Might anyone know what a "gin palace system" might have been? (see the case of Brendon). .......................................................................................................................................................................WEST BRITON and CORNWALL ADVERTISER30 OCTOBER 1857 . 30 OCTOBER 1857 VISITING JUSTICES' REPORT - The Chairman read this report as follows: We, the undersigned Visiting Justices of the County Prison, at Bodmin, have to report the cleanly state of the gaol and the efficient discipline maintained therein. We have to recommend that THOMAS WHITE, who was appointed a warder at the last Michaelmas Sessions, should be placed on the same footing as the other warders with respect to the annual increase of salary of GBP 1 after the first year, with the same allowances of clothing, &c. The governor having been directed to employ a night-watchman in lieu of WILLIAM BEARD (who had become hard of hearing and unfit for that duty) had selected THOMAS JAGO, jun., subject to our approbation, and we, approving of the selection, have to recommend that his appointment may be confirmed at the same salary and allowance as WILLIAM BEARD; such appointment to bear date 31st August, 1857, being the day he commenced doing the duty. . We have further to report the death of WILLIAM HILL, a pensioned warder, which took place on the 7th October instant. Signed, H. THOMSON, RICHARD FOSTER, C.M. EDWARD COLLINS, and NEVILLE NORWAY. . SURGEON'S REPORT - [from Mr. WARD, surgeon of the county gaol] - I have the honour to report that during the first three quarters of the current year, the health of the prisoners in the county gaol was remarkably good; the average number treated being sixty-seven. But in the fourth quarter the number amounted to 159, shewing an increase of ninety-two cases over every other period. This I attribute to two causes: first, the increased number of committals; and secondly, the prevalence of diarrhoea, so usual at this time of the year; the cases, however, were all mild in character; the disease has passed away, and I can now report the gaol to be in a very healthy state. . THURSDAY OCTOBER 29 The court this morning passed the following sentences on prisoners, whose trials we reported last week: William Letcher, one month hard labour Richard Jewell, six weeks hard labour Charlotte Hocking, two months' hard labour James harris, two months' hard labour, and to be privately whipped John Treserge James, six months' hard labour Emma Hendy, four months' hard labour Henry Allen, four months’ hard labour Henry Ager, six months' hard labour, and to be twice privately whipped John Stoneman, eight months' hard labour William Smith, nine months' hard labour William Best, twelve months' hard labour Edward Armstrong, six years' penal servitude Elizabeth Phillips, six months' imprisonment Gilderoy Brown, the elder, four months' hard labour Gilderoy Brown, the younger, four months' hard labour John Smith, six months' hard labour Mary Sullivan, four months' hard labour . On the prisoner Armstrong being called on, the governor (Mr. Everest) made complaint to the court that the turnkeys had just reported to him that this prisoner had most violently misconducted himself in the cell below, after being brought thither with other prisoners from the gaol to receive sentence. Armstrong, addressing the court with much vehemence of manner, stated that OSBORNE (a turnkey) came to him and said something or other about what his sentence would be; and he (Armstrong) said, "well, they won't hang us;" and so one word led to another. . The Chairman: We have a wretched character of you. Prisoner - "And 'twill be worse for the time to come; worse than ever; all this will do me no good." . The Chairman stated that the prisoner had been previously convicted at the Epiphany Sessions, and passed on him sentence of six years penal servitude; on which the prisoner exclaimed - "I hope you'll break your bloody neck against I come back." Then prisoner then, making violent and powerful resistance, was removed to the cell below, exclaiming when he got down, "I hope all you bloody b___rs will break your bloody necks; I'll serve you out at the end of six years." . We observed that two men in the court - we believe constables - went down to the assistance of the turnkeys, and we have been informed that it took seven men to hold the prisoner, and to handcuff him and take off his shoes. The other prisoners, we are told, showed themselves willing and ready to assist the gaol officers in securing this violent fellow. . The prisoner, JOHN SMITH, on receiving his sentence, with remarks from the chairman on his violence in the commission of the assault, exclaimed: "I was not there at all; the witnesses, with the exception of the last, were perjured; I take six months for nothing, and