman was a shoemaker by trade, and had resided for many years in respectability at Truro. Her husband died about four years ago, and about a twelvemonth ago, in a fatal hour for herself, she met with Jose, who was a married man. A connextion ensued between Jose and Matthews, and she became pregnant by him. Jose lodged at her house, and in the same house lived the prisoner George and a young woman named ELIZA BURNS, but nineteen years of age, who were also living together in a state of concubinage. Matthews had an allowance from the parish, and she feared that this allowance would be withdrawn if it were known that she had given birth to a natural child. About four o'clock on the morning of Thursday the 27th of March, Matthews was seized with the pains of labour, and she went down into the kitchen, where she delivered herself of a female child. Jose came down also to the kitchen, and he called to the girl Burns to come and assist Matthews in her pain. After some little delays she was admitted into the kitchen, where she found Matthews, Jose, and a new-born babe. George also came down, and in a little while he assisted Matthews to leave the kitchen. As she was going out she called to Jose to stop the child's crying. After these two persons had left the kitchen Jose thrust his finger down the baby's throat, and retained it there for some time, but, as this did not suffice to destroy life, he fetched a pan, into which he poured a quantity of water, and in it he drowned the child. A coroner's inquest was held, and a verdict was returned of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown." The name of Matthews soon became involved in the gossip of the neighbourhood, and the end was that she was examined by a surgeon, and it was ascertained that she had recently been delivered. In the end Burns was admitted as Queen's evidence, and upon her testimony they were convicted. The strange part of the story is that the jury found Jose guilty, not of murder, but of manslaughter, George guilty as an accessory after the fact, and Matthews guilty of concealing the birth. Of the verdicts in the last two cases, we see no great reason to complain. It does not appear that when Matthews desired Jose to stop the child's crying she intended that he should commit murder - still less can George be mixed up with the more atrocious crime in any direct manner. It is of the verdict in the case of Jose that we would speak with the greatest indignation. The jury had a perfect right to disbelieve the testimony of the girl Burns, and to acquit the prisoner. On the other hand, upon her testimony they might have brought the man in guilty of murder. The one thing, however, which they could not do without a violation of every principle of justice and common sense was to believe the witness, and yet to deliver against the prisoner a verdict of guilty of any less crime than murder. Not only was the act of Jose murder but it was one of the foulest murders upon record. It was perpetrated under every circumstance of malice and deliberation - it was the murder of an infant child by a strong man. The evidence of the girl was so strongly corroborated by the medical witnesses and by the general appearance of the body that it is beyond any question that she was speaking the truth. The conduct of the jury should be visited, with the strongest reprehension, for not only did they set aside the value of the evidence, but they did so in direct opposition to the directions of the judge. It is but fair to add that Mr. BARON MARTIN did not shrink from his duty. No blame can rest upon him if the ruffian Jose was not visited with the full penalty which the law attaches to his crime. APPOINTMENT - Mr. ROBERT HUNTER, formerly of Truro, has been appointed resident house surgeon, to the Great Northern Infirmary, Islington. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - A labourer of Penzance, called WILLIAM MITCHELL, was convicted, on Saturday last, before Mr. CARNE and Mr. T. S. BOLITHO, magistrates, of having committed an indecent and aggravated assault on ALICE JOHNS, a tailoress, of Ludgvan, who generally works at Penzance, and returns to Ludgvan in the evenings. The young woman is dumb, and far from sane. The assault was proved by the surgeon, Mr. Congdon, of Marazion, who had attended complainant, that the capital offence had not been committed. The prisoner was committed to the county gaol for four months, under the Aggravated Assaults Act. THE EXECUTION AT BODMIN - We understand that the soldier, WILLIAM NEVAN, who was sentenced to death at the assizes last week, for the murder of Serjeant-Major ROBINSON, on board a convict ship in Plymouth Sound, will undergo the dreadful penalty of the law in front of the county gaol at Bodmin, on Monday next. The condemned man is a Roman Catholic, and has been attended by a priest every day since the sentence of death was passed upon him. We are informed that he spends almost all his time in prayer, and appears to be very penitent for his crime. His wife has been to see him, and the parting between them was truly affecting; he, however, was much more firm than his wife. He requested her to bring up their children in the Roman Catholic faith, and tell them that on no account should they allow evil passions to master them. APOTHECARIES' HALL - On Wednesday, July 30th, Mr. THOMAS CARTHEW GILLET, M.R.C.S.L., passed his examination for the practice of medicine and received his license. On Thursday the 24th ult., Mr. W. KING BULLMORE, of Falmouth, passed his examination in the science and practice of medicine, and received a certificate to practice. On Wednesday July the 16th, Mr. CHARLES BUTLIN and Mr. CHARLES JENKYNS, son of the Rev. CHARLES JENKYNS, both pupils of the Rev. W. W. BUTLIN, incumbent of Penponds, Camborne, successfully passed, the preliminary examination in classics and mathematics, at Apothecaries' Hall. THE NAVY - Commander JOHN J. M'D. SKENE, formerly Inspecting Commander of the Falmouth district, has been promoted to the rank of captain. CHARITABLE BEQUESTS - Mr. CLEMENT JACKSON, of East Looe, after the death of a legatee, has bequeathed GBP700 to the Shipwrecked Fishermen and Mariners' Royal Benevolent Society, and the residue of his property to the York Retreat Lunatic Asylum. Personalty GBP12,000. BOOT-MAKING CONTEST - The friends of JOSEPH COCK, boot-maker, of Truro, having seen a paragraph offering to back WILLIAM HOWARD for GBP2, against any other person in the county (with one exception), for making a boot, we are requested to state that the friends of Joseph Cock are anxious for a trial, and will back him for GBP2, or as much more as the Falmouth party may think fit. Any communication addressed to Joseph Cock, Boscawen Row, Truro, will meet with prompt attention. SCILLY - The schooner "Superior," LEGG, from Falmouth, whilst running for the Scilly Islands, on the 31st ult., in a thick fog, got on the rocks near Crow Sound, where she remained for the tide, and was got off with assistance from the shore, without much apparent damage. FALMOUTH - On Friday last, the Austrian steamer "Mars" sailed for the Danube after coaling. On Friday the schooner yacht "Claymore", arrived the property of the Hon. HERCULES ROWLEY, from Southampton, and about to proceed to the Crimea. On Wednesday, arrived the steamer "Zephyr," Capt. BOND, from Plymouth, but last from the Lizard, with chains, &c., to assist in raising the "Zebra," now on shore at that place. Not being able to effect a landing, the articles were put on board a vessel in the harbour for transmission to the Lizard. THE SHIP "WALMER CASTLE." - The satisfactory passage made by this splendid vessel from Plymouth to Melbourne has been before noticed in various papers. We are requested to insert the following address from the cabin passengers to Capt. DANIELL, of Helston, as a very flattering testimonial:- "Ship "Walmer Castle," March 29, 1856, to C. L. F. DANIELL, Esq.:- Dear Sir, - Now that our voyage is approaching its termination, we, the undersigned cabin passengers of the ship "Walmer Castle," from London to Melbourne, feel that we cannot separate without expressing our united sense of your unremitting care and watchfulness, and of the great kindness and attention which we have all received both from yourself and the officers of your ship. From the day on which you sailed from Plymouth you have used your utmost endeavours to promote our security and comfort, and we cannot but consider your constant amiability and good humour as having been greatly conducive to the harmony that has prevailed amongst us. We sincerely hope that you will always meet with the success which your own skill and energy, and the excellence of your ship so justly deserve," and remain dear sir, very sincerely yours, (signed by the Bishop of Melbourne and twenty-four passengers.) Captain Daniell returned the following reply:- My lord, and ladies and gentlemen, - Your flattering address cannot but be very gratifying to me and my officers. It was always my first object to secure, not only your safety, but your comfort and happiness, and now my efforts are more than rewarded." COMMITTAL TO THE COUNTY GAOL - Two women called THOMAS were committed by the Truro magistrates under similar circumstances, and they and the warrants of commitment having been brought before Mr. Justice CROWDER at the last Spring Assizes, he declared that the warrants were illegal, and order the prisoners to be discharged. The warrant for commitment of the first name woman was, at the assizes last week, placed before Mr. BARON MARTIN, and by him declared to be legal; so that the decision of one Judge is the reverse of that of the other. POMERY v. ELIAS MARTYN - HOCKING v. SAME - At the Assizes last week, these causes were, by order of the court, referred to arbitration; the former to Messrs. TRETHEWY, PEARCE, and ROGERS; the latter to Messrs. TRETHEY, PEARCE, and TREFFRY. Before the close of the Assizes, the arbitrators made their awards. In the first case, the defendant had paid GBP34. 10s. into court in satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim. The arbitrators found that there was due to the plaintiff, in addition to the money paid into court, the sum of GBP51. 10s. In the second cause the defendant had paid GBP23. 10s. into court, in full of the plaintiff's claims. The arbitrators awarded the sum of GBP22. 8s. to be due to the plaintiff beyond that sum. The costs of the cause, and of the reference, are to be paid by the defendant. TRURO POLICE - On Wednesday last, before Mr. NANKIVELL and Captain KEMPE, magistrates, RICHARD PASCOE, NICHOLAS COOK, JOHN HOTTEN, ZACHARIAS LANGDON, and THOMAS JULIAN, youths, from seventeen to nineteen years of age, and apprentices to Messrs. BARRETT, curriers and cordwainers, Church Lane, Truro, were charged with absenting themselves from their masters' employ, without leave or just cause. It appeared that on the previous Tuesday they went to the Falmouth Regatta, without asking leave, and were absent all day from their work, to the great inconvenience of their masters, who had to employ a workman to stay up all night to finish some work one or two of them had left undone. Messrs. B. and C. Barrett stated that it was not the first time they had misconducted themselves, and remained away from their work; and that on the Wednesday morning, instead of coming to work at the proper hour, some of them were three or four hours after time. The apprentices, on being asked what they had to say, acknowledged that they were in fault, and promised not to repeat such conduct, begging that they might not now be punished. In consideration of their promise to behave better in future, and to attend to their work, and make up for the time they had absented themselves Messrs. Barrett consented to withdraw the charge, and the case against them was dismissed, on their paying the expenses incurred by their masters. Before their discharge, they were reprimanded by the magistrate, and told that if they were again complained of they would be committed to the county gaol. A man called THOMAS VERCOE, was fined [5s.?] and expenses, for being drunk in the streets on last Sunday forenoon. IMPOSTOR - At Penzance, on Tuesday, a well-known tramp, called THOMAS GREEN, was charged before the Mayor, with having attempted to obtain money by fraudulent pretences. He had applied at the Great Wheal Ver mine, where he stated that he was a distressed solider returned from the Crimea, and produced a character, purporting to be signed by Col. Sir ROBERT NEWMAN, stating that he had been a driver in the artillery. He received two shillings and was told to call again when the working miners would probably subscribe for him. The man's document was signed, amongst others in Penzance, with the names of S. HIGGS and Son, and Captain MARTYN, of Great Wheal Ver, being somewhat suspicious of the affair, wrote to Mr. Higgs and ascertained that the signature of his name was a forgery. The impostor was apprehended and committed for six months to hard labour. FIRE - On Monday last, about mid-day, the fire bell was rung at St. Austell, and it was discovered that the farm house of Mr. WILLIAM ANDREW, of Coyte, in St. Mewan parish, was in flames. Before the engines could be taken there from St. Austell, the dwelling-house, stables, and other outhouses had become a heap of ruins, but by the timely assistance of the neighbours and other friends, the furniture was saved. Mr. Andrew is insured, but only on a small extent. On Friday last, two cottages, the property of Mr. W. TREZISE of Carnyorth, St Just in Penwith [?], tenanted by THOMAS WALLIS and JOHN HITCHENS were burnt to the ground. In one of the houses, baking was going on, and the inmates having quitted it for a short time, found it in flames on their return. ACCIDENTS - We have given, in another page, an account of the accident at the Truro Royal Regatta, on Friday last, by which the lives of between thirty and forty persons were imperilled. It was thought at the time that some of the children had sunk, as they could not be immediately found amongst those rescued and carried on shore. In consequence of this, Mr. THOMAS FRANCIS HITCHINS, who had rowed to the place of the accident in a small skiff, jumped overboard, in his clothes, and dived three times and ascertained that there were no bodies at the bottom of the river. Great praise is due to those in boats around the spot for so promptly exerting themselves to save the people from drowning. On Friday last, as Mr. ROSCORLA, of Penzance, accompanied by two gentlemen, was returning from Botallack Mine, in a dog-cart, when turning the sharp corner of the St. Just road, just above Castle Horneck, the horse slipped, and fell, and Mr. Roscorla and his friends were thrown out with some violence. Mr. Roscorla who was driving, received a severe shock, but beyond that is only suffering from a contused forehead and face. The other gentlemen were uninjured. On Monday last, WILLIAM OATS, a miner, residing at Callington, met with his death at Hingston Down Consols, whilst assisting at raising copper ore, to go to grass, by the support placed for raising the ore giving way, and the lass failing on him. On being extricated, it was found his back was broken. He has left a wife and three children. CORONERS' INQUESTS - The following inquests have been held before Mr. HICHENS, county coroner:- On the 5th instant, in the parish of Illogan, on the body of ELIZABETH RICHARDS, aged 66 years. The deceased lived with a niece and assisted in the work of the house, and on the morning of the 4th, both being at the washing tub in the back kitchen engaged in washing the family's clothes, the aunt who was to all appearance in perfect health proposed to her niece that she should go into the front kitchen and take her breakfast, which she did accordingly, leaving her aunt alone at the washing tub. Shortly after, another woman, the wife of a nephew to the deceased, who also lived in the same house, on going into the back kitchen, found deceased lying on the floor, and upon being taken up, life was extinct. Verdict, "natural death." On the following day, in the parish of Crowan, on the body of JAMES REED [Read?], aged about nine years. The deceased lived with his parents at Gernick mine in that parish, and was last seen alive about mid-day on Sunday the 3rd instant. In the afternoon, the father being alarmed at the absence of the child from his home, got a neighbour of the name of JAMES FAULL, to go with him in search of him, and fearing he might have fallen into the mine they went down one of the shafts, but returned without being able to find him. The next day they proceeded to draw the water (which was from four to five fathoms deep) out of another shaft, at the bottom of which upon the water being forked, the body was found. The deceased must have fallen about seven before he reached the water, but as there were no injuries about the body it is supposed that death must have been occasioned by drowning. Verdict accordingly. On Tuesday week an inquest was held before Mr. GILBERT HAMLEY, at St. Blazey, on view of the body of THOMAS ROWE, who died from injuries he received by a tram waggon passing over one of his legs on the Cornwall Railway. Several witnesses who were present at the time, stated that there was no blame to be attributed to the driver of the waggon, and that every care and attention was paid to deceased by the persons employed on the railway. A messenger was instantly dispatched to St. Austell, but Mr. PROCTOR being in the neighbourhood, and hearing of the accident went to the house. He arrived at 11 am., he perceived it was a most fearful fracture, and stated that he must go to St. Austell as he had brought nothing with him. A quantity of blood proceeded from the wound as they were carrying deceased to his home; but, at the time Mr. Procktor saw deceased there was very little blood flowing. Mr. Procktor came again at half-past three, and found deceased dying. Several persons who were left with deceased stated that a great quantity of blood had flowed from the wound in about an hour after Mr. Procktor left, and the jury not being satisfied that proper attention had been paid to deceased by the surgeon, no means having been used to prevent the haemorrhage, asked the coroner to adjourn the inquiry that a disinterested medical man might examine the body, and give an opinion as to whether deceased died from loss of blood or from shock to the system. Accordingly the inquest was adjourned until the following Thursday, when the coroner arrived and Mr. WARD of Bodmin to examine the body. Mr. Ward, did so, and stated at the adjourned inquiry that the injury was of a most formidable and serious character and impressed on his mind a strong conviction that it must, from its severity, have proved fatal. He found a most compound fracture of the leg, the bones much shattered and comminuted, the fracture extending into the knee joint and all the soft parts extensively torn and bruised; the muscles of the thigh were also extensively lacerated; he was decidedly of opinion that the injury had proved fatal from the great shock and collapse inflicted on the system; the lesser arteries and veins were lacerated, but the main artery escaped injury; he believed that deceased died principally from the great shock to the system. In answer to a question put to him, he stated that he should not have left deceased without having first taken steps to prevent a recurrence of haemorrhage which he should have expected to take place when reaction came on. Mr. Procktor defended himself by saying that as there was no arterial haemorrhage it would have been wrong to put on a bandage to suppress venous bleeding. The jury returned a verdict that deceased died from shock to the system produced by injuries received by a tram waggon passing over one of his legs, and they also considered that there was great blame to be attributed to Mr. Procktor for leaving deceased from twelve o'clock until half-past three without having placed a bandage to prevent haemorrhage, and they also thought that there was much more time lost than was necessary in going to St. Austell to procure assistance. On Monday last, an inquest was held by Mr. T. GOOD, on the body of a man unknown, who was found that morning hanging in a barn, at Tresparrett Post, in the parish of St. Juliott. From the evidence, it appeared that the deceased had come down to the village of Tresparrett on Saturday evening, about six o'clock, on his way to Boscastle fair, and by the consent of JOHN CORY, the owner's son, had gone into the barn to sleep. The next day (Sunday), he remained there, and was several times seen by ROBERT CORY, the owner. In the course of conversation, the deceased asked Cory if he knew Mr. PERKINS, a bullock-dealer, for whom he was accustomed to drive cattle; he stated that he had begged meat the day before which would last him for the day. He also said that a young woman of Clawton parish, had cut her throat and fallen into the river. He said he was a single man, and had a sister who was gone to America. He was seen for the last time alive by Robert Cory, in the barn at five o'clock on Sunday afternoon. Cory next went to the barn again on Monday morning at six o'clock, to fetch some straw, and found the deceased hanging by the neck against the wall. He was alarmed and called a neighbour, JAMES MEDLAND, to his assistance. The immediately cut the body down, and discovered that the man was dead. JOHN ROWLAND, a farmer, of Poundstock, stated that he had been in the habit of seeing the deceased at Holsworthy markets and fairs; and SAMUEL TRELEAVEN, a colt-breaker, said that he had been accustomed to see a man very much like him in the neighbourhood of Camelford; he could not, however, undertake to swear that deceased was the person; he judged of him by his dress. The deceased was a short, thick-set man, of dark complexion about 35 years of age. He was dressed in a clean white cotton shirt, light drab coloured cloth coat, dark waistcoat, and corduroy breeches and gaiters. No money was in his pockets, nor anything which could lead to his identity. Verdict, "that the deceased hung himself, but what was the state of his mind at the time there was no evidence to show." CORNWALL SUMMER ASSIZES - The following prisoners were sentenced this morning:- DANIEL SULLIVAN, who had pleaded guilty of stealing a sheep, the property of JOSEPH TEAGUE, at Redruth. The learned Judge said, sheep-stealing was one of those offences which occasionally it was necessary to punish with very great severity, because sheep form a most valuable property in this country, and they are perfectly unprotected. They must of necessity be left in the fields, and are easily killed and stolen by badly disposed persons. If he had reason to suppose that this offence was general in Cornwall, he should inflict upon the prisoner a much more severe sentence. He should now sentence him to Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. SIMON KINVER had been found guilty of maliciously killing a sheep, the property of Mr. THOMAS ADAMS, of Laneast. The learned Judge said, I have endeavoured to ascertain what motive you could have had, for conduct as wicked and malicious as was ever brought forward in a court of justice. You were in the service of a kind master, yet for many weeks you proceeded on the system of killing sheep, giving out that it was done by dogs, and ultimately reporting that it was done by some wild animal which it was supposed had escaped, and in a very few weeks thirty-two sheep were killed by you in this way. Ultimately, Mr. ADAMS seems to have supposed you were the man who did it. He took the pains to watch you, and it was found that you tortured an unfortunate sheep in a manner disgraceful to any man. It is bad enough for such quiet animals to be killed of necessity; but you stabbed this sheep in the shoulder, then cut its throat, then cut its nose nearly off, and then left the animal lying in the field, for the purpose of gratifying a malicious feeling towards a man who had never injured you, and whose only purpose was to discover the man who had destroyed his neighbours' sheep. The sentence of the Court is that you be Transported for Fifteen Years. MARY JANE ALLEN, who had pleaded guilty of stealing money from her master, Mr. RICKARD, of St. Erme, was sentenced to Two Months' Hard Labour. WILLIAM PENGELLY BARNES had pleaded guilty of stealing a German silver watch, waistcoat, handkerchief, and money, the property of JOHN SHERMON, at Truro. The learned Judge said this was a very scandalous larceny from a person in whose house the prisoner had lodged and been treated with kindness. Sentence, Twelve Months' Hard Labour. JOSEPH BASSETT had been found guilty of a burglary in the house of Mrs. RYAN, in the parish of Falmouth. The Judge said, not many years ago, you were convicted of stealing some small articles, for which you were imprisoned two months in the house of correction. Very soon after you came out of prison, you and your brother, who was also concerned in the robbery for which you now stand to receive sentence, were again convicted of what might appear, upon the face of it, to be a slight offence, the stealing of some timber, which I apprehend was out of doors, and if it had not been for your known bad conduct and character, I do not think such a severe sentence would then have been inflicted upon you as transportation for seven years for that offence. I have no doubt the court did right in that case. I presume you obtained a ticket of leave and returned, both of you, and immediately began your crimes afresh. You broke into Mrs. Ryan's house, and stole all the plate you could lay hands on, about GBP30 worth. It is a most serious offence. It is the bounden duty of all persons who administer the law, to protect houses by night. You must be conscious that your race is now run. The sentence of the Court is that you be Transported for the term of your natural life. JOHN COLLIVER had been found guilty of uttering a GBP5 Bank of England note. In passing sentence, the learned Judge observed that Bank of England notes from the bulk of the circulation of this country, and it was the duty of every person administering the law to protect the public against such persons as the prisoner. The note he had attempted to pass was an excellent imitation, and if presented in payment for articles to a large amount, it would probably have been taken, and have passed into circulation, and ultimately have caused loss to some honest person. To pass a forged note wilfully, was as bad a mode of committing a robbery upon a person to that amount, as could well be. From the letters read, it was clear that the prisoner was carrying on a correspondence with a person at Devonport, whose trade was to get these forged bank notes from where they were prepared, and to circulate them through the country. The learned Judge said the prisoner and his correspondent seemed to have understood their trade well, and after making some further remarks upon the case, he sentenced the prisoner to Six Years' Penal Servitude. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER AT TRURO - ANN MATTHEWS, aged 32, shoemaker, JAMES GEORGE, 19, barber, and RICHARD JOSE, 35, tanner, were indicted for the wilful murder of the female child of Ann Matthews; and, in a second count, Ann Matthews and James George were charged with feloniously receiving, harbouring, and maintaining RICHARD JOSE, knowing him to have committed the murder. The following were sworn on the jury:- HENRY RIGHT, foreman, WILLIAM SPRY SPETTIGUE, FRANCIS WALLIS, JOHN SIMMONS, ROBERT VIVIAN; RICHARD SNELL, WILLIAM REYNOLDS, GEORGE SEALY, ANDREW NICHOLLS, MICHAEL OLIVER, CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, and THOMAS PHILLIPS. The jury found Ann Matthews Guilty of concealment of birth; James George Guilty of being an accessory after the fact; and Richard Jose Guilty of manslaughter. The prisoners were then called on, in the usual form, to receive sentence; and the learned Judge thus addressed them:- Ann Matthews, James George, and Richard Jose; you have been convicted by the jury of different offences; and you, Richard Jose, have been found guilty of manslaughter. And as it is right that nothing which occurs in a Court of justice should not be made publicly known, it is my duty to state to the public what that paper was which was put into my hands a short time ago by the jury. Their question was, whether they might legally find you guilty of manslaughter. I had some doubt about that; and I took the opportunity of consulting my brother CHANNELL. My answer then was that if I myself was one of the jurymen I would either find him guilty of murder or acquit him, but that there was no legal obstacle in the way of finding him guilty of manslaughter. I can very well understand the view the jury have taken. They think there was evidence enough in the case to satisfy them that you had a hand in the child's death; but they could not implicitly rely on the evidence of that your woman. I have not a doubt that what passed in their mind was, that they would not convict a man of an offence which would involve the loss of his life, except they felt satisfied it was a murder with malice prepense. I have already stated my opinion that if I had been on the jury, I should have found you guilty of murder, or not; but that there was no legal obstacle to a verdict of manslaughter. They have taken a most merciful view of the case. Your punishment will not be that of death; but it will be my bounden duty to inflict on you the most severe punishment the law enables me. As to you Ann Matthews and James George, the punishment I am about to inflict on you, many may think too slight. But I must act in this matter on the evidence laid before me; and I have no right to suspect, or surmise, or fancy, in what degree you are guilty. As far as I can make out, it may be that the statement is true which the woman made, and which has been put in in evidence more than once, that she did not know what was going on, except that she was privy to the concealment of the child; and therefore that the verdict is a just verdict, in that respect. Whether you had anything to do with the death of the child, is best known to yourself. But the evidence of that is very slight indeed; depending on expressions of the young woman Burns, which may or may not be reported with perfect accuracy, even giving her credit for speaking the truth. The case seems to be perfectly established against you, that you gave birth to this child; and that you consented and agreed to the body being concealed, which is by law an offence. As to you, James George, the part you took in this transaction is a very disgraceful part; and I do trust and hope that the spectacle of you three persons and that your woman will have an effect on persons in the Court. There has been an enormous number of women present to witness this trial - both young and old; and I trust that they - the young ones especially, will take warning by what they have seen. They see a man abandoning his wife, and living in adultery with another woman; they see the natural consequences of that, in the birth of a child; they see the life of that child made away with, from the basest of motives. When young women are tried for child-murder, every person feels disposed not to press the law too hardly against them. But as to you, Ann Matthews, you had no shame in the matter; you were living publicly with that man, and all your neighbours knew it. If a young woman be pregnant, it may be thought desirable she should conceal it. You could have no such object; the only motive suggested is that some small allowance you had from the parish would be stopped. As to you Jose, your only object was to save yourself the expense of supporting the child which your lust and that of the woman had brought into the world. I need not say that a baser motive could not possibly operate on a man's mind; it is a foul a motive as could enter into the mind of a man. As to you James George, it seems you had promised to marry that young woman; but instead of married life with her, you chose to live in concubinage. I suppose no decent persons would allow you to live in their houses, and therefore you went to live with these people. It is really such brutish conduct that one can hardly find words too strong to apply to it. There is no reason why you should not marry that young woman; she is in the same rank of life as yourself. As to Richard Jose, I have already said that the jury having thought fit to act on the view of the case I have just stated, there is no legal obstacle that I know of to their doing so. The sentence on you, Richard Jose, is that you be Transported for the term of your natural life; and that you, Ann Matthews, be Imprisoned for Twelve Months, and be kept to Hard Labour; and that you James George, be Imprisoned and kept to Hard Labour for the same period. The Judge then dismissed the Jury, telling them the country was much indebted to them for their services, and that he was sure they must have had a painful and a difficult duty to perform in dealing with this case. We may add that we were informed, on good authority, that the wife of the prisoner Jose, who lives at Wadebridge, notwithstanding his conduct towards her in living with another woman, had sold off what little property she had, in order to raise money to employ an attorney and counsel to defend her worthless husband. [This case was previously covered in the 4th April, 1856 edition.] NISI PRIUS - Thursday July 31, Before Serjeant CHANNELL - MEREDITH v. MARTYN - The case for the defendant was completed this day by the examination of further witnesses; - GEORGE COBBELDICK, who had worked at Screeda clay-works, and had also for some years occupied Penhale; THOMAS BETTISON, who worked at Screeda under the late Mr. MARTYN, and his widow, the defendant; JOHN GEACH, captain of Mrs. Martyn's clay-works; WILLIAM LANGDON MARTYN, son of defendant; and BENJAMIN JULYAN, brother of Mrs. Martyn, and who had been her agent at the clay-works, since the death of her husband, in 1844. Mr. M. SMITH addressed the jury on the evidence for the defence, remarking that the observations he had made on the law of the case would not now be material, inasmuch as he felt confident he should have the verdict on the main question. His view of the law affecting the case was that, assuming the plaintiff's case proved, the defendant did not break any bank, or take down any dam that was the bank or dam of any water course belonging to the plaintiff; and, therefore, in point of law, there was no cause of action. But his main assertion was that the plaintiff's case was not true, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the water in question, - that this water had flown as it now flowed from time of earliest memory, - that neither Mrs. Martyn, nor any one for her, had made any hole or excavation interfering with the water belonging to Mr. Meredith, - and that the hole complained of had existed from all time. He (Mr. M. Smith) admitted that there was a spring arising in Newton, that a well was afterwards made for collecting and confining the water at that spring, and that there was a leat conveying the water thence to Newton farm-house, and to this water the defendant made no claim whatever. But she claimed to be entitled to the water that had flowed by the two streams out of Penhale hedge, from all time. SERJEANT KINGLAKE replied; reminding the jury that the action, on the record, was shaped in a double way - one allegation being that the plaintiff was in possession of certain land and clay works and by reason of that possession was entitled to a certain stream of water, and that the defendant had cut down the bank of that stream and thereby had deprived the plaintiff of the water; and secondly, there was, what was probably the more important allegation - that the defendant had destroyed a certain dam, and had thus diverted the stream. In support of his case, the learned Serjeant insisted on the principle of law - that whenever a person has a spring of water on his land he has a right to appropriate it to his own use, and even though any overflow of that spring might pass into adjoining premises, yet until that overflow assumed a definite and fixed course, the person on whose property the spring rose to surface, had a right to do everything he could for the appropriation of that water, and he had a right to divert that water in any way, on his own property, if he did nothing to injure adjoining property. In the present case, the spring rose on Newton, the property of Mr. Meredith, and Mr. Meredith was the person entitled to the water from that spring; and it was not because, in years past, some of that water might have filtered or oozed through the hedge of the leat, that Mr. Meredith was not entitled to protect that spring on his own land and to prevent its being turned away or distributed, or obstructed in any possible way; and if any person on adjoining property did any act whereby Mr. Meredith's right to the whole of the water from the spring on his land, was intercepted or interfered with, it became a cause of action The learned Judge then proceeded to the summing up, which occupied him nearly an hour and three quarters. The action was brought by Mr. Meredith against Mrs. Rebecca Martyn for diverting a stream of water, in which Mr. Meredith claimed to have a reversionary interest. The stream of water in question rose from a spring on Newton estate of which they might take it that Mr. Meredith was the owner; his claim arising as devisee in trust under the will of the late Mr. TREFFRY. That the estate of Newton had been let to a gentleman called TEAGUE, who was carrying on clay works there, and who, in respect of this action, had the same rights as his landlord Mr. Meredith. The defendant had pleaded several pleas to this action:- lst, that she was "not guilty:" 2nd, that the plaintiff and his tenants were not the occupiers; 3rd, that the plaintiff had no reversionary interest; and 4th, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the stream. His lordship thought, however, that as regarded the verdict of the jury, the case would mainly depend on the first plea - that of not guilty. Proceeding to speak of the facts of the case, and referring to the plans, his lordship said Newton estate was west of Penhale and of Screeda works; the Newton estate proceeded from north to south, being bounded on the east, on the top part by Penhale estate, and lower down by Screeda Moor. Between the Penhale estate and Newton, and between Penhale and Screeda was a hedge or fence. There was some variance in the evidence, whether that hedge had always existed in the same state as at present. With regard to the fence between Newton and Screeda Moor, there was evidence that it was made within living memory by PAUL ROBINS; bit it was also in evidence that that hedge built by Robins did not go quite up to the fence between Newton and Penhale, but left a space through which water passed and cattle strayed; and that this gap was filled up, completing the fence between Newton on one side, and Penhale and Screeda on the other. The stream of water now in dispute arose thus:- There was now on Newton estate a well, of small depth (twenty-one inches), and occupying, at least in part, the site of a spring previously existing there; and it was formed for the better collection of the water that rose there. In 1834, and prior to the construction of this well, Paul Robins, the then owner of Newton estate, entered into an agreement with Mr. Martyn (husband of the defendant) and who was then working clay-works on Screeda Moor; those clay-works having, at the time, been working for about ten years. The date of that agreement, (on which each party relied as substantiating his case) was the 25th of March, 1834. Previous to that time it would appear from evidence, that there had been an overflowing of water from Newton estate, down to Screeda moors, the overflow probably of springs; and one main object of that agreement was to secure for Mr. Martyn the use of another stream called Carclaze Leat, and which taking its rise on Newton estate passed over to Screeda Moor, much to the south of this spring that had been the subject of so much discussion. But besides granting to Mr. Martyn, the use of Carclaze leat, and stipulating for rent to be paid for it, the agreement went on to what was more particularly now the subject matter of dispute - "all that spring of water, rising on Newton estate, that was not required as pot water for the use of Paul Robins or his tenants at Newton." And, thirdly, there was a demise of a parcel of waste land, &c., &c. For the use of the water it appeared there was a rent, under this agreement, of GBP7 a year; and for the use of the pits and pans on the waste land, a sort of royalty at 1s. 6d. per ten on the clay prepared there. And, as to the duration of contract, it was to be so long as the said John Martyn might require for carrying on his Screeda clay-works. Before the making of this agreement, there was, from the site of the well on Newton estate, a leat going in a southerly direction, and conveying the water to Newton farm house; and subsequently the position of that leat had been removed nearer the hedge before referred to. The agreement had been acted on, and the rent paid, first by Mr. Martyn and afterwards by Mrs. Martyn, to the persons successively entitled to it, until the lease was determined at Lady-day, 1854, by notice from the plaintiff. From that time the conduit was stopped; but the plaintiff's case was that, notwithstanding that stoppage, there was a sufficient supply of water at Newton, until about the 13th of October, 1855; and the plaintiff alleged that this diminution of supply was caused by defendant's diversion of the water of that stream; in the first place, by cutting the bank of that stream; and secondly, by removing and destroying a dam; and these were the wrongful acts which were alleged against the defendant. In the present case, the question was, had the defendant been guilty of either of the two wrongful acts charged against her in the declaration:- in the first place, whether she or her agents had diverted the water by making the hole in the bank; and, in the next place, supposing the defendants had not made that hole originally; whether they had removed a turf placed in it by the plaintiff, and this removed or destroyed a dam. Another point in this case was, supposing the jury should be of opinion there was proof that the defendant had done anything to the hole, whether that was not done on the Penhale estate, which was in defendant's occupation; and the learned judge referred to evidence adduced, that the visible hole was on the Penhale side, and he stated that it was part of the defendant's case that this hole was through the Penhale hedge, at the corner where that hedge joins the Newton hedge, that that hole had been there as long as any remembrance, and that water had issued through it, before the agreement between Robins and Martyn, and before the conduit was made; that it flowed through two channels which united into one stream some four or five feet after it came out of the Penhale hedge. The defendants asserted that though, after the determination of the agreement, they had no right to any supply of water from the conduit leading from the well, yet that they had a right to water coming out of that hole which had existed prior to that agreement. And they (the jury) would have to consider, as one part of this case, whether they believed that that hole existed now in the same shape and character, and so as to admit, as near as might be, about the same supply of water as before that agreement was entered into. To fix the defendant on the first count, the plaintiff must satisfy the jury that the defendant diverted the water by tapping the bank; but if the hole was there before, and had been uninterfered with by the defendant, then the declaration was not proved as regarded that first count; although if holes were caused, naturally by the action of water, and were not artificial holes made purposely and intentionally, the plaintiff might be entitled, on his own land, to stop the exit of water, and preserve the overflow. But the plaintiff insisted that there was no hole previously and that the hole had been made by the defendant's agents, and that it interfered with the bank of the stream; and he (the learned judge) should ask the jury to say, by their verdict, whether they were satisfied that the hole was made by the defendant at all, and then, if the defendant made the hole, whether it was a hole that interfered with anything except the Penhale and Screeda Moor estates. As affecting cases of this kind, his lordship said there was a difference between water running on the surface, and water that was subterranean. In the present case, the water was neither one nor the other exactly; and if the plaintiff was entitled to a certain spring on his own land, at the point where the well was now situated, and the water afterwards taking its course downwards, the defendant drained the spring on plaintiff's land, by means of a hole made in her own land, his lordship was of opinion that this was not a wrongful act, as now charged in this declaration. He did not say it was not an act for which the defendant might not otherwise be responsible. There were certain rights attached to a visible stream of water; the person through whose land it flowed was entitled to a certain enjoyment of that stream; he could not interrupt that water in its natural passage so as to prevent a person lower down the stream having the benefit of the flow of water through his land; and he could not dam that water above so as to throw on the land higher up such an accumulation of water as would be injurious or offensive. But that was as to the uses of a stream visible to the eye. If, however, the spring in the plaintiff's land on the Newton Estate, had been drained and the supply cut off by means of a hole dug entirely in the lands of the defendant, without saying that the defendant might not be answerable in some way or other, all he would say on this point was that that hole if made by defendant, and made entirely in adjoining land - not the Newton land - though it might have the wrongful act charged in the first count of the declaration, - namely, the cutting of the bank. The second count of the declaration charged the defendant with removing a dam. What was said to be the dam was this:- After October last, a turf was placed by plaintiff's agents, to stop the outlet of water, which the hole had caused. He thought it was immaterial whether this turf stopped the outlet entirely or only partially. The plaintiff might have had a right to stop the outlet, on the supposition that it had been made since the agreement referred to. But if the turf was placed in a hole that was entirely on the eastern - the Penhale side, then it was no dam of the plaintiff's stream, such as would support this action - it was not a dam of the stream that plaintiff seeks to be entitled to. Before reading over the evidence bearing on the points spoken on, the learned judge gave some statements in explanation of the conduit which he had before briefly referred to. It appeared that immediately after the agreement in 1834, this conduit was made for the purpose of collecting water in, and it was stopped at the expiration of the agreement, in order to prevent in future the supply of water. (Further description would be unintelligible without plans.) The learned judge again reminding the jury, that the question they had to determine was that which arose on the plea of "not guilty," proceeded to read and comment on his notes of evidence; and then, again stating that the principal question arose on the plea of "not guilty," sand that if the spring arose in plaintiff's land, though the plaintiff might be entitled to stop for the future any overflow that had taken place, yet the right to the stream and even the right to stop any overflow were quite distinct and different from the question whether or not the defendant had been guilty of cutting a bank or removing a dam. If the hole which was there in March last was a hole that existed long before, and was made by natural causes, or was enlarged, or increased by natural causes, without any interference by the defendant, then the issue, on the plea of not guilty, was not established against the defendant, with regard to the first count. If the hole was made by the defendant, but made in her own lands, and if the effect of it was to drain only underground springs of adjoining land, then, without saying it would not subject the defendant to some liability, he was of opinion it would not warrant or sustain the wrongful act now charged. If the hole was not made on the Newton estate, then it did not appear to him that the removal of the turf placed there by the plaintiff, was the destroying of a dam of the stream to which the plaintiff was entitled in his own land. If the hole was entirely on the Penhale side and not at all on the Newton side, then, in the learned Judge's judgment, neither of the wrongful acts charged in the declaration could be established. The jury would say if the defendant was guilty or not guilty. If they thought the hole was not made by the defendant or by her directions, they would say so. If they thought it was made by her directions, but was made wholly on her own estate, they would say so. If they found the defendant not guilty, they would also state on what issue they found. If they found that the defendant made the hole and made it in the Newton estate, the land of the plaintiff, and that that hole carried away the water rising on the plaintiff's estate, then they would find for the plaintiff. At ten minutes past three the jury retired, and in half an hour they returned into court; and their Foreman said - "We find for the defendant, on the plea of not guilty." In answer to questions from the learned Judge, the jury said they found that the defendant had not interfered with the hole at all, and had nothing to do with it; that what had taken place with reference to the hole was in the Penhale land; that the hole itself was in the Penhale land, and did not extend into the Newton land. The verdict was entered - for the defendant, on the plea of not guilty; and for the plaintiff, on the other issues. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY - In re: C. J. MARE - A meeting was held under the estate of this bankrupt. The meeting was held to take into consideration a proposition under the 230th section of the act to effect a composition, but since the meeting was advertised in the Gazette, a sale of a portion of the property had taken place, in consequence of which, a notice was inserted in some of the daily papers, signed by Messrs. LINKLATER, the accountants to the bankrupt, that the present meeting would not be held. This notice, however was not considered sufficient, and Mr. LAWRANCE, the solicitor for the assignees, and several of the creditors, were in attendance. The original object of the meeting, of course, could not be carried out, and a discussion ensued as to costs, &c. His Honor ultimately decided on adjourning for the decision of Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD, on his return after his vacation. No further meeting to be advertised without permission of the Court, and notice of any intention to apply to be given to the opposing creditors. EXETER DISTRICT COURT OF BANKRUPTCY - Re: JOSIAH TREGELLAS, St. Agnes, Cornwall, draper. This bankrupt came up at a recent sitting of the Court for last examination. The balance sheet commenced on the 21st January 1853, and concluded on the 6th of June 1856. On the debtor side there were debts owing to the amount of GBP673. 9s. 10d.; profits of business, GBP375. 13s. 0d., and capital at the commencement of balance sheet, GBP71. 8s. 7d. The creditor side showed debts due, GBP71. 18. 5d.; property consisting chiefly of furniture and stock, GBP566. 19s. 11d.; losses, GBP31; trade expenses, GBP128. 14s. 5d., and household ditto, GBP319. 7s. 6d. Among the creditors are COCKING and SON, Penzance GBP17. 19s. 9d.; S. AND J. JAMES, Truro, GBP12. 19s.; JAMES MARTIN, St. Agnes, GBP30; PARKYN and REED, Truro, GBP89. 13s. 11d.; SAMUEL PASCOE, Truro, GBP11. 1s. 10d.; J. REYNALDS, Truro, GBP11. 13s. 4d.; T. TREGELLAS, sen., GBP100. There are also debts due to R. J. WATTS, Plymouth, NORRIS and CO., London; TINTON, FRANCIS and CO., Bristol; CANDY and EGGAR, Bristol, &c. The cause of bankruptcy was stated to be "want of capital. The cost of maintenance was 30s. per week for four in the family and a servant. The bankrupt passed his last examination without opposition. CORNWALL ROYAL REGATTA, 1856. - The weather for many days previously had been beautifully fine, but with only occasional "catspaws" of wind. Tuesday was, however, ushered in with a fine breeze from the east, and raised the hopes of our yachting friends who had been predicting a calm. Flags were exhibited at the various flat staffs on the coast. The schooner yacht "Claymore," the property of the Hon. HERCULES ROWLEY, was gaily ornamented with flags, and various other craft exhibited colours. The starting vessel was an iron craft, lent by Mr. A. FOX. The first race was between yachts under 20 tons, for twenty sovereigns. Five boats ran, and arrived in the following order:- 1. Upac...Falmouth...T. SYMONS...13 tons. 2. Foam...ditto...M. V. BULL...13 tons. 3. Syren...ditto...J. BORLASE...10 tons. 4. Mercury...ditto...E. C. CARNE...14 tons. 5. Petrel...ditto...A. M. BEAUCHANT...7 tons. The "Upac," whilst getting to her buoy, unfortunately ran afoul the "Foam," second class, and carried away her jib, and did other trifling damage, which, however, was repaired, and by the kindness of a gentleman who lent the owner of the "Foam" another sail, she was enabled to race. The second race was for yachts, not exceeding 8 tons, and prizes of ten and five sovereigns were offered, which were run for by the following boats:- 1. Frolic...Falmouth...R. A. MANGIN...6 tons. 2. Cygnet...ditto...G. M. NICHOLLS...6 tons. 3. Blue Eyed Maid...ditto...T. BEAUCHANT...6 tons. This was the most exciting race of the day, the boats being of equal tonnage, and were considered fairly matched. It was won easily by the "Frolic," which was the only boat that went fairly round the course, the "Cynet" having fouled the mark boat, and the "Blue Eyed Maid" gone the wrong side of the starting vessel. The second prize was, however awarded to the "Blue Eyed Maid," the property of Mr. Beauchant. The next race was between pleasure boats not exceeding 18 feet, only two boats were entered. 1. Ida...Point...W. H. CHELLEW...18 feet. 2. Jean...Falmouth...H. TRETHOWAN...18 feet. This race was won only by a few seconds, the "Ida" being closely followed by the "Jean." In the class for sailing boats not exceeding 13 feet 6 inches, four boats were entered but only two finished. 1. Emelia...Pill...S. CLYMA. 2. Pet...Falmouth...A. COPLIN. Lug sail punts not exceeding 17 feet. In this class seven boats were entered. 1. Sarah...Falmouth...W. ROBERTS. 2. Three Brothers...St. Mawes...T. RAGLAN. 3 Aurora...Falmouth...C. HALL. In the lug-sail punt class; 1. Lily...Falmouth...W. ROBERTS. 2. Richard...St. Mawes...R. JENKIN. 3. Gem...Falmouth...M. W. BAYLY. The next race between market and oyster boats. 1. Fox...St. Mawes...T. DODSON. 2. Clara...Falmouth...S. DOWRICK. 3 Emma...Falmouth...J. COPLIN. Between four-oared gigs not exceeding 28 feet. 1. Teazer...Truro...R. STEVENS. 2. Camilla...Falmouth...DIXON. The concluding race was between amateurs, in boats of the same length. 1. Camilla...Falmouth...DIXON. 2. Teazer...Truro...E. SHARP. There being a great disparity between the "Camilla" and "Teazer," credit is due to the crew of the former, they having a much heavier boat. The race between the Pilot Boats, which has always been considered the leading race of the day, did not come off, all but one having declined to come forward. We are sorry the pilots did not exercise their usual spirit, which would have been the means of adding so largely to the amusements of the day. The "Wasp," of Falmouth, No. 13, owned by JAMES LOWRY, went around the course, and had a sum awarded her. A deputation from the committee, consisting of the Chairman, W. CARNE, Esq., Mayor, and Capt. PORTEOUS, R.N., waited on the Hon. Hercules Rowley, of the schooner "Claymore," to express their thanks for his gentlemanly conduct in offering his vessel for their use, and for the assistance given to the day's amusement.

