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.