WEST BRITON AND CORNWALL ADVERTISER 28 MARCH 1856 - ASSIZES, part one of four CORNWALL SPRING ASSIZES On Saturday evening last, shortly before six o'clock, the learned Judges for the Western Circuit, Mr. Justice CROWDER and Mr. Serjeant CHANNELL, (the latter acting for Mr. Baron PLATT, who through severe illness could not engage in the duties of the Circuit) arrived at Bodmin from Exeter, and were met and escorted into town by the High Sheriff, Sir W. Berkeley CALL, Bart., and the usual troop of javelin men. The Sheriff appeared on the occasion in his deputy-lieutenant's uniform. The Judges on their arrival immediately proceeded to the Crown Court, and opened the commission for holding the assizes in the usual form. On Sunday morning, the Judges attended divine service at Bodmin church, where the prayers and lessons were read by the Rev. John WALLIS, vicar, and the Rev. Joseph COLIN, curate; and a good, practical discourse was preached by the Sheriff's Chaplain, the Rev. G. H. SOMERSET, rector of St. Mabyn. [The good preacher alluded to the fact that two-thirds of the prisoners appearing on the calendar of these assizes were unable to read well, and pointed out the important and salutary effect of education in diminishing crime.] On Monday morning, both Courts were opened, Mr. Justice Crowder presiding in the Crown Court, and Mr. Serjeant Channell at Nisi Prius. The calendar contained the names of forty-five prisoners. [The Learned Judge then charged the Jury, mentioning points of law in regard to each case.] ....I cannot dismiss you without adverting to another matter. On the back of the calendar are the names of the prisoners in gaol on former orders, and I find amongst them the names of Mary Ann THOMAS and Elizabeth THOMAS, common prostitutes, charged with wandering in the public streets, and behaving riotously. Mary Ann Thomas has been sentenced - I suppose at quarter sessions - to three calendar months' hard labour; and, then in addition to that, for want of sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, she is sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, to commence at the expiration of the first sentence. That is the case also with Elizabeth Thomas. Now I have no intention of saying, if it is precisely as is represented here, that the last is an illegal imprisonment; but there may be some mistake about it, and I shall make inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining what is the real character of what, I must say, is a very severe sentence. If it be that she was imprisoned for a given time till she found sureties, and conditionally to be discharged if she found sureties in the mean time, then it would be a legal imprisonment; but under any view, it seems to be a sentence of a very heavy character indeed, a woman of this kind being one of the last in the world that would be able to find sureties. I shall make inquiries to ascertain whether it is a legal imprisonment or not. The learned Judge then requested the Grand Jury to retire for the consideration of the bills before them; but just afterwards he said - I find the sentences on Mary Ann and Elizabeth Thomas were not from the county magistrates, but from the petty sessions of the borough of Truro. I am very anxious that there should be no mistake, and that such an accusation should not go against the county magistrates. TRIALS OF PRISONERS - MARY GWYN was charged with stealing a victorine [a fur neckpiece, from what I could find], the property of Mr. IBBOTT, draper, of Truro. Mr. HUGHES, for the prosecution, called as witnesses, JANE ROWE, ELIZABETH ROOKE, assistant in the shop, SUPERINTENDENT NASH, of the Truro police, and Mr. IBBOTT. Jane Rowe's statement was that she went into the shop in the afternoon of the 27th of February, to buy gloves, and the prisoner to buy a bonnet. They went up into the show room, and on coming down she saw the prisoner take a victorine from the door, and put it under her shawl. Prisoner paid for the bonnet when she got to the bottom of the stairs, and went out of the shop. When in the street, witness asked if she was not ashamed of herself for taking the victorine, and she said, "get out, you fool, why didn't you take the calico?" meaning some pieces of calico that were piled up. Witness informed Mr. Nash, who apprehended Gwyn next day at her house at Scorrier Gate. Mr. Nash searched the house, but did not find prosecutor's victorine. Elizabeth Rooke stated that she placed some victorines on the door on the morning of the 27th, and in the evening one of them was missing. Prisoner (who was undefended) asked some questions of Mrs. Rowe, and called as a witness in her behalf, a butcher named WHITFORD, who lives at Scorrier Gate. This witness stated some circumstances that occurred when Mr. Nash went with Jane Rowe to the prisoner's house at Scorrier Gate; and some of the evidence on this part of the case was