WEST BRITON AND CORNWALL ADVERTISER 28 MARCH 1855, ASSIZES, part three of four - JOSEPH QUINTRELL, 16, miner, was charged with burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of WILLIAM SHAKERLEY, at Camborne, on the 25th of June, 1855, and stealing a chair-covering, the property of the said William Shakerley, and also with cutting and stabbing the said William Shakerley, with intent to do severe bodily harm. Mr. COLERIDGE conducted the prosecution; Mr. STOCK the defence. WILLIAM SHAKERLEY deposed: I am a grocer living at Camborne. Between one and two o'clock in the morning of the 25th of June last, I was awoke up and went down stairs. My wife went down just before me. When I came to the window that looks into the kitchen from the stair-case, I looked into the kitchen and saw a kind of smouldering torch moving forwards and backwards. When I came to the door of the kitchen at the bottom of the stairs, I met some person coming against me with a light in his hand. I laid hold of him by the collar, and had a struggle with him. I told my wife to bring a light. Whilst I was holding him and my wife was gone for a light, he requested me to let him go, but I would not. He got from the kitchen to the front room which leads into the street, and by which he might escape. When we got into that front room. I heard something in his left hand snap like the snapping of a pistol. Shortly after this I caught hold of his left arm till I wrested the instrument ou! t of his hand, and it fell on the floor. I called out a good deal, screamed murder, and called for a light. My servant brought a light two or three times, but it was put out as often as it was brought. I told my son to go and fasten the front door. When the door was locked the prisoner was quiet a little. Shortly after that he got some kind of instrument, and I felt myself cut about the face and body. I had nothing but my night-shirt on. I wrested what he had in his hand from him, and got my own hand severely cut in doing it. Then I threw him down on the floor, and set on him to keep him down. While he was there, he made desperate struggles; he forced his fingers into my mouth, and I held them there with my teeth. I kept his hands there. Soon afterwards, Mr. GAY the surgeon came and other persons; and a light was procured. I then found that the prisoner was Quintrell. I asked him what he was come for; and he said he was come for money. I had known him from childhood; he lived at Camborne. After Mr. Gay and other persons came, we searched him and found on him a loaded pistol. Then we found another loaded pistol on the floor, and there was also a knife found. Neither the pistols nor the knife belonged to me. The pistols were loaded with small shot. We then went to see if we could find any embers of the smouldering torch I had seen; we found it in the kitchen, and also one of my towels, partly burnt. There was found on the prisoner a chair-covering that belonged to me. He afterwards told us that he got into the house from the front street by means of a ladder placed against the upper window opening into a wareroom; that there was a square of glass broken in that upper window, and that he used a piece of wire for opening the window. We found the ladder at the window, and a piece of wire about fifteen inches long, bent at each end, and the square of glass broken. I was about a fortnight under the surgeon's care, but fortunately the wounds turned out not of a dangerous character. The prisoner said that when I first came down, he was trying to make his escape at the front door. He asked if we did not find the back door unbarred. We said, yes. He said he had unbarred the back door to effect his escape. WILLIAM ARTHUR SHAKERLEY, son of prosecutor, [confirmed he closed front door, saw the pistol on the ground, and saw Mr. Gay and prisoner there.] GRACE WILLIAMS - I am a servant of Mr. Shakerley. My mistress called me on the night in question, and I went down, and heard a great noise. As I was going down stairs I heard master scream very loud "murder" and for a light. I got a light as soon as I could and went to the room; and the light was put out in the struggle. This happened three times. The fourth time I got a light I handed it to master. Then Mr. Gay and other people came, and there was the prisoner. I afterwards saw the walls; there was a great deal of blood about there. HENRY SEARLE GAY - I am a surgeon residing in Camborne. I heard a noise at Mr. Shakerley's, and went over and got in at the back of his house through an adjoining house. When I got into the room, I saw some person kneeling on the ground; there was a struggle going on the ground between Mr. Shakerley and Quintrell. Mr. Shakerley was bleeding a great deal; he had on a shirt, and that was covered with blood. I took hold of the prisoner, and handed him over to the constable. Mr. Gay corroborated some further points of Shakerley's evidence, and added: - Mr. Shakerley was under my treatment about ten days or a fortnight. His wounds were merely superficial - only flesh wounds. The knife found was a common blunt kitchen knife. HENRY VIALL, policeman of Camborne: Early in the morning of the 25th of June, the prisoner was given into my custody at Mr. Shakerley's house. I searched him and found on him a chair-covering, which I produce, together with the pistols and knife given in charge to me. Both