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.