conflicting. The JUDGE asked Mrs. Rowe why she did not tell Mr. Ibbott of the theft immediately when she saw it committed; to which Mrs. Rowe replied that she felt rather confused at the time. The learned Judge, in summing up, told the jury that the whole case rested on the evidence of Jane Rowe; there was no other testimony to support her. Verdict, Not Guilty. - HENRY WILCE, 35, labourer, pleaded guilty of stealing hay, straw, and turnips from his master, SAMUEL COWLING, of St. Kew, on the night of the 1st of March. Sentence, Three Months' hard labour. - HENRY STEPHENS and HENRY NORTHEY were charged with stealing a piece of rope from Mr. Stephen MICHELL, mine broker, of Truro, on or about the 20th of November. Mr. ARCHER for the prosecution; Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the prisoner Northey, Stephens being undefended. It appeared that the prosecutor had worked a mine called Wheal Michell, but the mine had ceased working, and the rope, which was part of the materials, was left at Mr. CARNE's blacksmith's shop at Higher Town, near Truro. Some time afterwards, when inquiry was made for the rope, it was found that the two prisoners had called at the shop and taken it away. It was given up to them because it was thought they had Mr. Michell's authority to come for it. The rope was found by policeman PRATER at Stephens's house in Truro. It appeared that Northey went with Stephens to Higher Town for the rope, because Stephens told him he had a right to it. The Judge, therefore, decided that there was no case against Northey. Stephens's statement was that the prosecutor owed him for two days' work, and he thought he had a right to take the rope on that account; but the prosecutor denied that he said anything to him about this debt until January, whereas the rope was taken away in the previous November. Mr. STOKES and High Bailiff DREW, of the County Court, were called as witnesses to Stephens's good character. The jury returned both prisoners Not Guilty. The Judge, addressing Stephens, said, if you suppose you have a right on account of any debt, to get hold of property belonging to another, you will find it is wholly illegal, and that you run a very great risk in doing so. - RUTH THOMAS, 15, was charged with stealing three gold rings from Peter LATORA, at Redruth, on the 12th of January. Mr. ARCHER for the prosecution; Mr. COLE for the prisoner. Prosecutor keeps a 'general shop' at Redruth; he left the shop about seven in the evening of the 12th of January, and on his return found that the three rings had been stolen. Prisoner was seen by Elizabeth HOCKIN, who entered the shop, leaning over the counter, and putting her hand into a glass case containing a number of rings; she thought at the time that prisoner belonged to the shop. Mrs. FRANCES also said she saw prisoner with her hand in the glass case. The rings were afterwards found on the ground, near where the prisoner was standing. The prisoner received a good character from UREN, a constable. The jury were a long time considering the case, but at length found the prisoner Guilty, strongly recommending her to mercy on account of her character. The Judge sentenced her to four months' hard labour. - ROBERT HODGE, 36, blacksmith, pleaded Guilty of stealing twelve steel shovels, the property of William VIVIAN, of Gwinear. Nine months' hard labour. - HENRY THOMAS ELLIS, 17, labourer, pleaded Guilty of stealing a pair of boots, the property of Thomas ROBERTS, and a pair of stockings, the property of Samuel MAY, at St. Just in Penwith, on the 11th of January last. Two months' hard labour. - JOHN TIPPETT, 14, miner, pleaded Guilty of stealing 2 lbs. of candles, the property of John WATERS and Stephen TUCKER, at St. Blazey, on the 3rd of January. He also pleaded Guilty of stealing 1 ½ lbs of candles, the property of Thomas WILLIAMS and John TRETHEWY, at St. Blazey, the 3rd January. Four Months' hard labour. - JOHN PARKER, 25, tallow chandler, pleaded Guilty of breaking and entering the dwelling-house of JOHN TYACK, at Kea, and stealing a silver watch, shawls, trousers, and other articles. He also pleaded Guilty of breaking and entering the house of JOHN EADE, at Breage, on the 28th of February, and stealing a cape, coats, trousers, waistcoats, and other things. The prisoner also pleaded Guilty to a third indictment, for breaking and entering the house of ANN PAINTER, of Gwennap, on the 3rd of March, and stealing shawls and dresses. Four Years' Penal Servitude. - MARY SIMS, 44, was charged with fraudulently obtaining from JAMES OLIVER, at Camborne, on the 19th of January, a pair of boots, by pretending that she was sent by her sister, Mrs. Ann KNUCKEY. Guilty. Three months' hard labour. - WILLIAM FERRERS, alias BAILEY, 43, was charged with stealing two coats, a glove, bag, and whetstone, the property of George HOBBS, at St. Stephens by Saltash, on the 18th of January. Colonel