one month I have been in prison already; that's your Cornish evidence and your Cornish law-dealers!" . JAMES COOK, aged 62, a labourer, had been indicted for attempting to destroy himself at St. Clether. No one had appeared to prosecute the indictment. In obedience to a command from the Chairman, he was now placed in the dock, to be admonished and discharged. . The Chairman said to him: -You have been brought before us in consequence of some unhappy attempt you made on your life. Prisoner - Yes, your Honor; I was very tipsy at the time, and I am very sorry for it. The Chairman admonished the prisoner, and he promised that he would never drink again. . APPEALS ST. KEW appellant; Mr. SHILSON and Mr. COLLINS. BODMIN respondent; Mr. STOKES and Mr. COMMINS. . MARY ANN CROWE from the parish of Bodmin to the parish of St. Kew. Mr. Stokes stated that the order was grounded on a hiring and service of the pauper, in the year 1830, and that corroborative evidence as to date was the death of JANE GOODMAN, the wife of pauper's master in that year; but that it had now been discovered that there were two Jane Goodmans, one of whom died in 1830, and the other in 1834, and that, in fact, the one who died last was the wife of the pauper's master. The overseers of Bodmin had therefore been altogether misled by the circumstances of their[sic] being two Jane Goodmans of the same parish, whose deaths were certified in the same register; and therefore he submitted that the order should be quashed without coasts. Mr. Shilson, on the part of the respondents, objected to this course, and the order was eventually quashed on the merits with GBP5 costs. . BUDOCK appellant - Mr. SHILSON and Mr. BULLMORE; CALSTOCK respondent. This was an appeal against an order for the removal of MARY MANUEL HANCOCK, widow, and her two children. There was no appearance on behalf of respondents. . MR. SAMUEL LAWRY, assistant overseer of the parish of Budock, proved due publication and service of the notice and grounds of appeal; and he added that on his seeing the overseers of Calstock, and informing them of the grounds of appeal, they said that in that case they thought they should withdraw. Since that he had had some communication with them, and they wished to make certain conditions; but he informed them that they must withdraw first; there was something said by them about finding out the settlement, but since that he had received no further communication from them, and they had no notice of abandonment. . Under these circumstances, Mr. Shilson applied that the order be quashed, and with extra costs, to meet the appellants' expenses in attending to-day, with witnesses, to prosecute the appeal; and to show that the appellants had been acting bond fide, and with the full intention of trying the appeal, there was read a copy of a letter written on Monday last, by Mr. Bullmore, to the respondents attorney, to which no answer had been received. The court quashed the order, with GBP 15 costs; no maintenance. . IMPORTANT TO CARRIERS - JOHNSON, appellant; Mr. STOKES and Mr. JOHN H. DWELLY (attorneys for the Board of Excise). STANTON, respondent; Mr. SHILSON. [article shortened] . Mr. Stokes stated that in this case, the appellant was HERBERT JOHNSON, supervisor of excise in the Liskeard district; and the respondent was WILLIAM STANTON of Liskeard. The appeal was, in fact, against a decision of the justices of the borough of Liskeard in a case in which Mr. Herbert Johnson applied to those justices to enforce a penalty of GBP 100 against Stanton for having let out a horse to hire without having obtained the necessary license for that purpose. . The Liskeard magistrates, having had two hearings and having taken time to consider, ultimately refused the appellant's application. Thereupon notice of appeal was given by the appellant and the parties now came here to try the case over again; the Commissioners of Excise having directed the appeal. The facts of the case were shortly these: . The defendant keeps a van at Liskeard, and in respect thereof pays, under the Assessed Taxes Act, a duty of GBP 2.6s.8d. per annum; this being the amount of duty payable by him as a common carrier, for one horse. Having that van, he was employed in the early part of June, by Mr. Sanders, who keeps an academy at Liskeard, to take some of the schoolboys from Liskeard to Truro; the bargain being that Stanton was to take them at a charge of 5s.6d. each. . Mr. Stokes stated that Truro was not the ordinary route of this van, its ordinary route being from Liskeard to Plymouth and back; the route to Truro was wholly different, and considerably longer. . The bargain was first made with Stanton by Mrs. Sanders, and afterwards confirmed by her husband; eight boys were conveyed to Truro, and Stanton was subsequently paid at the rate of 5s.6d. He