West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday 27th June, 1856. NARROW ESCAPE FROM SHIPWRECK - The "Germania," from Cork to Weymouth, with the 1st Devon Militia on board, after remaining off the Land's End in a thick fog for twenty consecutive hours, ignorant of her exact position, suddenly, on the afternoon of the 13th, found herself on the rocks at Sennen Cove, Land's End, and was in imminent danger of being lost with her freight of 600 persons, but the captain's admirable presence of mind, aided by some Cornish fishermen, succeeded in getting the ship safely off. The regiment were all on deck, but the officers were on the instant at their posts, and owing to their control not a man moved, and not a voice was heard save those of the captain, the look-out, and the pilot fishermen. The officers of the regiment addressed a letter to Captain Neynaber, previous to disembarkation, "expressing their appreciation of the admirable self-possession displayed by him on that occasion, adding also a hope that if ever they should again be placed in similar peril they might have to trust, under God, to a heart equally stout and courteous. CORONER'S INQUEST - The following inquest has been held by Mr. JOHN CARLYON, county coroner:- On the 20th instant, at Gwennap, on the body of WILLIAM FAULL, miner, aged 36 years, who was killed underground in Carn Brea mine, on Thursday, by a slide of ground falling on him whilst he was sinking a winze. It appeared that some tributers in their former workings had left an arch of ground standing which was supposed to be perfectly secure, but, very unexpectedly on Thursday last, it gave way and caused the surrounding country which it supported to slide, and a large quantity rolled down into the winze; and amongst it a large rock, of about a ton weight, which was obliged to be split before the deceased could be extricated from under it; and before this could be done the deceased was quite dead. Verdict "accidental death." THE SHIP "CHARLES CHALLONER." - To the Editor of the West Briton. Sir, - Having secured a passage on board the ship "Charles Challoner," for myself and family, bound for Quebec, with Captain A. FOX in command, we sailed from Falmouth on the 14th ultimo. And as a mark of respect, and from a feeling of deep gratitude towards Captain Fox, for his kind attention towards myself, family, and fellow passengers during the voyage, you will confer on me a favour by allowing me, through the medium of your valuable columns, to express my heartfelt thanks towards Capt. Fox, for myself and fellow passengers, not forgetting to assure him, that he has, through his unremitting attention in watching over the wants, &c., of his passengers, stamped a feeling in their breasts towards him that cannot be easily erased. It may be pleasing to many friends to hear that we reached Quebec, all well, on the 19th instant, after a voyage of thirty-four days. Having left Falmouth with a fair wind, we soon lost sight of our native land, and doubtless with many reflections. Before we had found ourselves settled in our berths, we were run into by a large vessel, name unknown (the morning after our departure from Falmouth); fortunately we escaped all right, with the exception of the carrying away of our boat, and the knocking in of our bulwarks, saying nothing of the sudden shock, and the great alarm caused through the accident. All passed on well after this, until the 30th ult., when we experienced a heavy gale, which we suffered under for three days. But having escaped our two first frights all well, we thought ourselves good sailors, and were now prepared for anything in the form of a sea life. But we were much disappointed, on the 9th instant, when we found ourselves surrounded with ice; luckily we only struck the ice once, which I assure you was enough, as it gave us a severe shock. To us it is most remarkable, however we escaped such a vast field without further injury, as the eye could discern nothing but ice. We cleared the ice on the 11th instant, and now we anticipated all pleasure; but to our great discomfiture, we were almost immediately enveloped with a fog, which lasted some two or three days. Capt. Fox here showed great watchfulness, which relieved us of much of our fears. On the 14th we made sight of land, a welcome stranger to us all. On the 17th instant we landed at Quebec, and parted with Capt. Fox for a short time, after cheering him to the full extent of our united voices. He soon again joined us, and accompanied us as far as Port Hope; here we again parted, and returned him another salute. Our party began to drop away very fast at the various points; and at last all parted, in this wide and beautiful country. I am, Sir, Yours most obediently, THOS. DUNSTAN. Hamilton, Canada West, 31st May, 1856.