CORYTON, in whose service the prisoner had worked for eight years, gave him a good character. Verdict, Not Guilty. - STABBING - CHARLES JENKIN, 23, a miner, was indicted for feloniously stabbing and wounding WILLIAM ELLIS, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr. BEVAN for the prosecution; Mr. COLE for the defence. There was a good deal of evidence given in this case, but the substance of it was as follows. On the night of the 10th of March, the prisoner, with two men called WALLIS and BERRYMAN, were drinking at a public house at Newbridge, in the parish of Sancreed. Another man called Samuel HOLLOW, was also of the company present at a later part of the evening. There were several people in the room, and dice were played with for pints of beer. The prisoner and Wallis played, and Wallis won, but when the beer was brought he refused to drink it. The prisoner, Jenkin, was drunk, and became excited and angry because Wallis refused to drink the beer. Berryman and Hollow attempted to prevent violence on the part of Jenkin, who drew out his knife, and seized Wallis by the collar, threatening to stab him if he did not drink as he wished him to do. They got prisoner away, upon which he dashed his knife into the table, and cut his own thumb. A number of persons had collected outside, but Wallis, the object of prisoner's anger, was got away from him, and the door was shut. Prisoner said the very first man that interfered with him, he would run the knife into him. He was swaying the knife round, and threatened to stab people. He got out of the house, and those who had been about him got out of the way; but just at that time the prosecutor, William ELLIS, who happened to be in a shoemaker's shop opposite the public house, hearing a disturbance, came out to see what was the matter, and came within a short distance of the door of the public-house. Jenkin had then come out with the knife in his hand; it was a moonlight night, and Ellis being the first person he saw, he stabbed him in the thigh with the knife. Mr. SEARLE, surgeon, St. Just, gave evidence that he was called to attend the prosecutor on the night of the 10th of March, and found him suffering from a simple incised wound on the outer part of the right thigh; a wound two inches in length, the same in depth, and made by some sharp instrument. Witness dressed the wound; it was a bad wound, but no vital part was touched; the wound terminated about an inch from the femoral artery. If it had gone an inch deeper, it would have been very dangerous to life; he was still attending the prosecutor. Mr. COLE, on the part of the prisoner, submitted that the wound was caused by accident; that the prisoner did not deliberately stab Ellis, but struck him with the knife in running against him. The charge was that of stabbing with intent to do grievous bodily harm; he (Mr. Cole) submitted that there was no such intention on the part of the prisoner, who was in that drunken state that he was incapable of forming a deliberate intention to wound or injure anybody. Rushing out of the house on a moonlight night, he did not in fact see who Ellis was; and he said afterwards, when charged with the stabbing, "I never saw you for the night." In summing up, the learned Judge said, if the jury were satisfied the stabbing was the result of accident, there was no charge to be made against the prisoner. But when it was said the prisoner was so drunk he could have had no intention in his mind, he (the learned Judge) must tell them that drunkenness was no excuse for violence or crime of any kind. Perhaps, however, the prisoner did not know Ellis when he stabbed him, and it might be a charitable view of the case to consider that he had no deliberate intention of doing that man in particular any great bodily harm. The law allowed the jury, when not satisfied that there was the felonious intent named in the indictment, to find a verdict for unlawfully wounding. The jury then found the prisoner guilty of unlawfully wounding. The learned Judge told the prisoner that the jury had taken a very merciful view of the case against him, in acquitting him of the greater offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He then pointed out the evil of drinking habits in leading men into crime, and concluded by sentencing the prisoner to Nine Months' hard labour. - HIGHWAY ROBBERY - RICHARD HOLDEN, 23, was indicted for feloniously assaulting, and putting in bodily fear and danger of his life, JOSEPH VIVIAN, of St. Germans, on the 15th instant, and stealing from his person 16s.6d. Mr. KINGDON appeared for the prosecution. Joseph VIVIAN, a navvy, stated that on the night of the 15th of March, he was drinking at a public house at Polbathick, and the prisoner and others were also there drinking. Between eleven and twelve o'clock, the landlord desired them all to leave the house, and they did so. As prosecutor was