pistols are now loaded; and the one that was found on the floor has the cap exploded. Prisoner escaped from the custody of a constable to whom I gave him in charge, and was not retaken for nine weeks afterwards. HENRY ARMITAGE, police officer on the West Cornwall Highway: On the 1st of September, I went to a place in Camborne and apprehended prisoner, and handed him over to another constable. MR. HUTCHINSON, surgeon, of Camborne, proved that he was present at Mr. Shakerley's on the night in question, and took up one of the pistols and gave it to Viall. The constable VIALL produced the knife, and also a pair of slippers found in the room; and it was proved that neither of these articles was the property of Mr. Shakerley, and that the prisoner, at the time of the struggle, had no shoes on. MR. STOCK, addressing the jury, admitted that the evidence proved beyond power of contradiction, that the offence charged against the prisoner had been committed by him; but the learned gentleman appealed to the jury for a merciful consideration of the case, because of the prisoner's youth and the probability that he had been instigated to the crime by some older person. The following witnesses gave evidence of the prisoner's good character for honesty and quietness previous to the offence now charged against him - RICHARD TRETHEWY, innkeeper at Camborne, who had known him for four years; and WILLIAM ROWE, miner and shopkeeper, who had known him since childhood. The jury found the prisoner Guilty of the burglary and robbery, and of cutting and stabbing with intent to do bodily harm. He was then sentenced to Death Recorded; the learned Judge informing him that he would undoubtedly be transported, and that it would remain with her Majesty's advisers to determine for what period. There was another indictment against the prisoner for burglariously entering the shop of WILLIAM MORLEY JAMES, at Camborne, on the 13th of December, 1854, and stealing a quantity of satin, ribbon, a tortoiseshell box, and between GBP 7 and 8 in money, the property of the said William Morley James; but, of course, this indictment was not prosecuted. A ROGUE AND HER DUPE - FRANCES SMITH, 33, hawker, was indicted for stealing from MARY WORTH five sovereigns, the property of the said Mary Worth; and for obtaining from the said Mary Worth a half-sovereign, by pretending to conjure and tell her fortune. Mr. CARTER conducted the prosecution; Mr. HUGHES the defence. MARY WORTH deposed: - I live at Harrowbear, in the parish of Calstock. On the 16th of January, about the middle of the day, the prisoner came to my back kitchen door. My servant opened the door, and then I saw the prisoner, who asked me if I wanted any clome or china mended. I said no. Then she said she wanted to speak a few words to me; and I said I did not want my fortune told. She said, "I know you don't want your fortune told, but there is a heavy trouble coming upon you, and I am the one to stop it." The she wanted a lock of my hair, a bit of my finger nail, and a half-sovereign to cover them with. I gave her all these, and she put them in a corner of her apron and went away. About five o'clock she came back again in a great hurry, and said she wanted to do it as quick as she could. She asked for a glass of cold water, and said she must have nine sovereigns to put into the glass. I objected; but she declared that I should put them into the glass and she would not touch them. I then went and got the nine sovereigns and put them into the glass. She then put in her hand and took out some of them. I took out four remaining, and I called my nephew; he came in and I charged her with robbing me. She dropped one sovereign on the table, and I took it up; and after a little time she dropped another on the back-kitchen floor. I have never seen the remaining three sovereigns. Corroborative evidence was given by WILLIAM JEFFERY, nephew of prosecutrix; SAMUEL BENNETT, a miner, living near her, and who went to her house on the alarm of the robbery; and JOHN ROGERS, constable of Calstock, who added that on his searching the prisoner, he found on her, part of a pack of cards and three half-pence; but no sovereigns. Verdict, Guilty. Four Months' hard labour. - JANE ALLEN, 20, a servant, was indicted for stealing on the 29th of December last, eight yards of calico, four petticoats, and one chemise; and on the 11th of January, three bed-sheets, two chemises, three pairs of drawers, four pairs of sleeves, three night caps, three collars, and one habitshirt, the property of her master, Mr. THOMAS WILLIAMS, at Lambessow farm, St. Clement. Mr. HOLDSWORTH conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. We have already given the particulars of these robberies, in our Truro Police Reports, at the time of the prisoner's apprehension and committal for trial. The charges against the prisoner were now proved by CHARLOTTE ISAACS, who was at the time of the robberies a fellow servant at Mr. Williams's; AMELIA WILLIAMS, a sempstress[?] at Truro; WILLIAM JOSEPH NASH, Inspector of Police; and WILLIAM WOOLCOCK, police constable. Mr. Nash stated that the prisoner when apprehended, after the second robbery, acknowledged that she stole the articles on the 29th of December, for which, partly on her evidence, a man called COOK was convicted and sentenced at the Epiphany Sessions. Mr. Nash informed the Court that the man