West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday 27th June, 1856. NARROW ESCAPE FROM SHIPWRECK - The “Germania,” from Cork to Weymouth, with the 1st Devon Militia on board, after remaining off the Land’s End in a thick fog for twenty consecutive hours, ignorant of her exact position, suddenly, on the afternoon of the 13th, found herself on the rocks at Sennen Cove, Land’s End, and was in imminent danger of being lost with her freight of 600 persons, but the captain’s admirable presence of mind, aided by some Cornish fishermen, succeeded in getting the ship safely off. The regiment were all on deck, but the officers were on the instant at their posts, and owing to their control not a man moved, and not a voice was heard save those of the captain, the look-out, and the pilot fishermen. The officers of the regiment addressed a letter to Captain Neynaber, previous to disembarkation, “expressing their appreciation of the admirable self-possession displayed by him on that occasion, adding also a hope that if ever they should again be placed in similar peril they might have to trust, under God, to a heart equally stout and courteous. CORONER’S INQUEST - The following inquest has been held by Mr. JOHN CARLYON, county coroner:- On the 20th instant, at Gwennap, on the body of WILLIAM FAULL, miner, aged 36 years, who was killed underground in Carn Brea mine, on Thursday, by a slide of ground falling on him whilst he was sinking a winze. It appeared that some tributers in their former workings had left an arch of ground standing which was supposed to be perfectly secure, but, very unexpectedly on Thursday last, it gave way and caused the surrounding country which it supported to slide, and a large quantity rolled down into the winze; and amongst it a large rock, of about a ton weight, which was obliged to be split before the deceased could be extricated from under it; and before this could be done the deceased was quite dead. Verdict “accidental death.” THE SHIP “CHARLES CHALLONER.” - To the Editor of the West Briton. Sir, - Having secured a passage on board the ship “Charles Challoner,” for myself and family, bound for Quebec, with Captain A. FOX in command, we sailed from Falmouth on the 14th ultimo. And as a mark of respect, and from a feeling of deep gratitude towards Captain Fox, for his kind attention towards myself, family, and fellow passengers during the voyage, you will confer on me a favour by allowing me, through the medium of your valuable columns, to express my heartfelt thanks towards Capt. Fox, for myself and fellow passengers, not forgetting to assure him, that he has, through his unremitting attention in watching over the wants, &c., of his passengers, stamped a feeling in their breasts towards him that cannot be easily erased. It may be pleasing to many friends to hear that we reached Quebec, all well, on the 19th instant, after a voyage of thirty-four days. Having left Falmouth with a fair wind, we soon lost sight of our native land, and doubtless with many reflections. Before we had found ourselves settled in our berths, we were run into by a large vessel, name unknown (the morning after our departure from Falmouth); fortunately we escaped all right, with the exception of the carrying away of our boat, and the knocking in of our bulwarks, saying nothing of the sudden shock, and the great alarm caused through the accident. All passed on well after this, until the 30th ult., when we experienced a heavy gale, which we suffered under for three days. But having escaped our two first frights all well, we thought ourselves good sailors, and were now prepared for anything in the form of a sea life. But we were much disappointed, on the 9th instant, when we found ourselves surrounded with ice; luckily we only struck the ice once, which I assure you was enough, as it gave us a severe shock. To us it is most remarkable, however we escaped such a vast field without further injury, as the eye could discern nothing but ice. We cleared the ice on the 11th instant, and now we anticipated all pleasure; but to our great discomfiture, we were almost immediately enveloped with a fog, which lasted some two or three days. Capt. Fox here showed great watchfulness, which relieved us of much of our fears. On the 14th we made sight of land, a welcome stranger to us all. On the 17th instant we landed at Quebec, and parted with Capt. Fox for a short time, after cheering him to the full extent of our united voices. He soon again joined us, and accompanied us as far as Port Hope; here we again parted, and returned him another salute. Our party began to drop away very fast at the various points; and at last all parted, in this wide and beautiful country. I am, Sir, Yours most obediently, THOS. DUNSTAN. Hamilton, Canada West, 31st May, 1856.

The West Briton (Friday, 01 Aug 1856) reported the the following death: > DEATHS > > At MARAZION, on > Saturday last, James, infant child of Capt. William SEMMENS, of the > "Amity," The name of the infant was actually William George SEMMENS, whose brief 5 weeks life is well documented in the Marazion parish registers: Born 18 Jun 1856, Marazion (per baptism register) Baptized 16 Jul 1856, Marazion (per baptism register) Died 26 Jul 1856, Marazion (per The West Briton) Buried 29 Jul 1856, Marazion (per burial register) The death of William George SEMMENS was registered during 3Q1856 in the Penzance district, where the name James SEMMENS does not appear in death registrations for that quarter. Bill Curnow Port Charlotte, FL, USA