going along the road towards his home he was knocked down with great violence, and took from him 16s.6d. He begged him, for God's sake, not to take all his money, but the man said he would have every farthing. Prosecutor afterwards gave some description of the man to HAWKES, a constable, who apprehended Vivian, and prosecutor said he was the man, he had worked with him some time before. Prisoner said he was at home in his bed that night, but on making inquiry at his lodgings, it was found he was not home at the time the robbery was committed. The prosecutor admitted that he had drunk a good deal on the night in question. In reply to one of the jury, he said he must have spent about four shillings in liquor. The jury could not agree, and were locked up, but subsequently returned a verdict of Acquittal. The Court then rose. NISI PRIUS COURT BRISTOL v. JENNINGS - An undefended action, no particulars of which were given in court, and a verdict for plaintiff was directed. HAMBLY v. GUY, the younger. Mr. COLERIDGE for plaintiff; Mr. COLE for defendant. [cut somewhat, but actual words used] The action was brought by Mr. Edmund HAMBLY, solicitor, of Wadebridge, against Warwick GUY the younger, a farmer of Endellion, for recovery of GBP 50 on a promissory note. The nature of the case entitled the defendant to open. Mr. Cole proceeded to state the case to the jury. The bill of exchange was dated as far back as May 6, 1850, for GBP 50; and the defence was that defendant had satisfied the plaintiff for the full amount of the bill. It appeared that the defendant's father had possession of two estates called Trewethick and Burrow Park, which, in May, 1842, were mortgaged in GBP 5,000, partly to plaintiff and partly to a client of plaintiff; and at Christmas, 1847, plaintiff got into possession of these estates and received the rents. In March, 1850, the defendant's father got into difficulties and was put into prison; he was endeavouring to get out under the Insolvent Act, but it was communicated to him that the plaintiff, who it appeared had some claim against him, threatened to oppose his discharge unless the defendant would give him a bill of exchange; some interviews on this subject took place between the defendant and Mr. Hambly, and eventually, after some refusals, the defendant consented to give him the Bill of Exchange for GBP 50. In July, 1851, the defendant occupying under the plaintiff some eighteen acres of the land that had been his father's, the plaintiff put in a distress for rent in arrear; and negotiations took place between the defendant and plaintiff for the settlement of this claim. Defendant's father went to plaintiff, and it was arranged that all matters should be settled between them on the following terms: viz. Mr. Hambly was to be paid GBP 25 and to receive the value of the then growing crops; and the defendant's impression was that this arrangement included the settlement of the GBP 50 note of hand; and, on the part of the plaintiff it was alleged to be confirmatory of this view, that no claim for interest was made on the note till May, 1855; and then only on the defendant, as one of the executors of a deceased lady called BILLING, making a claim on plaintiff for GBP 140; Mr. Hambly having all along retained the note in his possession, and eventually putting it in as a set-off agains! t the claim made on him by the executors of Mrs. Billing. The witnesses examined, in support of this defence, were the defendant himself, [and] his father, Warwick Guy the elder. Mr. Coleridge then opened the case for the plaintiff. The property in question having been mortgaged to plaintiff for GBP 5,000, there became due a considerable arrear of interest in 1849; and an agreement was come to between Hambley and the elder Guy - the defendant being present - that the old man should pay GBP 50 on account of arrears of interest then due, and that father and son should occupy and cultivate the eighteen acres of the mortgaged property, paying from that time forward a rental of GBP 50 yearly. In 1850, the elder Guy being in prison at the suit of some other creditor, the plaintiff gave notice of opposition to his discharge, but consented to withdraw his opposition on the defendant's giving him the note of hand for GBP 50. The elder Guy then came out of prison; and from that time, the father and son had occupied the eighteen acres as joint tenants of the plaintiff. In August, 1851, only GBP 13 having been paid for rent of the premises from 1849, Mr. Hambly put in distress for GBP 87.10s. On this, the elder Guy went to Mr. Hambly, and an arrangement was come to for removal of the distress,- the arrangement being that possession should be given up to Mr. Hambly, the defendant and his father retaining the stock and furniture, and realizing the growing crops for the benefit of plaintiff, besides paying to plaintiff a sum of GBP 20 in two