believed that on the road, one or two other passengers were taken up; and he was not instructed to say that there was an exclusive letting of the van by Stanton to Sanders. . These being the facts of the case, the question was whether the defendant had thus incurred the penalty now sought to be enforced. The act under which the appellant proceeded, was the 16th and 17th Victoria, cap. 88 - an Act to repeal the duties payable in respect to horses let for hire, and to grant new duties on licenses to let horses for hire. The 2nd section of that Act stated what the duties were to be, and the 4th section - the important one - contained this provision: "Every person who shall let any horses for hire to be used [shall take out a proper license for that purpose, consistent with the Board of Excise and the Supervisor of Excise in the district. If that license were not taken out, another section - the 15th - assessed a penalty of GBP 100 should be imposed, but could be mitigated.] . The first question was whether the bargain made with Sanders by Stanton was in fact a letting of his Horse for hire. Mr. Stokes believed it was, for a van could not go without the horse. The second question - which Mr. Shilson had urged before the magistrates at Liskeard - was that Stanton, being a common carrier, was exempt from the operation of this clause by the provisions of another Act - the 16 and 17 Victoria, cap 90. The important portion of that Act was Schedule D..[Mr. Shilson would say that GBP2.6s.8d. was all that the respondent was liable to pay, inasmuch as he was a common carrier traveling at a rate not exceeding four miles an hour. Therefore, the respondent was exempt from the post-horse duty of GBP7.10s.] In order to be exempt, a common carrier must be bona fide, principally employed in carrying goods, and that the permission to carry passengers was qualified by the word "occasionally.". Mr. Stokes contended that the meaning of that was that the van being principally employed to convey goods, passengers might, occasionally, be taken up and let down on the road. But could it be said that a distinct hiring of the van for a given day to go on another than its usual route and take boys at 5s.6d. a head, was such an occasional use for passengers as the act contemplated? Here there was as much a distinct hiring of the defendant's horse and van for a long journey, as if Mr. Sanders had gone to the hotel and hired a carriage for the conveyance of the boys to Truro.. In reply to a question from the chairman, Mr. Stokes said he believed the defendant had but this one carriage, and that the day on which it went to Truro was not one of its days for its usual route between Liskeard and Plymouth. However that might be, here was a distinct bargain by the defendant for his own gain, and he was bound to take the consequences.. Hotel-keepers naturally complained that van-owners, paying only the common carriers duty of GBP 2.6s.8d., should be able to let carriages in this way. Mr. Stokes proceeded to cite a case that would show a bargain that the latter should take the boys to Truro, was in fact a hiring of a horse.. Witnesses called by Mr. Stokes were:. SARAH SANDERS, wife of Mr. William Sanders, who keeps a school at Liskeard, said she did not agree to hire the carriage exclusively - she only agreed he should convey eight boys to Truro, and did not mind should others be taken up as well. WILLIAM BATTERSHILL SANDERS - was not certain of the number of boys who would go to Truro; did not contract to hire a horse. ROBERT NICHOLLS - a young gentleman who made the journey; the van picked up a man in Bodmin who went to Truro as well, and two females; one was his wife, and one his sister. HERBERT JOHNSON - supervisor of the excise, Liskeard district - [Stanton does not pay for a post-horse license; he pays assessed taxes to the amount of GBP 2.6s.8d for his van. After he [Johnson] had initiated proceedings, he spoke to Stanton, when Stanton said Wednesday was an unoccupied day, and he considered he was allowed to take the boys to Truro as a common carrier, as he took the boys' luggage as well. I never heard he travelled in any other direction than to Plymouth..On cross-examination - Stanton's license as a common carrier does not confine him to any particular route. He may occasionally vary his times for going to and returning from Plymouth, but does so rarely. We were before the magistrates at Liskeard three times. Mr. JONES and Mr. PEARSE were the magistrates the first time; Mr. CHILDS and Mr. ANSTIS were the magistrates the second time. These four heard the last hearing. Three of the magistrates at Liskeard were lawyers; they were inclined to be against Mr. Anstis, who seemed [to Mr. Johnson] to have had very grave doubts about Stanton's position.]