West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. 1ST AUGUST 1856 transcribed by Graeme and Sue Dawson . BIRTHS . At TRURO, on the 21st instant, the wife of Mr. Thomas WHETTER, butcher, of a daughter. . At PENZANCE, the wife of Mr. John TRYTHALL, Jun., of a daughter;;and on Sunday last, the wife of Mr. John RODDA, blacksmith, of a son. . At GULVAL, last week, the wife of Mr. Barzillai MAJOR, of a son. . At PHILLACK, on Sunday last, the wife of Mr. Richard MATTHEWS, of a daughter; the wife of Mr. John DELBRIDGE, of a son;;and the wife of Mr. William CONGDON, of a daughter. . At GWINEAR, on Saturday last, the wife of Mr. William HARVEY, of a son. . At REDRUTH, the wife of Mr. R. J. PEARCE, painter, of a daughter; and the wife of Mr. S. THOMAS, of a son. . At COSWAY, in the parish of GWENNAP, on the 24th inst., the wife of Mr. William BRAY, of a son. . At CREEGBRAWS, on Wednesday last, the wife of Mr. John ODGERS, of a daughter. . At ST.DAY, on the 23rd instant, the wife of Mr. Stephen TREBILCOCK, of a daughter. . At CHACEWATER, on Saturday last, the wife of Mr. Richard LEAN, OF A DAUGHTER. . At BALDHU, on the 31st instant the wife of Mr. Hercules TREGONING, of a son. . At CARNEHOT, in the parish of KEA, on Sunday last, the wife of Mr. John PAULL, of a daughter. . At ST.COLUMB, on the 23rd instant, the wife of Mr. M. A. WEST, of a son; and the wife of Mr. J. B. BARRY, of a son. . At BUGLE, near ROCHE, on Monday last, the wife of Mr. BAWDEN, of a still-born daughter. . At LOSTWITHIEL, on Tuesday last, the wife of Mr. PAPPIN, of a son. . At ROSE HILL, LOSTWITHIEL, on Monday last, the wife of Charles MAXWELL, Esq., of a son. . At WEST LOOE, on the 19th instant, the wife of Mr. C. THOMAS, of a son. . At KIRLAND, near BODMIN, on the 22nd inst., the wife of Mr. George MILLS, saddler, of a daughter. . At WADEBRIDGE, on Tuesday last, the wife of Mr. James E. SYMONS, solicitor, of a son. . At TREVENA, in the parish of TINTAGEL, on Sunday last, the wife of Mr. John WELCH, of a son. . At ST.MINVER Vicarage, on Wednesday last, the wife of the Rev. W. Hart SMITH, of a son. . At Cottage on the Walk, LAUNCESTON, on the 24th instant, the wife of Richard PETER, Esq., solicitor, of a daughter. . On Thursday the 17th instant, the wife of D. F. TYERMAN, Esq., of COLNEY HATCH, MIDDLESEX, of a daughter. . At KENT, on Saturday last, the wife of C. E. RASHLEIGH, Esq., of a son. . MARRIAGES . At PENWERRIS, FALMOUTH, on the 31st instant, Captain Richard MAY, of the "Jane May," of GERRANS, to Constance Ann, daughter of the late Mr. John DUNKIN, of MYLOR. . At HELSTON, on Friday last, Mr. James WALLACE, draper, to Eliza, eldest of Mr. James ELLIS, manger of the Helston Banking Company. . At the Registrar's Office, PENZANCE, on the Sunday last, Mr. John TREVORROW, to Miss Mary TREVORROW, both of ST.IVES. . At the Wesleyan chapel, COPPERHOUSE, on Saturday last, Mr. Immanuel POOL to Mrs. C. THOMAS, both of PHILLACK. . At LUDGVAN, on the 23rd instant, Mr. William LAITY, of MAWNAN, to Emily, daughter of Mr. Richard WHITE, of TREVORROW; and on Saturday last, Mr. John THOMAS, of LUDGVAN, to Miss Mary Jane HODGE, of ST.HALIRY. [Hilary??] . At CAMBORNE, on Sunday last, Mr. Walter BRANWELL, GOYLE, to Miss Jane A. DAWE; and on MONDAY, Mr. Joseph TREZONA to Miss Elizabeth RODDA. . At All Saints Church, TUCKINGMILL, by the Rev Charles Jenkins, Mr. Isaac THOMAS, accountant, to Susan Burrall, eldest daughter of Mr. James JENKIN, wheelwright, of that place. . At the Primitive Methodist Chapel, REDRUTH, on Monday last, by the Rev. Robert Hartley, of ST.IVES, The Rev Edwin Window MATTHEWS, Primitive Methodist Minister, of NEWLYN, to Miss Elizabeth COWLING, of REDRUTH. . At ST.COLUMB MAJOR, on Sunday last, by the Rev. P. Semkey, Mr. DERRY, of EXETER, to Mary Jane, second daughter of the late Mr. Anthony COCK, of ST.ENODER. . At ST.AUSTELL, last week, Mr. TREMAIN to Mrs. Elizabeth CROCKER, both of ST.BLAZEY. . At BODMIN, on the 22nd instant, Mr. Frederick JAGO, Serjeant in the Royal Cornwall Rangers, to Miss Isabella BRAY, of CELLARS, near WADEBRIDGE. . At OTTERHAM, on the 15th instant, Mr. John PHILLIPS, of LANLIVERY, to Elizabeth, youngest daughter of Mr. John HAWKE, of the former place. . At St. Paul's Church, DEVONPORT, on the 23rd instant, Mr. William MEDLAND, late of LOOE, shipwright, in H.M. Dockyard, DEVONPART, to Miss Elizabeth ROBERTS, of PLYMOUTH. . At St. George's Church, STONEHOUSE, on the 20th inst., Mr. John HOYLE, of AXMOUTH, to Elizabeth, second daughter of the late Mr. Samuel TREEBY, of PLYMOUTH. . At STOKE Church, on the 23rd instant. Mr. Henry VOGWELL, gardener, Penlee Lodge, to Miss Ann ROUNCIVELL, STOKE. . At STOKE NEWINGTON, on the 24th instant, by the Rev. J. Jackson, William Britton, eldest son of Richard STEPHENS, Esq., of STAMFORD Hill, LONDON, to Marianne, eldest daughter of Mr. J. J. Reynolds, of REGENT'S PARK, and 21 Threadneedle-street. . At BIDEFORD, on the 22nd instant, by the Rev. James White, Rector of LAUNCELLS, in this county, Charles Wm. PRIDHAM, Esq., M.R.C. S., AND F. R. C. S., to Lucy Charlotte, third daughter of the late Rev. Peter FOULKES, rector of SHEBBEAR. . At COTTISFORD, OXFORDSHIRE, on the 24th instant, by the Rev. J. W. Johns, Thomas WORSELL,Esq., chief master of the West India Docks, LONDON, to Elizabeth, only surviving daughter of the late John JOHNS, Esq., of ST.MARY'S, SCILLY. . At the Wesleyan Chapel, SYDNEY, on the 4th of March last, Mr. Charles LOCKYER, of H. M. Customs, SYDNEY, to Eliza, third daughter of the late Mr. Richard ROWE, cabinet-maker, formerly of PENZANCE. . DEATHS . At TRURO, on the 19th instant, Annie, infant child of Mr. John SYMONDS, cabinet-maker. . At MANACCAN, on the 21st instant, the wife of Mr. Joseph JOHNS, carpenter, aged 46 years. . At MARAZION, on Saturday last, James, infant child of Capt. William SEMMENS, of the "Amity," . At PENZANCE, on Monday last, Mr. Thomas B. STEVENS, aged 62 years. . At HAYLE foundry, on Wednesday last, John, son of Mr. N. THOMAS, aged 3 years. . At VENTONLEAGUE, in the parish of PHILLACK, on Saturday last, Mr. Thomas CHAMPION, aged 82 years. . At ST.ERTH, on Friday last, after a long illness, Mr. William LEACHER, of the New Inn, aged 57 years. . At GWINEAR, on the 24th instant, William, son of Mr. John KNEEBONE, aged 6 years; and at GWINEAR DOWNS, on Monday last, Elizabeth Jane, daughter of Mr. Francis BODDY, aged 18 years. . At CAMBORNE, on Sunday last, the infant son of Mr. Thomas OLIVER, confectioner. . At TREFULA, REDRUTH, on the 23rd instant, suddenly, the wife of Capt. R. HART, aged 50 years; at DOPPA, on Sunday last, Elizabeth, relict of the late Stephen DAVEY, aged 65 years; and at CARDREW, the infant son of Mr. William LAITY. . At BISSOE, on the 18th instant, much respected, Mr. Thomas MARSHALL, late of MORGAN- in MENAGE, aged 57 years. . At FIDDLERS GREEN, NEWLYN EAST, on Saturday last, Eleanor, relict of the late Mr. James DONNELL, of REDRUTH, aged 88 years. . At NEWQUAY, on Saturday last, Mr. William VIVIAN, aged 61 years. . At TREVEMPER BRIDGE, ST.COLUMB MINOR, on Sunday last, Louisa, wife of Mr. Mark BURT. . At HOLMBUSH, in the parish of ST.AUSTELL, on Monday last, Mr. Isaac WATTS, aged 34 years. . At ST.BLAZEY, on Monday last. Hannah, wife of Mr. Joseph HARRIS, druggist, and daughter of the Rev. J. SKEAT, aged 44 years.. At WEST LOOE, on the 12th instant, Mr. Charles TOMS, aged 29 years. . At POLPERRO, on the 22nd instant, Mr. Thomas JOHNS, aged 80 years. . At PENGOVER GREEN, on the 19th instant, the wife of Captain W. ROWE, of Trewetha Mine. . At BIDEFORD, on the 20th instant, Admiral Henry Richard GLYNN, youngest son of the late Sergeant GLYNN, of GLYNN, in this county, and M. P. for MIDDLESEX, aged 88 years. . At MUTLEY, on Monday last, Jane, wife of Mr. Philip RAWLE, ship owner, aged 30 years. . At the Grove, CAMBERWELL, on the 25th instant, John Rashleigh STACKHOUSE, Esq., aged 34 years. . At Albany-road, CAMBERWELL, LONDON, on the 22nd inst., Miss Lucretia FRAY, late of FURZE, MOORWINSTOW, in this county, aged 70 years.. At LIVERPOOL, on Monday last, Lieut. M. W. BAKE, R. N., late of DELABOLE, in this county. . At CARDIFF, on the 20th inst., Mr. Samuel GARRATT, son of Mr. GARRATT, of PERRAN WHARF, aged 20 years.

Hi folks - A little confusion here. This was a personal message sent from Isabel to me, regarding West Briton transcriptions and images. Not to worry, We're working out a system where should one of us develop a yen to wander to sunny climes (Spain, anyone?) another can continue posting - and posts to the List will be seamless. Leastwise, that's what we're hoping. Plus, it's a great way images for 1857 (and other years) can be accessed by all the transcribers, at their will. Wonderful for different schedules, etc. & backup files. Should anyone be interested, Dropbox offers online storage for free, with limits, and you can share information by invitation only with others fairly easily. Cheers, Julia ps - you can Google Dropbox; that's how I found it > Hi again Julia, > > Perhaps just to complete 1859, and if you have time, could you put in > the following transcriptions completed.<snipped> >Isabel

Hi Marc, Carol, Julia and all An interesting thread which, apart from anything else, reminds us not to take the information on census records at face value. I wonder if the explanation could be as simple as the census forms not providing for the marital status being described as "divorced" and that the next closest description was "widow or widower". But I have occasionally seen "married - living apart". Cheers Chris -----Original Message----- From: cornish-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cornish-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Marc Young Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012 4:13 PM To: cornish@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH] Divorced women as 'widows' Good morning. I, too, have great great grandparents who did this. In one census, my gg grandmother is still at home with all the children, described as a widow. My gg grandfather is in the census in London, living with a much younger woman and a young child ( don't think the child was his ) and he is described as a widower too. It gets worse ( or better ). In the next census my gg grandfather is living in London with the widow of a deceased brother of his. Next door is my gg grandmother acting as 'housekeeper ' to a gent so she, too, had moved to London. My gg grandmother had caught up with him but in truth it seems they were both 'as bad as each other' or just happy to live just apart as friends - or irritable neighbours! Marc in UK

Good morning. I, too, have great great grandparents who did this. In one census, my gg grandmother is still at home with all the children, described as a widow. My gg grandfather is in the census in London, living with a much younger woman and a young child ( don't think the child was his ) and he is described as a widower too. It gets worse ( or better ). In the next census my gg grandfather is living in London with the widow of a deceased brother of his. Next door is my gg grandmother acting as 'housekeeper ' to a gent so she, too, had moved to London. My gg grandmother had caught up with him but in truth it seems they were both 'as bad as each other' or just happy to live just apart as friends - or irritable neighbours! Marc in UK -----Original Message----- From: cornish-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cornish-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Julia Mosman Sent: 25 September 2012 11:35 To: cornish@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH] Divorced women as 'widows' Hi Carol and everyone - In 1910 my grandmother was legally divorced from her husband. I believe at the time a divorced woman was considered "loose", and socially not acceptable. The "social columns" in the town newspaper ceased to record parties where she appeared as a guest or hostess, nor trips etc. that they had previously mentioned. She then lived in several different cities with her son. In every single census, and every city directory, etc., she was shown as "widow". It worked well until she returned to the town in which they had lived - his home town - where everyone knew she wasn't a widow, but the census continued to record her as 'widow', as did her obituary. By that time, her ex-husband had died. Her ex-husband remarried, and was recorded in the usual manner with that wife, but as they lived in New York City, thousands of miles away, it didn't matter. She was officially, legally called Mrs. Edw. Symons, rather than Mrs. Edith Symons, in almost every legal docu! ment I've seen. (Although she did sign "Edith Symons" for her will.) Ah, the nebulous bounds of propriety! Cheers, Julia > In checking some censuses I found a sister of my grandfather who was > listed as a widow, then found her husband listed as a widower and > alive and living in London. The widow was living in Wales with her > sister. There were no descendants of the alleged widow or her > husband. This may have been the custom to avoid the "shame" of a > failed marriage, but surely people were not encouraged to lie in official records. Has anyone else found similar items? > Carol in MD > ------------------------------- Subscribe to digest by sending an email to CORNISH-D-request@rootsweb.com with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject line and body text. If you want, MIME digests, email CORNISH-admin@rootsweb.com. Unsubscribe from either by sending an email to CORNISH-request@rootsweb.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CORNISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi again Julia, Perhaps just to complete 1859, and if you have time, could you put in the following transcriptions completed. I am still a little confused about Dropbox, but do you want me to put on there all that I have transcribed for 1856-57-58-59, or only the month we are currently sending to the Con sites? I noticed you have put on two weeks of August 1857 BMDs. Do you want me to follow suit and put on my transcriptions for that month. Cheers, Isabel. 1859 -  January News Lorena BMDs    February News Julia BMDs    March News Isabel - Transcripts completed. BMDs    April News Lorena BMDs    May News Julia BMDs > >    June News Isabel - Transcripts completed. BMDs > >    July News Lorena BMDs > >    August News Julia BMDs    September News Isabel - Transcripts completed. BMDs  October News Lorena BMDs  November News Julia BMDs  December News Isabel BMDs