instalments[sic]. All that Mr. Hambly had received out of the GBP87.10s. arrear of rent, was GBP 42 - made up of the money payment of GBP 290, and GBP 22 the value of crops sold. But, in this arrangement, there was NOT included any settlement of the GBP 50 note of hand. The arrangement had reference SOLELY to the arrear of rent due on the eighteen acres, and had NO reference whatever to the note of hand. Mr. Hambly, the plaintiff, and a witness called JOHN CLEMOES, the occupier of the eighteen acres after the defendant and his father went out in 1851, were examined. In summing up, the learned Judge directed the jury that the sole question for their consideration was, whether the arrangement made by the elder Guy in August 1851 did, or did not, include a settlement of the note of hand previously made by the younger Guy - the defendant. The only witness on this point, for the defendant, was the elder Guy; and it was for the jury to consider whether the evidence of that witness had or had not sustained the defendant's plea in this respect. The jury consulted upwards of half an hour in Court, then were locked up nearly an hour more; after which they returned into Court with a verdict for plaintiff for GBP 50. Mr. Coleridge said the plaintiff did not ask for interest, but wished for immediate execution. The learned Judge assented. BURNARD v. NORTHAM and BENNETT. Mr. Collier Q.C. and Mr. KARSLAKE for plaintiff; Serjeant KINGLAKE and Mr. MAYNARD for defendants. This case had been entered for a special jury, but after arguments on an application by Mr. Collier, it was heard before a common jury, after numerous challenges on both sides. [The plaintiff was a farmer living at Stokeclimsland, and the defendants were two mine agents who took a mine-sett in a common part of a manor called Trevage, under the rights of Mr. RODD. Northam and Bennett had brought suit against a man called BOWDEN, who occupied a farm called Tregune, under Mr. ARCHER, and were awarded the sum of five shillings. Mr. Bowden had removed some cartloads of rubbish, which afterwards proved to contain five shillings' worth of tin. Mr. Archer declined to go into the question of right, leaving Bowden to defend himself as best he could. It was found he owed the mine agents five shillings, the value of the tin. The costs were subsequently taxed, and amounted to GBP 246.15s.6d. In January last, the mine agents levied on the goods of Bowden for the sum of GBP 246.15s.6d, and took three horses, a cart, and harnesses. The plaintiff maintained that they had no right to do so, as none of that property belonged to Bowden; he [the plaintiff] was the rightful owner. Bowden was one and one half years in arrears in his rent, and Mr. Archer had put in a distress on Bowden's goods, and sold them on the 9th of August. The proceeds realized nearly GBP 40. Among the goods sold to Mr. Burnard were the cart, horses, and harness now in question. Mr. Collier pointed out it was probable that Mr. Archer, who was a very kind and indulgent landlord, would not have put in that distress on his tenant, but that he felt that if he did not do so, the mining people would take everything Bowden owned. Burnard was the father-in-law of Bowden, who at that time and now was in circumstances of very great affliction; he had four children and a wife who though only about 26 years old was totally paralysed in all her limbs. Bowden had got his living by letting out his horses for hire, drawing stones for the roads in the neighbourhood, and letting them out for mine work. Burnard, therefore, felt that if the horses, cart, and harness were taken away, Bowden would be entirely ruined. Burnard, therefore, bought them for the purpose of allowing Bowden to retain them for some time in order that he might, if possible, extricate himself from his difficulties. The following witnesses were called for the plaintiff: Mr. Henry BURT, auctioneer, of Launceston: Mr. Thomas BURNARD the plaintiff. Serjeant Kinglake then opened the defence, which was that the proceedings of the alleged distress and sale were colourable and fraudulent. He spoke of the action out of which these proceedings originated as being, in reality, between Mr. Archer and Mr. Rodd, for the purpose of trying a question of right in the manor of Trevage, and avowed he was representing Mr. Rodd through the nominal defendants. The oral testimony on the part of the defendants was given by Richard Barrett HICKS, a grocer living at Altarnun Church town; William MEDLAND, the officer employed to execute the writ of distress on Bowden; William CHAPPLE, surveyor of the Bodmin turnpike-roads; Christopher DAVEY, a labourer on those roads; and Mr. Charles GURNEY, the defendant's attorney. The case occupied the Court some six or seven hours; and on its conclusion at nearly eight o'clock, the jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a verdict for plaintiff. MORE TO COME......