. Mr. Shilson, for the respondent, said it appeared to him perfectly clear that his client was entitled to do what he had done by virtue of an Act of Parliament. He contended that Stanton was not chargeable to post-horse duty; but, if he was chargeable at all, it would be to stage carriage duty..[He then cited the law regarding stage carriage duty] Every carriage conveying passengers for hire at a rate of four miles an hour was a stage-carriage; and then came an exemption of carriages traveling at a less rate than four miles an hour. There was then, in that section, this proviso: "Provided the passengers shall be charged and pay separate and distinct fares.".Stanton agreed to take the boys at 5s.6d. a head, provided they would start early, so that he might not travel at a rate of four miles an hour. If he travelled at a rate within four miles an hour, and carried passengers for separate and distinct fares, then he came within the exemption. He was not bound by any act of Parliament to any particular road; as a common carrier, he might travel on any road he pleased, and he might change his route as often as he pleased. He did not let his carriage wholly to Mrs. Sanders - which would have made him liable to the post-horse duty - but the evidence was that she had nothing to do with the carriage, and he might convey to Truro as many more passengers as he pleased. …. Mr. Stokes was heard in reply; after which the magistrates retired. In about a quarter of an hour they returned into court and the Chairman said: "We unanimously confirm the decision of the magistrates of Liskeard.". Mr. Stokes applied for a case, which was resisted by Mr. Shilson on the ground that it would be inflicting a hardship on the respondent - a poor man, who had already incurred considerable expense and lost much time in this case - to compel him into a contest with the crown, for the purpose of settling a point at law. After considerable delay and deliberation the court refused the application for a case. . DANIEL BRENDON, appellant: JUSTICES of LISKEARD, respondents. Mr. SHILSON appeared for the appellant; the respondents were unrepresented, and, in fact, there was no opposition to the appeal..[The Justices of Liskeard refused to grant a license to the appellant for selling wines and spirits by retail. Mr. Brenden, it appeared, was already duly licensed as an ale and porter merchant, and he was desirous of procuring a license to enable him to sell wines and spirits in quantities less than two gallons. His object was not to open a shop, or sell spirits over the counter or for consumption on his premises, but to provide his customers with amounts less than two gallons. He did not want his customers having to send their children to public houses for such purchases..There was no resistance to the application - in fact, there was a "numerously and very respectably signed memorial" from the residents requesting this application be approved. On Mr. Brendon's assurances and promises to not use his premises as a public house, nor sell for consumption on his premises, the court granted the license, at the same time expressing very strongly their determination to discourage an introduction into Cornwall of anything like the gin palace system.. JAMES BABB, appellant; JUSTICES of CALLINGTON, respondents. Mr. STOKES appeared for appellant; there was no attorney or advocate for the respondents..It appeared that Babb had formerly, for twelve years, kept reputably and without complaint of any kind, the Market-house Inn. About three years ago, in consequence of his term expiring, he left the Market-house Inn, and opened a beer-shop close to the adjoining stables which he had been obliged to hire for the accommodation of his customers at the inn. He had applied, unsuccessfully, for three consecutive years, to the Callington magistrates -J,B, MESSENGER, Esq., and the REV. RICE, for a license to open his beer-shop as an inn, and had been constantly refused. His present application was backed by memorials numerously signed, from leading inhabitants of Callington (including some respectable innkeepers), from forty-one farmers of the neighbourhood frequenting Callington market, and from carriers. The witnesses examined in support of the application were the appellant himself; HENRY BULLEN, constable; HENRY BULLEN, the younger, landlord of the Bull's Head Inn; THOMAS BETTY, constable; and GABRIEL EDWARDS, waggoner. After an examination of considerable length and minuteness, the court refused the application.. This concluded the business of the sessions. ...................................................................................................... Julia M. West Briton Transcriptions, 1836-1856 at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wbritonad St. Austell Area History and Genealogy at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~staustell