Final part for this week's news. West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday, 1st August, 1856. Part 3. MURDER OF A SOLDIER - SENTENCE OF DEATH. - WILLIAM NEVAN was indicted for the wilful murder of Benjamin Robinson, on the 1st of June. He was also charged with the same offence on the coroner's inquisition. The prisoner, when arraigned, and asked whether he was guilty or not guilty, replied, "Not guilty, it happened by accident." The same jury were sworn as in the previous case, with the exception of WILLIAM CHARLES CROWLE in place of GEORGE LEACH. The counsel for the prosecution were Mr. COLLIER, Q.C., and Mr. HOLDSWORTH; for the defence, Mr. COLERIDGE. The prisoner is an Irishman, aged 44. Mr. Collier stated the case for the prosecution. He had to call the attention of the jury to a very grave and solemn investigation into the circumstances attending the death of a brave officer in her Majesty's service. The deceased was a sergeant-major of the name of ROBINSON, who had the charge of a number of pensioners acting as guard of some convicts in a vessel called the "Runnymede," lying in Plymouth Sound on the 1st of June, and about to proceed to Swan River with those convicts. The prisoner was acting as a corporal under the deceased, sergeant major Robinson. He had some months before acted under him as a private soldier at Dartmoor Prison, and it would appear from the evidence, that there had been a strong feeling, on the part of the prisoner, against sergeant-major Robinson, who was a smart and active officer, and had found it his duty to remonstrate with the prisoner, on several occasions, for not attending to his arms and accoutrements, and for some trifling deficiencies in duty. These remonstrances on the part of the sergeant produced a strong effect on the mind of the prisoner, who had some months before been heard to say, "if he finds fault with me again, I shall put a bullet in my musket and sent it through him." A day or two before the transaction in question took place, prisoner spoke to his commanding officer, Major RUSSELL, asking him to allow him to leave the ship, because, he said, he could not sail with sergeant-major Robinson. He made complaints of the sergeant-major, saying, amongst other things, that he was continually reversing his orders. Major Russell told prisoner he was willing to put him on shore, but in that case he must leave the guard altogether, and not return to Dartmoor, and the expenses of bringing him from his home and of his outfit, would be deducted from his pension. Major Russell was inclined to dismiss him, but at the suggestion of the surgeon, he retained him for a further trial. The prisoner therefore remained in the ship, and was there on Sunday the 1st of June. In the afternoon of that day, sergeant-major Robinson had been parading the men, and amongst others had inspected the prisoner. He inspected the men's appearance, and firelocks. By an order shortly before given by Major Russell, the men took their muskets on those occasions loaded, but not capped, and upon being inspected, it was the practice to take them below, and deposit them in a place for that purpose. There was an order that the muskets which were capped should be placed in a stand upon the poop, in order that the men who were on guard might be always ready for an emergency. The men, after inspection, had gone below, but for some reason the prisoner remained on the deck with his musket. If he did not, he must have gone below for it, because he was on deck with his musket shortly before the occurrence with which he was now charged, and he was seen by another man on deck, to put a cap upon his musket. The sergeant-major, on inspecting the men, found that one of the soldiers, called SULLIVAN, was missing, he being engaged in cleaning his musket. The sergeant-major seeing the prisoner on deck, told him to go and call Sullivan to come to him. The poop is slightly raised, to the height of three or four steps above the quarter deck, and the sergeant was on the poop. Sullivan, on being called by the prisoner, went up the starboard side to the sergeant-major, who was standing on the opposite side, upon the poop, close to the quarter deck, where he inspected Sullivan's musket. The prisoner then went up the steps to the poop, where he faced towards the sergeant-major, placed his gun against his hip and fired. The gun was loaded with ball, and the unfortunate sergeant-major was shot in the abdomen, and said, "O my God, I am shot, I am dead." The sentry caught the sergeant-major as he was falling; and a pensioner called KINNAIRD rushed at the prisoner, who had walked, not towards the sergeant-major, but in an easy way, down the steps. He seized the prisoner by the collar, who said "do not have such a hold on me, loose your hold, I have done it, I have been driven to it." On the same afternoon, the prisoner was taken into custody by inspector DAMEREL, of the Plymouth police. He took prisoner to the room where sergeant-major Robinson was lying dead and charged him with shooting him. Prisoner said, "if I did it, it was an accident; I did not know it was my gun that went off; it caught in the coop (there was a hen-coop on the poop) and went off by accident; at times I am not all right; at certain times I do not know what I am about; he threatened to take away my pension." This was the prisoner's statement, but he (the learned Counsel) was afraid the circumstances of the case would not allow the jury to come to the conclusion that the gun went off by accident. Evidence would be given to show that the prisoner stepped aside from the hen-coop, and therefore he could [not be ....... .........?] the gun in it. It was also very strange, and inconsistent with the prisoner's innocence, that he should say, when Kinnaird seized him, "Loose your hold, I have done it, I have been driven to it." The following witnesses were called for the prosecution; FENTON KINNAIRD, DANIEL SULLIVAN, MATTHEW CROMER, and JOSEPH SULLIVAN, pensioners forming part of the convict guard on board the "Runnymede;" JAMES DAMEREL, police inspector at Plymouth; Major RUSSELL, staff officer of pensioners; and Mr. KAY, assistant surgeon of H.M.S. "Conqueror." The prisoner appeared very anxious during the examinations of the witnesses, and sometimes communicated with his counsel. When Joseph Sullivan gave evidence, the prisoner became much affected, sat down, and leaned forward with his head on his hands. Mr. Coleridge then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, in an able and eloquent speech of considerable length. He contended that the gun was discharged by accident, and that the prisoner's story was true that it had caught in the hen-coop. That the gun was loaded and capped in the ordinary course of prisoner's duty, and that there was no proof of his having taken aim at the deceased. He remarked that the two witnesses who saw the gun discharged, differed as to the position of the prisoner at the time; that one of them must be wrong in his statement; that it was possible, considering the excitement at the moment, that both of them might be wrong, and a little change of position would have brought prisoner near to the hen-coop, as he had stated. The sentry and Sullivan were close by the sergeant-major at the time, and was it likely that he would discharge his musket intentionally, and run the risk of shooting the three men; and that he should do such an act intentionally at three o'clock in the afternoon? The learned counsel also submitted that there was no proof of motive for the commission of such a crime; that it could not be supposed the prisoner would murder the sergeant-major merely because he had some dislike to him; and the learned counsel endeavoured to throw discredit on the statement of Kinnaird with regard to threats used by prisoner towards deceased, and as to the expression Kinnaird said prisoner made use of when he seized him by the collar after the discharge of the musket. Reviewing all the circumstances, he confidently asked the jury for a verdict of acquittal. The learned Judge summed up the evidence, and remarked on some of its features, and with regard to the alleged absence of motive, he said it was well known that every year persons were found to take away the lives of others upon motives which to people in general appeared wholly inadequate. He remarked also upon the statements made by the prisoner to Kinnaird and to police-inspector Damerel, and told the jury they must form their own opinion, and do their duty both towards the prisoner and towards the public. The jury then retired from the court, and were absent nearly ten minutes. In the interval the prisoner was removed from the bar. When the jury returned into court, the prisoner was again placed at the bar, and bowed to the Judge. The Clerk of Arraigns said - Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon your verdict, do you find WILLIAM NEVAN guilty or not guilty? The Foreman - Guilty. The Clerk of Arraigns (addressing the prisoner) - William Nevan, you have been indicted for the wilful murder of BENJAMIN ROBINSON. Upon your arraignment your pleaded not guilty, and thereby for your trial you put yourself upon your country. Your country have found you guilty, have you anything to say why the court should not award judgment against you, to die according to the law. The Judge then put on the black cap, and addressed the prisoner as follows:- William Nevan, you have been found guilty, after a patient trial, in which everything that could be possibly urged in your defence has been done by the learned counsel who defended you. You have been found guilty of wilful murder, and it is my duty to state that I entirely concur in that verdict. I do not see how any other verdict could have been properly returned on the evidence in this case. I think it is the fair result of the whole of the circumstances of the case, and I have no reason to suppose that any of the persons who gave evidence against you, stated any other than what they conscientiously believed to be the truth. I do not mean to pain you by any lengthened address. You must be conscious yourself that you wilfully took that man's life, and you must also well know what is the legal consequences of such an act. There had been placed in my hands a statement from a number of persons, I presume in the town of which you are a native. With that I have nothing to do. Any use to be made of it shall be by forwarding it to the Secretary of State, who will take the pleasure of the Queen upon it. I only refer to it to beg you to place no sort of reliance upon it, but to take advantage of the short time you have to live, to prepare for eternity; for it is my believe that the Secretary of State will not consider anything stated therein, sufficient to induce him to advice the Queen to make any remission of your sentence. I therefore advise you to take advantage of the religious attendance I know will be afforded to you, to prepare for that fate which will inevitably shortly fall upon you. The sentence of the court, is that for the wilful murder of which you stand convicted, you be taken from hence to the prisoner whence you came, and that you be taken thence to a place of execution, there to be hanged by the neck till your body is dead, and that your body be taken down and buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall be confined after your conviction; and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul. The learned judge, in passing the latter part of the sentence, was quite overcome by his feelings. When the sentencing was concluded, the prisoner exclaimed "The Lord look upon me." He was then removed from the bar. BURGLARY - JOSEPH BASSETT, 27, cabinet maker, was indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Mrs. RYAN, at Berkeley Vale, in the parish of Falmouth, and for stealing therefrom various articles of place. The prisoner's brother, JOHN BASSETT, had been committed for the same offence, but he had escaped from prison, as we stated last week. Mr. BEVAN and Mr. HODGES appeared for the prosecution against Joseph Bassett, who was undefended. We gave the full particulars of this case, at the time it was brought before the committing magistrates; a short notice of it will therefore now suffice. Mrs. Ryan is the widow of a naval officer living at Berkeley Vale, Falmouth. She and her servant MARY OATES, went to bed about ten o'clock on Sunday night the 25th of May. Next morning, at six o'clock, Mary Oates found that the house had been entered in the night, and that a great many articles of place had been stolen from the back parlour. A man called BRICE saw the prisoner and another man near Mrs. Ryan's house about a quarter to twelve on Sunday night, May 25th. A coast-guard man, called RABEY, saw the prisoner about three-quarters of a mile from Mrs. Ryan's house, on the road to Penryn, about one o'clock in the morning. The prisoner and his brother were afterwards seen together between Falmouth and Penryn, between the latter town and Truro, and at Grampound, on the road from Truro to Plymouth. The prisoner was carrying something in a handkerchief. At Plymouth he offered to sell various articles as old silver at the shop of Mrs. REYNOLDS. The assistant in the shop, named BROWN had suspicion, detained the articles offered, and sent for the police. The prisoner and his companion decamped, but they were subsequently apprehended at Truro. The articles offered for sale by prisoner, consisting of dessert spoons, forks, tea-spoons, salt-spoons, &c., were produced, and identified by Mrs. Ryan. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and two former convictions for felony were proved against him, one in June, 1852, and the other in April, 1853. There was another indictment against the prisoner, for a burglary in the house of Mr. HALY, of the parish of Falmouth, but this was not prosecuted. Sentence was deferred. FORGED NOTE - JOHN COLLIVER, 39, stated to be a railway labourer, was indicted for having feloniously uttered a GBP5 bank of England note, he knowing it to have been forged. Mr. COLE and Mr. BEER for the prosecution, attorney, Mr. BISHOP; Mr. CARTER appeared for the prisoner. A number of witnesses were examined, and the case lasted a long time. It appeared that on the 21st of July, the prisoner was in a public house at Par, kept by Mr. HOLE, where he had some porter, and in payment for it offered a GBP5 Bank of England note. Mrs. Hole had had the numbers given her of some forged notes which were in circulation, and on comparing the note offered by the prisoner, she found it was one of those numbers. Miss Hole, to whom the note had been tendered, therefore declined to change it, upon which the prisoner paid for the porter with half-a-crown. About half-an-hour afterwards, he went into another inn at Par, kept by Mrs. TRELOAR, where he again offered a GBP5 note to change. Mrs. Treloar sent out her daughter to get the change, but in the meantime, Mr. THOMAS SCANTLEBURY came in and told Mrs. Treloar there was a man about the place who was trying to pass forged bank notes. Mrs. Treloar then ran after her daughter, and brought the note back. The prisoner was there, and Scantlebury told him he was an impostor, upon which he said, if the note is bad, I did not know it. Prisoner was then taken into custody by TINNEY, a constable of Par, who happened to be present, and he was afterwards taken to St. Austell. On his way there, he asked the constable to allow him to retire for a few minutes, and the constable did so. He returned and was taken on to St. Austell, where he was searched, and some letters and envelopes found upon him. On the same afternoon a Mr. RUTTER was passing the same way, and happened to retire to the same spot as the prisoner had done, where he found several letters, and one of these was afterwards recognised as in the prisoner's handwriting. Some of these letters were produced as evidence against the prisoner, the counsel for the prosecution submitting that they were a correspondence between the prisoner as an utterer of forged notes, and a person at Devonport who obtained those notes from the parties who forged them. One of the letters (found upon the prisoner at St. Austell) was dated Devonport, 23rd June, 1856, and addressed to the prisoner at his lodgings at Mrs. HOLMAN's, Bore-street, Bodmin. The letter was signed R. HARRIS, and was as follows:- "I think you acted quite right in leaving as you did. Things are very quiet. I have heard nothing about what occurred, neither can I find anything in the papers about it. I am surprised at it; should I hear anything I will let you know. I will make it convenient to see you as soon as possible. I am getting some goods made up to take with me, and will let you know when I am coming. You can send a post-office order at any time. If you want any goods before I see you, sent to me, and I will direct to you at Bodmin. I think you had better change your name. Should you send an order, say from WILLIAM HODDER payable to ROBERT HARRIS, at Plymouth. Depend upon it the butchers are the surest. I think a great deal might be done, accomplish it as soon as possible, and then try the islands. Burn this as soon as you have read it." Other letters were read, in which the writer stated that "Susan had not been able to do anything, as the police wanted to find her," and the prisoner was told to alter his name and to drop the writer a few lines as soon as he received the "goods," that he would have sent for three, &c. The suggestion by the prosecution was that the "goods" meant forged bank notes. Another letter (found by Rutter where the prisoner had retired) was addressed on the envelope to Miss E. WILLS, Mrs. Holman's, Bore-street, Bodmin, but inside commenced with "Sir, I am sorry I could not get them till Tuesday morning, but there are plenty of them now ready," &c. Another letter, found at the place where the prisoner had retired, was in his own handwriting, dated Bodmin, July 16th, and stating, "Sir, I have this morning received the goods," &c. In another letter, July 18th, prisoner was told to send his post-office order in future as from John James. A female who had lived with the prisoner at Bodmin, said there was such a person as E. Wills, but it was submitted to the jury that this evidence was not reliable. She said the prisoner had not been in the habit of selling any sort of goods. The bank note was then produced, and was stated by Mr. MURFIELD, an inspector of notes for the Bank of England, to be a forges note. Mr. Carter made a very long speech on behalf of the prisoner, who was, however, found Guilty of uttering, knowing the note to have been forged. Sentence deferred. In this case, a witness had failed to attend on the Tuesday, and had kept the grand Jury waiting over until the Wednesday. The learned Judge told her he had a good mind to find her GBP20, as a warning to people that when they were required to attend on such an occasion, they must lay aside all other business. The witness pleaded ignorance, and said she would act differently another time. The Grand Jury were discharged shortly before eleven o'clock this day, the learned Judge observing that with the exception of three cases, It was due to the county to say, that it was in a very satisfactory state with regard to crime. NISI PRIUS COURT - Wednesday, July 30. MEREDITH v. MARTYN - (Special Jury case). Counsel for plaintiff, SERJEANT KINGLAKE and Mr. COLERIDGE; for defendant, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH, Q.C., and Mr. KARSLAKE. Mr. Coleridge, on opening the pleadings, stated that the plaintiff was JAMES HENRY MEREDITH, and the defendant REBECCA MARTYN. The declaration charged the defendant with interrupting a flow of a stream to which the plaintiff is entitled in respect of a close of land. The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty; secondly, that the close of land was not in the occupation of the plaintiff; third, that the reversion of the land was not in plaintiff; and fourthly, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the flow of the stream. Serjeant Kinglake said, in this case the plaintiff is Mr. Meredith, the devisee in trust and executor of the will of the late Mr. TREFFRY, of Place. The defendant, Mrs. Rebecca Martyn, widow of the late JOHN MARTYN, of St. Austell. She is the occupier of certain clay-works called Screeda Clay Works; and this action was brought in consequence of her wrongful diversion of water rising and flowing through a property called Newton, in St. Austell, which is part of the property of the late Mr. Treffry, and is at present under the control and management of Mr. Meredith. This water, as you may be well aware (and I am glad that some of you have seen the premises) is exceedingly valuable for the purpose to which it has been applied - that of clay-works; and it is in consequence of its diversion by Mrs. Martyn, and those who manage for her at the Screeda Clay Works, that this action was brought. These Screeda Clay works had been worked about thirty years; and they join the Newton Estate, which formerly belonged to Mr. Treffry and now belong to Mr. Meredith; the estates being separated by a fence; and next adjoining, higher up in a farm called Penhale, all these estates being divided from each other by certain fences. It appears there was very little water on Screeda; and about thirty years ago, Mr. John Martyn turned his attention to the surrounding district, to see in what way he could be accommodated with water necessary for his works at Screeda; and that led to an arrangement in 1834, between Mr. John Martyn and the then owner of Newton Estate, Mr. PAUL MOYLE ROBINS. Mr. Robins, the predecessor of Mr. Treffry, in the ownership of Newton estate, when he became owner of the property in 1832 or 1833 took steps to improve the site and condition of the water, which at that time was, after heavy rains, a swamp, and diffused over the surface. At that time too, the estates of Penhale and Screeda were open and unfenced, and Mr. Robins put up a hedge to divide his estate of Newton from Penhale and also from the Screeda Moor; and, in addition to that, he improved the well-head, by putting up a bank and applying himself otherwise to the husbanding the water; and having done all this for the purpose of getting the water more closely together and sending it down the leat to Newton farm house, in 1834 an agreements come to between him and Mr. John Martyn; and in this (the learned serjeant's judgment, that agreement was decisive of the case. The agreement was dated the 25th of March, 1834; and by it Mr. Robins agreed to grant to Mr. John Martyn, the full, free, and uninterrupted use of the water-course called Carclaze Leat running through Newton fields, for the purpose of working an engine or engines in Screeda Clay Works; together with all the spring-water rising in Newton estate, except such as was not required as pot-water for Mr. Robins or his tenants; and together with the use of some pits and pans; the consideration agreed to be paid by Mr. John Martyn being GBP7 a year rent, and 18d. per ton on all clay returned. This water for the use of Newton farm-house was conveyed by a leat. After that agreement was made, a conduit, for the conveyance of the surplus water of Newton to Screeda, was made through the hedge that had been made by Mr. Robins. In 1836, Mr. Treffry purchased Newton estate from Mr. Robins; and, in 1839 or 1840 Mr. John Martyn paid to Mr. Treffry's agent GBP21 as three years rent; and in 1842, GBP14 for two years rent; under the agreement referred to. In 1844 Mr. Martyn died; and from that time his widow had continued the Screeda Clay Works, being assisted by Mr. JULYAN, her brother, Mr. GEACH, her foreman, and Mr. WILLIAM MARTYN, her son. The rent was continued during the life-time of Mr. Treffry, who died in 1850; and the defendant paid rent to Mr. Meredith down to Lady-day 1854, when her tenancy of this water was determined by notice to quit given at Michaelmas 1853. There had been nothing unneighbourly on the part of the plaintiff in determining this tenancy. It so happened that clay was found on the Newton estate; and it would seem that Mr. Treffry always had intended to open clay-works there. In 1854, Mr. Meredith granted the clay-work on Newton to a Mr. TEAGUE, and as water for working them was essential, it became necessary to determine Mrs. Martyn's interest. Her occupation ceased at Lady-day 1854, and the rent was paid by her to that time. But after Lady-day, 1854, a conduit by which the water was conveyed from Newton to Screeda Works was stopped by plaintiff's agents, and some wrangling took place; but eventually defendant and her agents became satisfied they had no right and they relinquished all occupation of the water and Mr. Teague remained in undisputed possession till about October 1855, when the agent of the works at Newton found that the supply of water suddenly ceased; in consequence of a hole; having been bored, and the water tapped, at the point above where the artificial conduit came through the hedge; the effect of which was to divert the water into the old channel leading to Screeda. Mr. Teague went and stopped up the hole; which was afterwards re-opened by defendant's agents and this opening and re-stopping went on, till it became necessary to take legal means of settling the dispute. On the law as affecting the case, the learned serjeant said nothing could be more clear than that where water rises, the courses of the spring is entitled to the whole of the water, and its overflow, until if flows into some known and defined channel. The learned Sergeant, in the course of his address, explained with much minuteness, the plans necessary to the understanding of the case; and then proceeded to call witnesses. The witnesses on the part of the plaintiff were:- BENJAMIN BROKENSHA, civil engineer, of St. Austell; RICHARD HANCOCK, mine agent, of St. Austell; JACOB HANCOCK, miner; JOHN HANCOCK, clay-carrier; EDWARD PASCOE, tin-miner; THOMAS TRETHEWEY, labourer; THOMAS TRUSCOTT, labourer; JOHN PUCKEY, principal mine-agent of the late Mr. Treffry, and in his employ for twenty years before his death; JOHN PERRY, agent of clay-works, and manager of the Newton Clay-works, for Mr. Teague; JAMES TEAGUE, part lessee of the Newton clay-works, under Mr. Meredith, from March, 1854; RICHARD MEDLAND, captain of the Newton clay-works; JOHN RETALLICK, of St. Austell, who had worked at the Newton clay-works; JAMES HENRY MEREDITH, the plaintiff. At the close of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Montague Smith objected to the court, that the plaintiff's evidence did not support the declaration, inasmuch as it had not been proved that the plaintiff was entitled to the flow of the stream, now that defendant had cut the bank of any stream. Plaintiff's case only proved the existence of some swampy ground, in which a well was made; and all that was suggested against the defendant was that a hole had been made in the Screeda estate, which had intercepted or interrupted the subterranean water, but there was no proof of interference with the water after it came to surface, or assumed a visible course, and, therefore, the defendant was not liable to this action. Serjeant Kinglake, besides controverting Mr. Smith's view of the evidence as to the condition of the water site, stated that in a second court of the declaration, it was alleged that the defendant had cut a dam, which, at all events, would satisfy the description given, supposing that a bank was not a correct term. After reply, and discussion, the learned Judge decided that the case should go to the jury, giving Mr. M. Smith liberty to move on a point reserved. Mr. Montague Smith then addressed the jury for the defendant. Referring to an assertion by Serjeant Kinglake that the agreement put in rendered the case, in effect, an undefended one, he affirmed that this agreement, which he (Mr. M. Smith) had willingly admitted, was as consistent with the case for the defendant as with that of the plaintiff. He believed it was from misconception of that agreement that Mr. Meredith had been induced to make this claim. Mr. M. Smith then explained the defendant's map of the premises, and stated what he termed, the undisputed facts of the case. He then adverted to the legal point already put to the court - that the defendant was not liable to action for any act done in her own land which interrupted subterranean water; and there was no proof that the defendant had cut either the bank or dam of any water-course, or that she had done anything affecting any flowing-stream of water at surface. Thus far, Mr. Smith said, he had been arguing on the assumption that it had been proved that the defendant had made the hole complained of. But the case for the defendant was, that this was not at all a new hole, but had been there as long as memory could go back. It would be proved that there were clay-works on the Penhale side of Screeda Moor as early as 1923-4; and that the water spoken of was used, and carried into the leat, as early as 1835; it would further be shewn that there were some tin-streams worked on Screeda Moor before the establishment of clay-works, and that the stream was partly supplied at that time from the hole in question. The clay works set a going in 1823 were continued on till 1834, when the agreement already referred to was made, by which some of the Newton Water was let to the Screeda clay-works people. It was this agreement which had been the cause of misconceptions. Mr. Meredith might fancy that all the water which the defendant got from Newton was obtained under that agreement; but it would be shewn that before that agreement there was some water flowing from Newton to screeda, and that this agreement was only for an additional supply; principally from Carclaze Leat, but also granting some of the surplus water from Newton. This agreement not being under seal, Mr. Meredith put an end to it, and at Michaelmas, 1854, gave defendant notice to quit, and also stopped up part of the conduit. The Martyns, however, thought they were entitled to this lease of water, as long as their clay works existed; but it turned out they were wrong. Mr. Smith said he did not think this agreement could have any effect on the case, if he proved the existence of a stream of water from Newton to Screeda long before its date. Mr. M. Smith again recurred to what he asserted was the main point in the case - the assertion that the defendant had made, or enlarged, or in some way dealt with, the hole referred to, and thus interfered with the supply of water to the plaintiff's tenant; and he repeated that he should meet this imputation by proof that the hole had always existed; and, at all events, that the defendants had never made it. He remarked on the fact that, in proof of alleged diminution of supply of water to Newton, the tenant of that farm had not been called; from his not being called, the jury might assume that there had been no such diminution as to form ground of complaint. The learned gentleman briefly repeated the main points to be decided by the jury, and then proceeded to call witnesses: RICHARD CARVETH, surveyor; WILLIAM HORE, farmer, formerly at Penhale; JOHN HANCOCK, also at one period a farmer living at Penhale; Captain ROBERT MARTYN; THOMAS STURBRIDGE, farmer, now living at Penhale; JOHN SHEAR, JOHN POAD, SAMUEL POAD, captains of clay works; JOSEPH WARRICK, miner. At this state, the case was adjourned till the following (Thursday) morning. WILLIAMS (Clerk) v. HILL - This special jury case, hearing of which had been looked forward to with great interest, was now thus briefly disposed of. The counsel for the plaintiff were Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH and Mr. COLERIDGE; for the defendant, Mr. COLLIER and Mr. KARSLAKE. Mr. Coleridge stated that the plaintiff was the Rev. EDWARD WILLIAMS; the defendant Mr. RICHARD HAYES HILL; the declaration stated that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff; and the defendant pleaded "Not Guilty." Mr. M. Smith said he was not going to trouble the jury in the case, as his friend Mr. Collier had a statement to make. Mr. Collier was glad to say the jury and his lordship would be saved all trouble in this case; the defendant expressing his regret that he should have been induced to strike the plaintiff, and consenting to a verdict for plaintiff, with five guineas damages. Mr. Montague Smith said he was very happy to hear that the case had ended in this way. Mr. Williams did not bring this action with the object of obtaining vindictive damages; but he felt the indignity of the assault committed, and that it was necessary to take some step. That step was this action. He (Mr. Smith) was very happy to find that the defendant expressed regret at having assaulted Mr. Williams, and he thought it was creditable in Mr. Hill to have done so. On the understanding that the verdict would be for five guineas, the matter would not end. The jury accordingly returned a verdict for plaintiff, for five guineas. His Lordship certified for a special jury. ECCLESIASTICAL - The Rev. R. K. CORNISH has been appointed to the vicarage of Coleridge, Devon. TESTIMONIAL TO THE REV. H. W. ROBINSON - The Rev. H. Vyvyan Robinson has resigned the curacy of Poughhill, in this county, upon his promotion to the perpetual curacy of St. Giles's-in-the-Wood, near Torrington, to which he had been presented by Lord Clinton. During nearly five years' residence in the former parish as curate, his kind demeanor to all, and his unwearied attentions to the several duties of his sacred calling, have won for him a warmth of esteem and regard not easily expressed. A small purse of sovereigns, and a silver pocket communion service, the joint offerings of the rich and poor, were a few days since presented to him as a sincere though trifling testimonial of the same. TESTIMONIAL TO THE REV. W. WOOD - A correspondent states that a feeling of universal regret pervades the parishioners of Falmouth at the removal of the Rev. Wm. Wood from their ministry. During his sojourn amongst them, and whilst he had the sole charge of the parish in the absence abroad of the rector, he fulfilled the sacred duty committed to his trust with fidelity, zeal, and perseverance, especially amongst the poorer classes, which gained for him the esteem and good-will of all, and was the means of bringing back many to the church who had previously left it. Those who had the privilege of hearing him preach, and heard his beautiful course of lecturers, occupying a period of eight months, must have been struck with their excellence and beauty. Those also on the Liturgy of the Church of England were alike instructive and interesting, and it is not too much to say that the revered gentleman's talent in the pulpit is of the highest order. His loss will be severely felt by his more humble friends, and all classes will unite in prayers and best wishes for his future welfare and prosperity. A purse was collected for him, and contributed to by the poorest of his congregation, as a slight testimonial, and in token of the high esteem and regard in which he was held by them. The following address was presented with the purse:- "Falmouth, July 16th, 1856. Rev. Sir, - We have been deputed by many of the inhabitants of the town and parish of Falmouth, to present to you a purse - the proceeds of a subscription raised among all classes - for the purchase of books, or for any other purpose to which you may see fit to apply it. The subscribers cannot allow you to quit this neighbourhood without testifying their sincere regret at your being removed from their church; and, they take this opportunity of thanking you for your unwearied exertions in administering to their spiritual and temporal necessities - especially to the poor - which, they have reason to believe have been a blessing to many. Trusting that it will please God to give you charge of a parish, for your work of faith and labour of love; that you may be blest yourself, and a blessing to others; and, with our united prayers, and best wishes for your future welfare and happiness, we are, Reverend Sir, yours faithfully, - W. ROBINSON, Commander, R.N., R. PASCOE, Major, R.M., P. HOCKING, Esq., J. PARSONS, Commander, R.N. - To the Rev. W. WOOD, M.A.," WESLEYAN CHAPEL, ST. AUSTELL - On Wednesday the 16th instant, the Rev. ROBERT YOUNG held two services in this place of worship. In the afternoon he gave a very interesting account of his late journey to the coast of Africa. At five o'clock a public tea took place in the school-room, to which a goodly number sate down, after which the Rev. gentleman preached to a crowded congregation. At the close of each service, collections were made towards the chapel funds. THE LEGION OF HONOR - The following are amongst those on whom the Emperor of the French has conferred the order of the Legion of Honor:- Major General Sir GEORGE BULLER, Rear Admiral FREDERICK THOMAS MICHELL, Major ARTHUR TREMAYNE, 15th Light Dragoons, Lieutenant Colonel FREDERICK CHARLES AYLMER, 89th regiment, Major EDMUND JOHN CARTHEW and Captain JOHN BORLASE, R.N. APOTHECARIES' HALL. - On Thursday the 24th instant, Mr. WILLIAM KING BULLMORE, of Falmouth, passed his examination in the science and practice of medicine, and received a certificate to practice. BODMIN WRESTLING MATCH - The wrestling on the Beacon, on Monday and Tuesday week, was spiritedly contested, and some excellent play was shown. The weather was fine, and a great number of persons were present. Amongst the principal players were POLLARD, BULLOCK, WHITE, FAULL, YELLAND, T. KENDALL, JAGO, &c. On Tuesday evening the prizes were thus awarded:- Pollard, first prize, GBP8; STOCKER, second, GBP5; THOMAS, third GBP3; Faull, fourth, GBP1. The band of the Royal Cornwall Rangers played in the committee booth. TRURO POLICE - On Monday last, before Capt. KEMPE and Mr. NANKIVELL, WILLIAM HENRY TUCKER was charged with assaulting police-constable VINCENT, while in the execution of his duty. It appeared that on Saturday evening, about eight o'clock, Tucker and another man called HENRY CARNARTON, came out of a beershop kept by Tucker's father in Calenick-street, and commenced fighting in the street; police-constable Vincent endeavoured to separate them, but was resisted, and he then took Tucker into custody. Tucker resisted very much and kicked Vincent as the latter was conveying him to the station: police-constable GAY went to Vincent's assistance and was also assaulted by Tucker. For the assault upon Vincent and Gay, Tucker was fined GBP2 in each case, or one month's hard labour. Tucker's father, who keeps the beershop, was charged with assaulting Vincent and attempting to rescue his son whilst in Vincent's custody, for which he was fined GBP3 and costs, or one month's hard labour. He was also charged with damaging and tearing Vincent's coat in the scuffle which took place, and was ordered to pay for the damage GBP1. 15s. with costs, or in default of payment to be committed for two months with hard labour. Tucker, the beershop-keeper, paid his fines. Henry Carnarton, who had been fighting with William Henry Tucker, was charged with resisting police constable Gay, and endeavouring to rescue Tucker when in custody, for which offence he was fined GBP3, or one month's hard labour. MARY ANN BULLOCKE was charged with being disorderly in the street, and interfering with the police when they were apprehending Tucker and Carnarton. For the offence, she was committed for two months with hard labour. WADEBRIDGE - Little is required at any time to excite the respect and attachment felt by the inhabitants of the place towards the members of the Molesworth family; as soon therefore as it was known that the Rev. Sir HUGH MOLESWORTH would pass through on Saturday last, accompanied by his bride, it was at once determined that he should be received on his entering his native parish with a sincere and hearty welcome. Three handsome arches were accordingly erected, one at the entrance of the town, towards Bodmin, one on the bridge, and an exceedingly imposing one in the centre of the street. On each were placed suitable mottos, with a profusion of flags. About four o'clock nearly the whole of the inhabitants had assembled in the principal street, and shortly afterwards, the bride and bridegroom drove up to the Molesworth Arms, amidst the cheers of the people and the bank playing. Here they were met by the farmers of Little Petherick, (Sir Hugh's parish) who accompanied them out of town. At the extremity of the parish, another arch had been erected, where were assembled most of the farmers of St. Breock and their families. Arches were also erected at St. Issey and Little Petherick, and the whole line of road presented a scene which will no doubt long be remembered by the parties interested. A large party of gentlemen and tradesmen dined together at the Molesworth Arms in the evening. PROMOTION OF A MAIL GUARD - Mr. DANIEL HALL, after twenty years' service, as guard on the coaches between Falmouth and Exeter, and subsequently Falmouth to Plymouth, had been on promotion, and with a view to a more comfortable location, placed on the Eastern Railway, as mail guard, from London to Ipswich.

West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday 1st August, 1856. Part 2. The following bills also have been ignored:- GEORGE HARRIS, breaking into a church at St. Neot, and stealing gold fringe, and two gold rings and two gold tassels, the property of the parishioners of St. Neot; WILLIAM SMITH, feloniously receiving gold fringe from George Harris; and JOHN CRABB, feloniously receiving old fringe and gold tassels. (Harris is one of the two prisoners who effected his escape from gaol last week). ANN HILL, concealing the birth of her child, at St. Minver. BEER v. FRY - This was an undefended action, to recover GBP27. 8s. with interest, on a promissory note payable on demand. Mr. COLE, on behalf of the plaintiff, said the defendant had pleaded that he did not make the note. He had, however, an admission of defendant's handwriting, and he should put in the note. The note was then read dated 30th October, 1854, and was signed by JOHN FRY, at St. Teath, innkeeper, promising to pay to Mr. JOHN BEER, the sum of GBP27. 8s. with interest. The interest from the date of the note amounted to GBP2. 4s., and a verdict was given for plaintiff for GBP29. 12s. Mr. Cole applied for an order for immediate execution. The learned Judge said he would make it, if necessary. MARTYN v. WILLIAMS - Council for the plaintiff, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH, and Mr. PHEAR [?]; attorney, Mr. EDMUND CARLYON. Counsel for the defendant, Mr. SERJEANT KINGLAKE and Mr. KINGDON; attorneys, Messrs. COODE and CO. Mr. Phear having opened the pleadings. Mr. M. Smith stated that the plaintiff, Mr. ELIAS MARTYN, is the owner of an estate called Goonamarth, in the parish of St. Mewan, and he had brought this action against defendant to recover compensation in damages for a breach of covenant contained in a grant or license to work china clay on that estate. At that time the license was granted, the owners of the estate were gentlemen of the name of FERRIS and GILL, who were trustees of the Trevauhin [?] property; and on the 1st of May, 1852, by a deed made between those two gentlemen and Mr. JOHN HENWOOD WILLIAMS, the defendant, they granted the latter liberty and license to dig and work for china clay within certain limits. He was to be at liberty to raise, wash, and make merchantable and fit for sale all the clay he might obtain, and for that purpose to bring in adits, water courses, and to put up such houses, sheds, and other erections as were necessary. The term granted was for twenty-one years, but it was to be determined at any time by the tenant, Mr. Williams, giving a year's notice. In the license there were two covenants; by one of them the defendant agreed that he would make compensation for any injury done to the enclosed land by his clay works; that such compensation was to be paid to the lessors [?] and to be ascertained by arbitrators, one to be appointed by defendant, the other by Messrs. Ferris and Gill, and the two umpires to appoint a third, whose decision was to be final. He alleged that defendant entered on the estate, and worked about ninety land-yards of the enclosed and arable land, somewhat more than half an acre. Defendant gave notice in December, 1854, to determine his tenancy in December 1855; but before it was determined Messrs. Ferris and Gill sold the estate to Mr. Martyn, the plaintiff, who, considered himself possessed of all the rights of the previous owners, desired to have an arbitration to ascertain the compensation to be paid by defendant for the land he had destroyed. On the 28th of March, 1856, he gave notice to defendant to appoint an arbitrator, and named as his own arbitrator, Mr. PEARCE, of Tywardreath. Defendant failed to appoint an arbitrator, and one of the breaches of covenant alleged in the declaration, for which damages were claimed, was that defendant did not appoint an arbitrator. For the ninety land-yards of arable land destroyed by defendant's clay works, plaintiff claimed GBP33. 2s. The tenant of the property had also sustained a loss, through not being able to raise a crop from that part of the surface; defendant had stated he would allow the tenant GBP4 a year, and this, with the amount claimed by plaintiff would make a sum of between GBP40 and GBP50. The other alleged breach of covenant was this. Defendant had covenanted that he would keep and retain such works, houses, sheds, engine-houses, and erections as were erected and built, in good and sufficient repair, and that the same should be so kept and retained to the end of the term, and so delivered up, except the engines and machinery, which defendant was to be at liberty to remove. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had broken this covenant. He got behind with his dues and rent, and a distress was put in by Messrs. Ferris and Gill, and china clay, timber, and other things were taken and sold. After that, defendant allowed the clay work to go to ruin. It was necessary that there should be an underground level to carry off the water, and certain pans and pits were necessary. Defendant had allowed the level to fall in, and had not kept up the pans. To restore those works to the state they were in at the time defendant gave up his tenancy, would cost about GBP30, which sum, as well as those for breach of the other covenant, plaintiff claimed by this action. Witnesses were then called and examined. Mr. JOHN PEARCE, of Tywardreath had estimated the value of the land destroyed, at GBP33. 15s. being thirty years purchase, at GBP1. 2s. 6d. a year, for ninety land yards. The land is worth nothing as it is; there is a pit in it half the depth of that court, and the level had fallen in. Mr. Martyn lives at Carthew, in the parish of St. Austell. It would take two or three times GBP33 to restore the land to its former state, the surrounding land is worth GBP2 an acre. The other witnesses called in support of the facts stated by Mr. M. Smith in opening the plaintiff's case, were JAMES KENT, a farmer of St. Mewan, who occupies Goonamarth estate JAMES COMMON, a clay workman at Carthew, and JAMES OLVER, a manager of clay-works. On the part of defendant, Mr. Serjeant Kinglake took some legal objections, and afterwards called as witnesses the defendant himself, JOHN HENWOOD WILLIAMS, WILLIAM RICHARD, who had been manager of defendant's clay-work, Mr. HANCOCK, auctioneer, and Mr. GAVED, a clay merchant. It was explained that there is a large excavation in which the clay was dug and washed, after which it was carried by a level and launders into the mica pits. The level was about forty fathoms long, half of it underground, the other half a deep trench open to the surface. In the open part of the level there were landmarks, but not in the underground part. The mica pits with which the launders communicated, were for clearing the clay from the mica, and those mica pits were made of deal, about twenty inches wide, fourteen inches high, and nine feet long. The clay ran from the mica pits into a keep pit where it settled, and whence it was pumped up into the pans, where it was dried, and then cut into blocks, after which it was scraped and cleaned, and was then ready for the market. It was important to obtain this description of the process, as appeared in the further progress of the case. The legal points insisted upon by Mr. Kinglake, and the material facts of the evidence were thus noticed by the Judge, in his summing up of the case. Defendant's counsel had objected that Mr. Martyn, the plaintiff was no party to the contract with defendant, because Martyn had no interest in the premises until May 1855, whilst defendant's china clay digging had ceased in December 1853, after which all that was done was to scrape and clean some of the clay which had been previously raised. All the injury done to the land, in the course of the working and digging for china clay, had therefore been done before May 1855, when Mr. Martyn became interested in the estate; for which reason defendant's counsel submitted that, under the present declaration, plaintiff was not in a situation to recover. Upon that, the counsel for the plaintiff, had applied to him (the judge) to amend the declaration in certain particulars, so as to enable plaintiff to recover for the damage done, whether before or after Mr. Martyn's possession; in fact, at any time between the commencement of the contract in May 1852, and the determination of the tenancy in October 1855. He (the judge) had some doubt whether it was a proper case for amendment of the declaration; but inasmuch as if he did not amend, there would be no opportunity of revising his decision, whilst if he did amend, there would be an opportunity of bringing the matter under the notice of the court whence the record had issued, he had thought it better to make the amendment. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is trustee for those persons interested in the land before he took to it in May 1855, and he was entitled to recover for all damage done previously. The declaration having now been amended, it was for the jury to say whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover GBP33 for the damage done to the land, according to Mr. Pearce's evidence, or if not, what amount he was entitled to recover. But those damages were to be given conditionally, the matter being reserved for the consideration of the court above, to say whether the plaintiff should retain those damages or not. Another breach of covenant, however, had been charged in the declaration; plaintiff having said that defendant's term expired in October 1855, in consequence of his previous twelvemonths' notice, and that plaintiff was entitled to have the works connected with the clay-works delivered up to him in good repair, which had not been done. The question on which the learned counsel for plaintiff and for defendant differed, was with regard to the meaning of the work "works," which "works" defendant was to keep and deliver up in good repair under his covenant. It appeared the launders were a kind of troughs not fixed to the land but moveable; and he (the judge) did not think those were any part of the works intended to be kept in repair and so delivered up at the end of the term. Then there were the mica pits, which were made of wood, and moveable, and he did not think they could be a part of the "works" contemplated by the covenant. But then there was a large pit, the sides of which were timbered, which were necessary to the works, and there was that part of the level which was underground, communication with the large excavation, both of which, he considered, were works within the meaning of the covenant. It had been shown by the witnesses that the level was broken in, and the large pit out of repair, and the jury would say to what damages the plaintiff was entitled on that account. It had been stated that it would take from GBP10 to GBP15 to repair the level, which being choked, there was not a great deal of water in the large excavation; and that it would take from GBP7 to GBP8 to replace the timber and repair the pit. With reference to the launders and other moveable things, Messrs Ferris and Gill, when they levied for arrears of rent under the contract, had taken and sold them, showing that they were not to be treated as "works" within the meaning of the covenant. Leaving, therefore, out of the question the pans, the launders, and the mica pits, the jury would say whether they considered the large pit and the underground level had been kept in repair, and if not, to what damages the plaintiff was entitled. This was the second breach. They could also say, on the first breach, to what damages the plaintiff was entitled for injury to land, leaving it to the court above to say whether he should retain those damages or not. The jury, after some deliberation, gave a verdict for the plaintiff; damages on the first breach, GBP16; on the second, GBP12. POMERY [?] v. MARTYN - Counsel for plaintiff Mr. COLLIER, [... ....?] KINGDON; attorneys, Messrs. COODE and Co. Council for the defendant, Mr. M. SMITH, and Mr. PHEAR; attorney, Mr. EDMUND CARLYON. Mrs. Collier stated that the plaintiff was Mrs. MARY POMERY, the widow of Mr. WILLIAM POMERY, who formerly rented a farm called Higher Treborthes [?], part of the Trevanion estates, in the parish of Veryan; whilst defendant was Mr. ELIAS MARTYN, who was plaintiff in the previous case. The estate was rented at GBP85 per annum. Mr. Pomery died in 1853; defendant became purchaser of the property in 1853 or 1854, and was entitled to the rent due at Michaelmas 1854, up to which time money was paid by Mrs. Pomery, leaving a small balance. Mr. Martyn was desirous of terminating the tenancy, and gave Mrs. Pomery notice to quit which would cause the tenancy to expire at Michaelmas 1855; and an agreement was entered into by defendant, that he would take all the corn on the estate, as well as hay, at a valuation, Mr. J. PEARCE to act as valuer on the part of defendant, and Mr. T. ROGERS, of St. Just, on the part of Mrs. Pomery, and should they not agree, to call in as umpire, Mr. TRETHEWY, of Grampound. The agreement was dated 14th of April, 1855, and the valuers and umpire met on the 22nd August, 1855, to value the corn, and on the 28th of September to value the green crops. The total estimate was GBP459. 17s. 1d., t which adding for the mowstead, the claim altogether amounted to GBP481. 9s. 7d., and giving defendant credit for all he had paid, and for what was owing to him, the present action was brought for the recovery of the balance, GBP111. 3s. 10d. The defendant had pleaded a set-off, and paid into court GBP34. 10s., which, he alleged, discharged all he owed to plaintiff. After some further details of the case, Mr. Collier called as witnesses, Mr. JOHN POMERY, son of the plaintiff, and Mr. THOMAS ROGERS, who had valued on the part of Mrs. POMERY. The learned Judge had once or twice, during the evidence, stated his strong opinion that the case was one of minute details of account between the parties, and that it was a fit case for a reference. On his again expressing that opinion, when Mr. Rogers was giving his evidence, the learned counsel on each side acquiesced, and an order of court was made, referring all matters in dispute to the valuers. Messrs. Pearce, Rogers, and Trethewy, who shall have power to decide without calling other parties before them, but who may call other parties if they please. The costs of the cause to abide the event, the costs of the arbitration to be decided by the arbitrators. HOCKING v. MARTYN - This was a case similar in its nature to the last, the plaintiff occupying Lower Treberthes estate, in Veryan, and the defendant being the same as in the previous case. The particulars were not entered into, a verdict for plaintiff being agreed to, subject to a reference, as in the last case, and on similar terms, except that the arbitrators named were Mr. Pearce, Mr. Treffry, and Mr. Trethewy. BURGESS v. RILEY - For the plaintiff, Mr. M. SMITH and Mr. KINGDON; attorneys, Messrs. ROSCORLA and DAVIES. For the defendant, Mr. COLERIDGE; attorney, Mr. ASHURST. Mr. M. SMITH stated that the action was brought by Mr. WILLIAM BURGESS, the administrator of Mr. HENRY BURGESS, of Camborne, to recover the value of goods supplied to Cubert United Silver lead mine. Defendant, Mr. EDWARD RILEY, of London, was sued as an adventurer in the mine. The goods were supplied at the end of 1854, and in 1855, mostly on the order of the captain, who was called RICHARDS. Some of the goods were supplied by the administrator, after the death of Mr. Henry Burgess, and the total value was to the amount of GBP120. 9s. 8d., but some money having been received on account, the balance now claimed was GBP70. 9s. 8d. Mr. M. Smith then produced the transfer-book of the mine, showing that Messrs. WATSON and ENSOR had sold defendant 200 shares, which were divided into 9,000ths; and he put in a letter from defendant to the former secretary, Mr. TRUSCOTT, dated the 20th of February, 1856, in which he requested him to ask the committee to allow his calls to stand over till the first week in April, when he would pay them. Mr. JAMES JAMES, storekeeper to Mr. Burgess, and Capt. JOHN TREWIN, of Cubert Mine, were called to prove the order and delivery of the goods, the latter producing the way-bills. It was a cost-book mine, he said; the meetings were held every three months in London, and Mr. FOULKES is now secretary. It was the usual practice to supply goods to the mine on credit. Mr. CHRISTIAN, clerk to the late Mr. Burgess, and Mr. J. B. Truscott, the former secretary to the mine, were also called. The latter proved receiving transfer of the shares to Mr. Riley, and entering it on the books, and that Mr. Riley had subsequently made three or four payments to December, 1854. For the defence, Mr. Coleridge submitted that there was no evidence to show that Mr. Riley had had anything to do with ordering the goods, or that any credit was given to him by Mr. Burgess, or that any authority was given by him to the purser except from the mere fact of his being a shareholder. He cited the case of RICKARD v. BENNETT to show that directors could not pledge the credit of individual shareholders. The learned Judge said that was a case of money borrowed. Mr. M. Smith said his learned friend's argument had been often put, but always overruled. The learned Judge said he would put it to the jury, whether it was the usual case of dealing for this mine to purchase goods on credit; whether these goods in question were supplied to the mine; and whether they were used on the mine. Mr. Coleridge said he was satisfied from the evidence on the last two points. The learned Judge then put it to the jury whether they were satisfied it was the usual course of dealing for the mines to purchase goods on credit. The jury found that it was so. Verdict for plaintiff for GBP70. 9s. 8d. CROWN COURT - (MARY JANE ?) ALLEN, 20, was arraigned for stealing a sovereign, two handkerchiefs, a shawl, and two pieces of ribbon, on the 12th of July, the property of her master, Mr. WILLIAM RICKARD, of St. Erme. She pleaded guilty of stealing the money, but not the other articles. Sentence deferred. WILLIAM PENGELLY BARNES, 22, a tailor, pleaded guilty of stealing a German silver watch, waistcoat, neckcloth, handkerchief, and 3s. 8d., the property of JOHN SHERMAN. Sentence deferred. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER. - MARY ANN ROBERTS was indicted for the wilful murder of her male child, in the parish of Calstock, on the 23rd of March. To the arraignment the prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The following were sworn on the jury:- RICHARD LANYON, foreman; HENRY EDDY, THOMAS CRADOCK, JOHN COOMB, JOHN BUNNAFORD, ROBERT ALLEN, HENRY HARVEY, WILLIAM LAWRY, JOHN CONGDON, OLIVER BODINNA, OLIVER BANBURY, and GEORGE LEACH. The counsel for the prosecution were Mr. COLERIDGE and Mr. BULLER; for the defence, Mr. CARTER. The prisoner was allowed to sit during the trial. She looked concerned and serious, but not agitated or affected. Her age is twenty-three. At the request of Mr. Carter, all the witnesses were sent out of court until called for. Mr. Coleridge stated the case for the prosecution. The charge was a very serious one, and the circumstances would demand the close attention of the jury. There was no concealment of birth, and, as far as he could judge, the prisoner must be found guilty of the murder of her child, or innocent; it did not seem to him that any third conclusion could be arrived at in the case. The prisoner is a married woman, and at the time this offence took place, her husband had been absent about three years, and was about to return to this country. She knew that, and being with child, she had a very natural wish to conceal it from her husband. A young woman of the name of SMITHERAM had been in the habit of sleeping with her. She suspected the prisoner was with child, and charged her with it more than once, but prisoner always denied it. The learned counsel went on to state some of the circumstances of the case, and said he believed it would be proved that the prisoner had been delivered of a child, and that it had been born alive, and it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that the injuries had been inflicted after it was born. He then called the following witnesses:- MARY SMITHERAM - I live at Calstock, have known the prisoner about five years, and slept with her about three years. She is married. On the 23rd of March, Sunday evening, I went to bed with her about nine o'clock; there were two of her children in the same bed. Between three and four in the morning she called me and said, Mary you must get up, your father has called you. I said, it is too early, I am not going to work till after breakfast. I asked her the time; she said she did not know, the clock had stopped. I listened, and said it was working. She was out of bed when she called me; she came into bed again, and I went to sleep. About half an hour afterwards I awoke and found her crying. I asked her what was the matter, but she did not speak. I again asked her, and she said "nothing." I listened and heard something "choking in the bed. Prisoner was then in the bed, also the two children. I said, "Mrs. Roberts what is the matter, is Billy choking?" She said, he is only catching his breath, as he does sometimes. She got out of bed, and said I must go down stairs, I might as well go first as last. As she was going down stairs, I heard a baby cry. There was a light and a fire down stairs. When I heard the baby cry, I heard it choking again, as she was going down stairs. I remained in bed some time, then heard the same noise down stairs of a baby crying and choking. I called out and said, Mrs. Roberts are you not coming to bed? She said, this is the second time I have been down stairs, and I am coming. She came to the foot of the stairs, and said, "I have got a child, and for God's sake don't never split." She then came up stairs. She got up about three stairs, and fell back again. I screeched, and her mother came to the door, and said, what is the matter. the prisoner said to me, say nothing. When she fell back in the stirs, I had gone down and helped her up; she was in the room when her mother spoke. The mother lived next door, it was to the outer door of the house she came. When prisoner said to me, "say nothing," I said, "I can't say nothing," and she then said "nothing" herself. She told me to come into bed, and said we would afterwards get up and do the work. I said I can't come into bed. I then took my clothes, and went into her mother's house. Before prisoner went to bed, I gave her a change of clothes, I had several times told prisoner she was in the family way. She always said she was not. Her husband had been absent about three years. I did not observe anything in the bed; I did not examine it. Cross-examined - Her husband had been home about four days before this. I did not sleep with her when her husband was home. I saw him about the premises. He went, I believe, to another part of Cornwall to see his mother. When he went away, she sent for me to come and sleep with her again. It was in consequence of that, I slept with her that night. She has three children, the eldest six or seven years of age. In answer to further questions, witness denied that she said before the magistrates and the coroner that prisoner's child Billy was short of breath. The depositions, however showed that she had said so. Witness admitted that before the coroner, she said she came home from chapel and went to bed, and that, she said, was true. She had now stated, in the first part of her evidence (to which prisoner's counsel called attention) that she went to bed with the prisoner about nine o'clock. Witness further said, the prisoner was always very kind to her children; she bore the character in the neighbourhood of being a kind and felling woman. MARY ANN VENNING, lives next door but one to prisoner's house. On Monday morning the 24th of March, very early, I was spoken to and went into prisoner's house. Saw a baby lying on the floor before the kitchen stove. It was a little boy, and was dead. Prisoner's mother was there, and at her request I washed the body; it was a little warm in the bowels. There was a little mark on the front part of the neck, something like a bruise, the skin was not broken. There was also a little mark on the breast. I carried the body upstairs. Prisoner was then in bed, and said she was very bad. I said, "Oh! Mrs. Roberts, how came you to have a child like this?" She said, "I never did nothing to it, I never touched it." I put the child's body in the cradle. HENRY TURNER WOOD, surgeon, went to prisoner's house with Mr. Sleeman, surgeon, on Easter Monday last. Prisoner's mother, Mary Doidge brought us the body of the child and we examined it. It was the body of a full-grown child. It had not been prematurely born. I observed scratches on the chest, neck, and face: they were circular cuts. I examined the lungs and found they were thoroughly distended with air, and somewhat congested. We weight the lungs, which were 1093 grains. There was nothing unusual in the stomach. There was nothing particular to be found on examining the windpipe. It is my opinion that the death of the child arose from congestion of the brain, produced by the pressure in front of the neck, and the stoppage of respiration. There was no verdict of wilful murder by the coroner's jury. RICHARD SLEEMAN, surgeon at Tavistock, in practice about twenty-four years, was present when the body of the child was examined. I formed a decided opinion that the child died from asphyxia by strangulation or suffocation; and I am of opinion that death occurred after the complete birth of the child. We did not examine the heart vessels; thought we had seen enough without that, to show the cause of death. The vessels of the heart have an effect upon those of the brain. This concluded the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Carter, on behalf of the prisoner, submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury. The learned Judge said he had thought the same, after hearing Mr. Wood's evidence, but that of Mr. Sleeman was of a stronger nature, and he could not take upon himself the responsibility of stopping the case from going to the jury. Mr. Carter then proceeded with his address on behalf of the prisoner, contending that the evidence was totally insufficient for a conviction. As he was proceeding with his comments upon the case, the learned Judge was engaged in looking over the evidence; and at length he stopped Mr. Carter, and told the jury he had been examining the evidence, and he was of opinion that it was quite insufficient to support a charge of murder; it was nothing more than a case of doubt and suspicion. The jury then gave a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was discharged from custody.

This weeks West Briton is quite long and will therefore be sent in several parts. West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday 1st August, 1856. Part One. INSOLVENT DEBTOR - To be heard in the Court House, at Lancaster Castle, in the County of Lancaster, on Friday the Fifteenth day of August, 1856, at Eleven o'clock in the Morning precisely. JOHN ENDEAN, formerly of the Smiths' Arms, Shortlane's End, Kenwyn, near Truro, Cornwall, Blacksmith, Farmer, and Beerseller, and late in lodgings, in Dublin-street, Liverpool, Lancashire, out of business. LEON L. ISAACS. Attorney for the Insolvent, Sun-street, Lancaster. COUNTY COURT OF CORNWALL REDRUTH - Whereas a Petition of CHARLES WILLIAMS, formerly of Saint Teath in the County of Cornwall, and then of Saint Erth, in the county of Cornwall and then of the parish of Phillack, in the County of Cornwall, and now of the parish of Phillack, in the County of Cornwall, Civil Engineer, Mine Dialler, Surveyor, and Mine Agent, an Insolvent Debtor, having been filed in the County Court of Cornwall, holden at Redruth, in the said County, and an Interim Order for Protection from Process having been given to the said Charles Williams, under the provisions of the statutes in that case made and provided, the said Charles Williams is hereby required to appear in the said court to be holden at the Town-hall, Redruth, aforesaid, before the Judge of the said Court, on the Twenty-first day of August next, at Eleven o'clock in the forenoon precisely, for his first examination touching his debts, estate, and effects, and to be further dealt with according to the provisions of the said statute; And Notice is hereby given that the choice of Assignees is to take place at the time so appointed. All persons indebted to the said Charles Williams, or who have any of his effects, are not to pay or deliver the same but to Mr. FRANCIS PAYNTER, the Clerk of the said Court, at his office at the Town Hall, Redruth, in the said County, the Official Assignee appointed by the said Court in that behalf, acting in the matter of the said petition. Francis Paynter, Clerk. Dated July 10, 1856. TRIALS OF PRISONERS - JAMES SMOUTEN, a seaman, aged 23, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 5th of July, a coat, the property of THOMAS CLARIDGE, at St. Germans. In passing sentence, the learned Judge said he thought it probable there was some truth in a statement made by the prisoner that he took the coat when in liquor, and intended to return it; and his lordship remarked on the readiness with which the prisoner shewed the coat to the constable; but, drunk, or sober, he must be careful not to repeat such conduct, or he would be liable to a very different punishment than would not be imposed. Sentence, One Month's Hard Labour. JOANNA EDWARDS, 48 [?] a charwoman, who was indicted for having, as a servant to the Rev. WILLIAM JOHN ALBAN, at Mevagissey, stolen about 3 lb. of soap, his property, on the 10th of March. On this indictment she pleaded Guilty. She was then indicted and pleaded Not Guilty to a charge of having, on the 8th of April, burglariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of the Rev. WILLIAM JOHN ALBAN, at Mevagissey, on the 8th of April, and stolen a piece of beef value 5s. the property of the said William John Alban. Mr. BEVAN conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. ANN ANDREW deposed:- I am a cook in the service of Mr. Alban, and know the prisoner, who used sometimes to be in Mr. Alban's house, as washerwoman. About ten o'clock on Tuesday night, I left some beef in the inside larder communicating with the kitchen; I went to bed about eleven o'clock, and a few minutes after six the next morning, I was called down stairs by the housemaid, and found that the window had been broken, and the piece of beef gone; I next saw the beef in the possession of the constable HINGSTON, at St. Austell, on the following Thursday. (The constable here produced the beef, and it was identified by the witness Ann Andrew.) JOHN DIMOND, gardener in Mr. Alban's service:- I recollect the night of the Tuesday spoken of; between ten and eleven o'clock, I was in the kitchen and saw my fellow servant Ann Andrew, fasten the windows before she went to bed. When I went to bed, about half-past eleven, I left the book in the kitchen. Next morning, about a quarter past six, I came down stairs and saw that a pane of glass was broken in the window, by which the slide of the window had been put back; and the back door was unbolted, which I had seen bolted the night before. I went out to the tool-house, and saw that the door which I had fastened the night before was opened; and that there were marks on the door of its having been opened with a spade which was then resting near the door. Under the window of the larder, I saw marks of shoes, apparently a woman's, and afterwards I saw a similar mark on the window sill of the kitchen. On the Wednesday evening, I went with the constable Hingston, to the prisoner's house, and saw him search and find a piece of beef under a bed-tie. It was the beef I had before seen. The prisoner said she had it at her brother William's; but almost immediately afterwards she said she found it on the road. William Hingston, constable, of Mevagissey, gave particulars of his search at the prisoner's, and of the statements made by her, substantially the same as the evidence of the previous witness. SUSAN ANDREW, housemaid at Mr. Alban's:- I recollect the Wednesday morning, when it was found that something had been stolen from master's house. I cam down stairs eight or ten minutes after six o'clock. (This witness corroborated previous evidence, as to the window being broken, and the beef stolen from the larder. The jury found the prisoner Guilty of feloniously receiving.) Sentence - Two Months' Hard Labour for feloniously receiving the beef; and at the expiration of that sentence, Three Months' Hard Labour for stealing soap. GILBERT BENNETT, 25, miner, charged with breaking and entering the dwelling-house of WILLIAM BAILY, at Camborne, on the 21st of June, and stealing a sack and half a bushel of oats. He was also charged with felonious receiving. Mr. HOLDSWORTH conducted the prosecution; Mr. COLERIDGE the defence. William Baily deposed:- I live in Trelowarren-street, Camborne. On my premises I have a barn and stable within the courtlage, and detached from the swelling-house; the back part of the premises adjoin the back road. About half-past seven or eight o'clock in the evening of the 21st of June, I locked the stable-door, having on the previous Thursday put in the barn above the stable a sack containing half a bushel of oats. I locked the stable each night, and opened it each morning afterwards, till Sunday morning about half-past six, when I found that the stable door had been ripped open, and that the sack and oats were gone. In the morning of the 4th July, policeman WARD told me where the sack was; I went to the house of constable GEORGE NOBLE, and there I saw the sack which I gave into Nobel's custody (Noble here produced the sack, and it was identified by the witness). I have not seen the oats since. When I saw the sack at Noble's, there was wheat in it. The prisoner lives about 300 or 400 yards, or it may be a quarter of a mile from me. Cross Examined - I have known prisoner ten years; and never heard anything against him till this affair. JOSEPH WARD, police constable at Camborne:- I was on duty on the 4th July, in Union-street, between Trelowarren-street, and prisoner's residence. I heard a shrill whistle several times, and went towards it in Trelowarren street, and there made a stand; I heard footsteps of a man coming on; I concealed myself behind a door way until the prisoner came up and I took hold of him. Prisoner had a sack on his back, with something in it. I took hold of him and asked what he had there; and he said grain. I put my hand into the sack and found it was wheat, and said this is Eddy's wheat. Mr. Eddy had had his mill broken into and wheat stolen. Prisoner said, "Oh do let me go, and I'll never do it again;" he afterwards said that JOHN JAMES had found it in a brake belonging to Mr. PAULL, and told him where to go for it. He dropped the sack from his shoulder, and a young man, by my directions, took it to Noble's house, and I left it there. George Noble, constable produced the sack; and stated that on the night when it was brought to his house, the prisoner said that he and John James had found it a few days before, on the top of a hedge, and that John James and he had gone for it that night. (This witness also stated, on cross-examination, that the prisoner had borne a good character). John James, miner:- I live at Rosewarne Downs, in the parish of Camborne. I know the prisoner; I never went with him to any hedge, and never found a sack; I never told him to go and get one; I never saw this sack before I saw it before the magistrates. Mr. Coleridge said he could not ask the jury to disbelieve the evidence of the last witness; and if they believed him the story told by the prisoner was untrue, and that was evidence from which the jury might, if they thought proper, derive the inference that he stole the property. Mr. Coleridge, however, spoke of the good character which the prisoner received; but, as that was rather for his lordship's consideration, he would not trouble the jury with any observation in defence. The jury found the prisoner Guilty of Feloniously Receiving, with recommendation to mercy on account of previous good character. The prisoner was then indicted for stealing six tame ducks, the property of HENRY JENKIN, at Illogan. Henry Jenkin:- I reside at Red River, in Illogan; I am a farmer and keep ducks; I recollect rearing six ducks, of which my little boy had charge. I missed them on the morning of the 4th of July, and in course of the day saw George Nobel, the constable, and in consequence of what he told me I went to the constable Ward and saw four ducks in his possession. Joseph Ward, constable - on the night in question I apprehended the prisoner with the sack; I searched him and found four ducks in his coat pockets; I asked him where he got them; he said he stole them down at Red River, and begged to be let go and he would never do so again. James Jenkin, son of prosecutor, who had charge of the ducks, stated that he last saw them at his father's about seven or eight o'clock in the evening of Thursday, the 3rd of July; next morning he found the six ducks missing, and in the evening went to Ward's house and there saw four of them. (Ward produced the ducks, which were identified by the witness). Guilty. Sentence - Two Months' Hard Labour in respect of the sack; and One Month's Hard Labour for stealing the ducks. THOMAS LITTLETON, 22, a joiner, charged with stealing two planes, one chisel, and one plumb-bob, the property of SAMUEL TREVETHERN BENNETT, shipwright, from his yard, at Padstow, on or about the 14th of July. Mr. COLERIDGE conducted the prosecution; and Mr. COLE the defence. The Prosecutor deposed, I am a shipwright at Padstow; in July last I left there for some days, leaving my tools in charge of PASCOE BILLING, my workman. On my coming back, I received information that the planes were missing. In consequence of that, I called my workmen together and told them that if the planes were not brought back by the Tuesday night following, I should take measures to discover and punish the guilty person. This was on the Monday. The planes were not brought back on the Tuesday, and on the Wednesday morning, a search was made in the hold of the vessel from which they had been missed. Prisoner was in my employ, and had been at work in the hold of the vessel. I asked him if he knew any thing about the missing planes. He cried and said he did not know anything about them, and that he had not seen or touched them since the time of their being missing, he also offered to make the same statement before any magistrate, and to allow his boxes to be searched without warrant. I went to BLANNING, the constable, and told him what had passed, and I then went to my yard to tell Littleton to come and open his boxes. I found Littleton was not there; and I then went to Blanning to hasten him to Littleton's lodgings; and I and Blanning went there together to the prisoner's house, and there I saw Blanning take a plane from under prisoner's arm, and the prisoner asked me to be merciful to him. I said I could not do anything for him, as it was gone out of my hands. I got a search warrant, and searched prisoner's lodgings and found one other plane, a chisel, and a plumb-bob. The plumb-bob, I believe, was lost in November, and the chisel was lost in May. The plane that was found under his arm was also my property. On the 1st of July, the prisoner went to work for me, with tools belonging to me; he had been working in the yard before, but not as my servant. I found tools for my apprentices; and the men for themselves; the prisoner was on trial, and would have been an apprentice if all things had gone straight. The understanding was that I was to find tools for him until he got his own, and when he worked with his own tools, his wages were to be raised from 9s. a week to 10s. Thomas Blanning, constable:- On the 16th of July, Bennett called on me and gave me some information, in consequence of which I went to Littleton's lodgings, and found him at the foot of the stairs; he had under his arm a new plane that answered the description of the one I had lost; I took it from him and charged him with having stolen it from Bennett. Bennett was close behind me, and when I apprehended the prisoner he turned round to Bennett, and said "be merciful" or something to that effect. (The Witness then confirmed previous evidence, as to the results of the search at prisoner's lodgings, under search warrant; and he produced the various articles spoken of, for identification). Pascoe Billing, foreman for Mr. Bennett:- On Tuesday the 8th of July Mr. Bennett went away, and left in my care the yard and tools, and these two planes in particular; one of them was new and had never been used. I put the planes in my own chest, locked it, and kept them there till Thursday morning the 10th, when I took them on board the vessel for two men to work with and they were again taken on board the vessel on the following Friday morning; I saw them there that morning, but not afterwards till the following Wednesday, before the magistrates. The old plane had been missing about two months; the prisoner was working about the premises about that time. The defence by Mr. Cole, both in cross-examination and in his address to the jury, was, chiefly, that the prisoner took the tools not with a felonious intent, but justifiably under some alleged agreement or understanding between him and the prosecutor, his employer; and the prisoner received a very good character from the Rev. F. J. H. KENDALL, vicar of Lanlivery. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his good character; and the learned judge passed the lenient sentence of a Fortnight's Hard Labour. JOHN GROSE, 21, miner, JOSEPH GROSE, 18, also a miner; and SAMUEL PARSONS, 12, carpenter; were charged with burglary at the dwelling-house of JOHN TREWELLING, at Tywardreath Highway, and with stealing therefrom two loaves of bread, on the night of Saturday the 12th of July. Mr. HOLDSWORTH conducted the prosecution. The trial resulted in the Acquittal of all three prisoners; but they were less fortunate in a second indictment, which charged them with stealing a rope, three tame fowls, and two poles the property of JOSEPH PHILLIPPS, on the same night and in the same neighbourhood. They were all found Guilty on this charge, and were sentenced to Twelve Months' Hard Labour, each. There was a third indictment, which was not pressed, charging the three prisoners with stealing on the same night, six gallons of cider and a water cask, the property of SAMUEL JANE. NICHOLAS VENNING, 47, coach-builder, was charged with stealing a vice and a spanner, the property of WILLIAM BIDDICK KELLOW, coach-builder, at St. Austell, on the 22nd of July. Mr. BERE conducted the prosecution, and the prisoner was undefended; the trial resulted in a verdict of Acquittal. JOSEPH KNIGHT, 21, carpenter, was charged, that he being a servant of WILLIAM BREWER, cabinet-maker, of St. Columb, stole from his master on the 19th of July, a workbox, a triangle, and some pieces of wood. Mr. HOLDSWORTH conducted the prosecution, and Mr. CARTER the defence. After several witnesses had been examined, the learned Judge stopped the case, and directed a verdict of Acquittal, but strongly cautioned the prisoner, and workmen and apprentices generally, against taking any portion of their masters' property, however small, under any supposition that they were entitled to it. If masters chose to give any refuse or other material for workmen or apprentices to work up for themselves, it was a different thing; but it must be understood that workmen and apprentices had no right to it. There was a similar indictment against PHILIP SMITH, aged 22, also a carpenter in Mr. Brewer's employ, for a precisely similar offence; but after the result of the preceding case, no evidence was offered, and the Judge directed an Acquittal. Mr. Carter said it was right he should state on behalf of these two young men, that there were witnesses in court who would have given them an excellent character. The Judge said he did not doubt their good character; but they must in future bear in mind that they had no right to take any of their master's property. Mr. Brewer, the prosecutor, addressing the judge, said he was pleased that his lordship had thus disposed of the cases; his only object had been to give warning for the future. The Judge said he had taken a right course. l SAMUEL McMEIKEN, 27, draper, was charged with embezzling certain moneys, to the amount of ten shillings and upwards, the property of his master, JAMES MILLAR, of Redruth, draper, on or about the 14th of July. Mr. COLE conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. James Millar deposed:- I am a draper at Redruth, and am in the habit of employing young men as servants, to travel for me. The prisoner was in my employ; and his duty was to call on any customers, and to take orders and receive money, on a particular round. My agreement with him was for two years, a sort of apprenticeship; the young men do not receive wages, but have their board, lodging, and travelling expenses, and at the end of two year we sell them a round and establish them in trade, this being paid for by bills at long date as we can agree. His Duty was to give account every Saturday night of moneys and to pay over the money to me. On the 5th of July he returned, after having been out for a week, but did not pay me over any money; he ought to have returned on the Friday night, but he did not return till late on the Saturday night, remained over Sunday, and started on Monday morning before I got up. I made some inquiries about him at Penzance, and the result was that I had him apprehended. I have here the prisoner's account book, which I took from him at Penzance; it contains entries of his having received a shilling from Mrs. KINGSTON, a shilling from Mrs. RAWLING, and ten shillings from Mrs. GRENFELL. I got that book from him a fortnight before he was taken into custody, when I went down to Penzance, I discovered that he had been receiving money; those sums I have mentioned had been paid to him as instalments on account, and he has never handed them over to me. MARY ANN BONNER, who lives at Penzance, and receives money on behalf of Mr. Millar from his customers, proved that on the 4th of July, she paid to McMeiken the three several sums named in the indictment; he having applied to her on the 19th of June, for money due from Mrs. Grenfell. WILLIAM NICHOLL, constable of Redruth, proved that on the 19th of July he had a warrant for the apprehension of prisoner, and on the following day, took him into custody at Morvah, and charged him with embezzling his master's property to the amount of GBP3 and upwards, and he said he would not have his exposure for his existence, and that if he owed Mr. Millar anything he would pay him, if he would give him time. In the course of cross-examination by prisoner, the prosecutor admitted that he had sold a considerable amount of debts, and got GBP90 in respect thereof, on the round on which the prisoner was engaged; but asserted that he was not bound to sell to the prisoner, at the end of his tow years, any particular round; he might sell him any round. There was between the prosecutor and prisoner much controversy as to the custom of their trade; and, eventually, the learned Judge on the evidence adduced, and on the account book put into his lordship's hands, summed up much in prisoner's favour, suggesting that, although it was clear the prisoner had received the sums of money in question and had not paid them to his master, there might be doubt as to the intent to defraud, which was the essence of a charge of embezzlement; there was the possibility that the money was retained as set-off for wages. His lordship also expressed strong disapproval of the system under which a man of such age as the prisoner was kept at work without receiving wages for his maintenance; it was, his lordship said, a perilous state to place such a man in, to be in the receipt of money, and to have nothing for himself as compensation, but the purchase of a district at the end of two years. The jury found a verdict of Not Guilty. SIMON KENVER, 19, labourer, was charged with maliciously killing a sheep, the property of THOMAS ADAMS, at Laneast, on the 3rd of May. Mr. COLERIDGE was counsel for the prosecution, but was engaged in the nisi prius court until a large portion of evidence in this case had been taken by the learned Judge, by examination from the depositions. GEORGE ADAMS, son of the prosecutor, deposed:- I live with my father at Lidicott farm. The prisoner was in the employ of Mr. LETHBRIDGE, who is my father's landlord, and whose estate adjoins. Five or six weeks before this sheep was killed, my father lost some lambs, which I found lying dead on some of the adjoining estates. Sheep and lambs were destroyed from nearly all the flocks in the neighbourhood; five or six in a week; I have seen five dead at a time; they were cut and stabbed. In consequence of this, I went to watch, about nine o'clock on the 2nd of May, and sat on a furze-brake, opposite the field where Lethbridge's sheep were to be that day. I saw Kenver and another of Mr. Lethbridge's men bring the sheep into that field; and afterwards the other man left, and Kenver was left along in the field, with a gun in his hand. The sheep broke from this field (Higher Widdons) to a field below called Lower Widdons, where Kenveer followed them and remained there till the bell struck twelve, and the sheep then went up to Higher Widdons again, and Kenver followed them and lay down in a gap; he then walked across the field into the plantation and I lost sight of him for twenty minutes; I left my place and went into the plantation, and he was not there. I then went to see my father's sheep; and then returned to the plantation, which was searched that day by, I suppose, thirty men of Mr. Lethbridge's and the neighbourhood; all hands turned out to make search, as it was supposed the sheep and lambs had been torn by dogs. That search continued till four o'clock; and when all the men were gone away, I went back to the place from whence I have been watching before, and saw Kenver and the sheep in the Lower Widdons, where they remained till six o'clock; and then when I joined Kenver, he told me there was another lamb bitten. I said "when?" He said, "when I fired." I asked him at what time. He said, "about half-past five." I said, "where were the sheep?" He said "in the Higher field; there was many a lamb outside the hurdle; I saw them run off; I ran to the hurdle, and inside I saw a bleeding lamb: I saw the furze move, and I fired in that direction." I asked him where it was; and he said in the higher corner, and that he had brought the carcase of the lamb down to the lower field. During all that time, I had been watching those fields; and from half past four to the time I joined him, I am certain there was no sheep or lambs in the Higher Widdons, and none at the time he fired. I examined the lamb, and found it had two stabs in the neck, and the tail was cut, nearly divided in two; they were not such marks as a dog would make; I believe the stabs were made with a knife, and the mark on the tail was a perfect cut. I walked towards home with Kenver and the other men, and on the way Kenver was asked if he killed anything when he fired. He said no, he did not see anything, but he had hear dogs in the plantation nine or ten times that morning, and that the last time he went through the plantation it was something larger than a dog and it made a terrible noise. As I came back I saw a man called BLIGH, who examined the lamb in the presence of the prisoner, and said "Simon, this looks exactly like a cut with a knife." Prisoner made no reply. I then made arrangements to watch the next day; and about half-past nine left to go home; on the road I again saw Kenver, and said to him, "I have been into BLIGHT's and I am very much interested in finding out who is doing the mischief." He replied, "you are in as much danger as the rest." The next dinner hour I made arrangements to watch, and went to the furze-brake, and took my place where I could command the field in which our sheep were. During that forenoon Kenver was watching, with Mr. Lethbridge's keeper, HAWKE. As soon as Hawke left, (according to our arrangement), Kenver left the field and was absent about an hour; and then he came back and was joined by four men and directly afterwards by two others. I left and went home, but directly afterwards, a communication was made to me, in consequence of which I went to one of my father's fields, and there saw a dead sheep; its throat was cut; the windpipe cut all across, four or five inches with a sharp instrument; a cut across the nose; and at the shoulder a stab four or five inches deep, and perfectly fresh and warm. My father came there, and we observed near the sheep footmarks of shoes with nails. I had no nails in my shoes. The witness minutely described the footmarks, which he observed near the dead sheep, and which he traced at various parts of the fields, to the Widdons; and he went on to say:- When I got to the Widdons, I saw the prisoner there; the keeper and another man joined me: and we found that the footprints corresponded with the prisoner's shoes. My father charged him with killing the sheep, and put him in custody. When I said we must compare the shoes, the prisoner rose up and said "there's no sense in this." I said there's no sense in having so many sheep killed; I told him, too, that I had been watching the day before, and that his movements did not correspond with what he had told me, and that the account he had given me was almost entirely false, and that there had been no sheep at all on Higher Widdons at the time he said the lamb was bitten. My father took him into custody, and we walked to the bottom of the field where we had seen the perfect impression, and on comparing it with the prisoner's shoes we found them correspond exactly; the shoes also corresponded exactly with the impressions where we had found the dead sheep. About this time, some person asked him if he had anything in his pockets; he said "nothing but a knife," which he produced, and I found on it the mark of recent blood; the knife looked as if it had been washed; there was no blood on the outside of the handle; the blood was inside, and on the handle was some wool. Some one made an observation that there was blood and wool on the knife; and he said "that there may," afterwards at Launceston, he said he hoped I would do what I could for him. I said I should say nothing about it but the truth; but I believed it was impossible but that he must be convicted of killing that sheep and wounding more. He said he ought not to be punished for what he did not do, and that he had not done half of it. I said, "Do you mean that you have had any company in the affair; or did you see any other person kill sheep?" He said, yes, he did; and he named a person, whom he said he had seen kill a lamb in his master's field. I said, "Did the person know you saw him?" He said he did. "Then," I said, "you were together?" He said yes; and he mentioned several cases that he did not do. Confirmatory evidence was given by JAMES HODGE, a labourer, who was at Lidicoat farm on Saturday the 3rd of May; RICHARD HAWKE, Mr. Lethbridge's keeper at Tregeare; JOSEPH BLIGH, Mr. Lethbridge's hind, who stated that between Ladyday and the 2nd of May there had been as many as thirty-two sheep and lambs killed in the neighbourhood; and that Kenver's employment was to look after Mr. Lethbridge's sheep, under him (Bligh); THOMAS ADAMS, the prosecutor, who added that neither himself nor any one else in the neighbourhood had lost any sheep since the 3rd of May, when the prisoner was apprehended; and BENJAMIN SAMBELLS, policeman at Launceston, who received the prisoner in custody on Saturday the 3rd of May; about half-past six on Saturday, Kenver attempted to escape from the lock-up, and witness re-took him. The learned Judge deferred sentence, and intimated that the case seem to him of so extraordinary a character, that he should like to make some inquiries as to the prisoner's intellect. A bill against the prisoner, for maiming and wounding a lamb, the property of JOHN KING LETHBRIDGE, Esq., at Laneast, on the 2nd of May, was ignored.

Hi everyone As a researcher I must say I absolutely love getting all of the additional information that is added to this site. Tonight, Julia's information on her family gave me a complete look at another avenue of research. So I would like to say thanks Julia and all of the workers who put so much time into the Cornish site and for everything you do and I wait for some more additional information. I must add in the newspaper pages many of my early ancestors appear which has helped in my research. Thank you Hazel in Blacktown, NSW

Many times you will find on the census the illegitimate offspring of an unmarried daughter shown as the "Daughter" of it's Grandmother, having been brought up as such. Ray in Delabole Message: 1 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:13:51 -0400 From: "Carol Noonan" <cpolglase@verizon.net> Subject: [CORNISH] Widows and widowers To: "Cornish List" <cornish@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000201cd9a5e$d31f7570$795e6050$@net> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="US-ASCII" In checking some censuses I found a sister of my grandfather who was listed as a widow, then found her husband listed as a widower and alive and living in London. The widow was living in Wales with her sister.  There were no descendants  of the alleged widow or her husband. This may have been the custom to avoid the "shame" of a failed marriage, but surely people were not encouraged to lie in official records. Has anyone else found similar items? Carol in MD

Hi Carol and everyone - In 1910 my grandmother was legally divorced from her husband. I believe at the time a divorced woman was considered "loose", and socially not acceptable. The "social columns" in the town newspaper ceased to record parties where she appeared as a guest or hostess, nor trips etc. that they had previously mentioned. She then lived in several different cities with her son. In every single census, and every city directory, etc., she was shown as "widow". It worked well until she returned to the town in which they had lived - his home town - where everyone knew she wasn't a widow, but the census continued to record her as 'widow', as did her obituary. By that time, her ex-husband had died. Her ex-husband remarried, and was recorded in the usual manner with that wife, but as they lived in New York City, thousands of miles away, it didn't matter. She was officially, legally called Mrs. Edw. Symons, rather than Mrs. Edith Symons, in almost every legal document I've seen. (Although she did sign "Edith Symons" for her will.) Ah, the nebulous bounds of propriety! Cheers, Julia > In checking some censuses I found a sister of my grandfather who was listed > as a widow, then found her husband listed as a widower and alive and living > in London. The widow was living in Wales with her sister. There were no > descendants of the alleged widow or her husband. This may have been the > custom to avoid the "shame" of a failed marriage, but surely people were not > encouraged to lie in official records. Has anyone else found similar items? > Carol in MD >

----- Original Message ----- From: "Denis Edwards" <djedwds@bigpond.com> To: <cornish@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [CORNISH] West Briton, 25 July 1856 BMDs > hi Julia and listers > This is another of my relatives > the Son was named Richard John Merrifield he died in January 1857 and was > buried at St Day . His mother was Catherine Edwards and she Died in July > 1861 aged 28 yrs buried St Day > But what I can't determine is what became of John Merrifield. In the 1861 > census Catherine describes herself as a widow but i suspect he has " shot > through" can't find a death listed that fits these dated 1856- 1861 in > Cornwall I think he was born at Kea in 1832 and John and Catherine > married > in 1856 > I say this because another family member who's marriage had ended both > husband and wife describe themselves as widow or widower in in the records > after the spilt in 1874. she lived to 1889 and he till 1909 > this is something to concider when reading census / record doc's > cheers > denis edwards > In sunny Sydney > > >> >> West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser >> Friday, 25 July 1856 >> . >> BIRTHS > >> At Blackwater, on Tuesday last, the wife of Mr. JOHN MERRIFIELD, of a >> son. > > > ------------------------------- > Subscribe to digest by sending an email to CORNISH-D-request@rootsweb.com > with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject line and body text. If you want, > MIME digests, email CORNISH-admin@rootsweb.com. > > Unsubscribe from either by sending an email to > CORNISH-request@rootsweb.com. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CORNISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I had one on a census also that stated he was a widower but is alive in the next census. I am wondering also. > In checking some censuses I found a sister of my grandfather who was listed > as a widow, then found her husband listed as a widower and alive and living > in London. The widow was living in Wales with her sister.  There were no > descendants  of the alleged widow or her husband. This may have been the > custom to avoid the "shame" of a failed marriage, but surely people were not > encouraged to lie in official records. Has anyone else found similar items? > Carol in MD > > ------------------------------- > Subscribe to digest by sending an email to > CORNISH-D-request@rootsweb.com with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject > line and body text.  If you want, MIME digests, email > CORNISH-admin@rootsweb.com. > > Unsubscribe from either by sending an email to CORNISH-request@rootsweb.com. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CORNISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >   Carolyn Haines Holt, MI 48842

hi Julia and listers This is another of my relatives the Son was named Richard John Merrifield he died in January 1857 and was buried at St Day . His mother was Catherine Edwards and she Died in July 1861 aged 28 yrs buried St Day But what I can't determine is what became of John Merrifield. In the 1861 census Catherine describes herself as a widow but i suspect he has " shot through" can't find a death listed that fits these dated 1856- 1861 in Cornwall I think he was born at Kea in 1832 and John and Catherine married in 1856 I say this because another family member who's marriage had ended both husband and wife describe themselves as widow or widower in in the records after the spilt in 1874. she lived to 1889 and he till 1909 this is something to concider when reading census / record doc's cheers denis edwards In sunny Sydney > > West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser > Friday, 25 July 1856 > . > BIRTHS > At Blackwater, on Tuesday last, the wife of Mr. JOHN MERRIFIELD, of a son.

In checking some censuses I found a sister of my grandfather who was listed as a widow, then found her husband listed as a widower and alive and living in London. The widow was living in Wales with her sister. There were no descendants of the alleged widow or her husband. This may have been the custom to avoid the "shame" of a failed marriage, but surely people were not encouraged to lie in official records. Has anyone else found similar items? Carol in MD

Just thought all you genealogists out there might get a kick out of this old song . Someone said it was done by Phil Harris many years ago.... enjoy it as you try to sort out the mysteries of bygone generations. I'm My Own Grandpa Now many many years ago when I was twenty-three I was married to a widow who was pretty as can be This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red My father fell in love with her and soon they too were wed Oh I'm my own grandpa I'm my own grandpa It sounds funny I know, But it really is so Oh I'm my own grandpa This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life My daughter was my mother 'cause she was my father's wife To complicate the matter even though it brought me joy I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother Of the widow's grown-up daughter who was also my stepmother Father's wife then had a son who kept them on the run And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son My wife is now my mother's mother and it makes me blue Because altho' she is my wife, she's my grandmother too Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild For now I have become the strangest case I ever saw As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa teries of by-gone generations!!!