Cook had since been liberated. At the close of the present case, the prisoner, on being called on for her defence, confessed that she was guilty of stealing all the articles now charged against her, and also of having given evidence against the man Cook. Verdict, Guilty. Sentence deferred. NISI PRIUS COURT - Tuesday, March 25 Before Mr. Serjeant CHANNELL SYMONS v. MAYNE - Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Montague SMITH and Mr. KINGDON; attornies Messrs. Roscorla and Davies. Counsel for the defendant, Mr. COLERIDGE and Mr. BULLER; attorney, Mr. BULLMORE. Mr. Kingdon opened the pleadings. Plaintiff stated that defendant was indebted to him for money lent, for interest, and on an account stated. Defendant pleaded, first, that he never owed the money; and secondly, that he delivered to plaintiff a cheque on account of the money, that the cheque was dishonored, and that plaintiff failed to present that cheque in due time, or to give defendant due notice of the dishonor of it. Plaintiff replied that he was induced to take the cheque by fraudulent representations on the part of defendant. Mr. Montague Smith stated the case to the jury, and argued that even if the cheque was not presented in strict time, there was afterwards a promise to pay on the part of the defendant, which was evidence of an account stated between the parties. The plaintiff, Mr. WILLIAM SYMONS, was then called, and said he was an ironmonger at Camborne, and that defendant is a tin-dresser in the same neighbourhood. In February, 1855, defendant owed him 10s8d. Defendant's wife came to witness on the 10th of February, and asked him to change a cheque, saying, if he did so, she would pay his little bill. He asked whose cheque it was. She said, "Mr. CONN's; we have sold some arsenic to him; it is all right, we have had many of them before." Plaintiff changed the cheque in consequence of that statement; it was drawn by Mr. HENRY CONN on the Falmouth Bank (Messrs. Hawkey and Co.,) was endorsed by defendant, and was for GBP26.12s. Plaintiff deducted the 10s.8d. defendant owed him, and paid Mrs. Mayne GBP26.1s.2d. On the 13th of February, plaintiff paid the cheque to the agent of Messrs. Smith, his London merchants, and it was returned to him dishonored on the 2nd of March. Notice of this was sent to defendant, who called on plaintiff the next morning, when plaintiff asked him to pay him the money, but he said he had not got any. Plaintiff told him he had better go to Mr. Conn the drawer of the cheque; defendant said he could not go that day, but on the following Monday he called again on plaintiff, and asked him to write a note to Mr. Conn on the subject. Plaintiff did so as follows: "Sir, your dishonored cheque, value GBP 26 12s. is in the hands of a London house. I wrote them on receiving yours of the 5th instant, giving your reply. They will not wait any longer, and unless the money is paid at once, you may expect they will commence proceedings for the recovery. Yours, respectfully, William Symons." That note plaintiff gave to defendant open, and the latter carried it to Falmouth ! to Mr. Conn, who wrote on the back of the same note as follows: "Mr. Symons, Sir - Mr. Mayne has just called on me; I have every reason to believe I shall be able to make it all right in about a fortnight, if you will be so good as to wait till then. Henry Conn" Plaintiff said, when defendant brought back this answer, he asked him to wait the fortnight, and he consented to do so. After the fortnight was expired, defendant again called on plaintiff, who asked for payment, but defendant said he had not got the money. Plaintiff asked what Mr. Conn said to him when he gave him the cheque? Defendant replied that Mr. Conn desired him to hold the cheque a few days, because he had no money in the bank. Plaintiff told him he had not acted honourably in not telling him that before, and said he must pay him the money. Defendant replied that he would if he lived and breathed. About six weeks after, plaintiff again saw him, and asked for payment of the cheque; to which defendant replied that he should return some tin about Midsummer, and would then pay him. About Midsummer he said he would pay as soon as he could, principal and interest; since then, plaintiff had not received any part of the money. Plaintiff was cross-examined as to the day on which defendant was informed that the note was dishonored. On this point, plaintiff's son, William Cock Symons, stated that Messrs. Smith's letter was dated the 1st of March, that it was received in Camborne on the 2nd, and that witness wrote to defendant on the subject on the same day. He also corroborated some other points of his father's evidence. On the part of defendant, Mr. Coleridge proceeded to argue that the cheque had not been presented in due time, but upon the learned Judge observing that he considered the evidence showed there was an unconditional promise to pay, on the part of the defendant, after he had received notice that the cheque was dishonoured, the case was brought to a close, and the Judge directed a verdict for plaintiff for GBP 28, which included the amount of the cheque with interest. Mr. Coleridge, for defendant, said his client had had a great deal of business with Mr. Conn, and had often taken his cheques, and that when he paid this cheque to plaintiff he had no doubt at the time but that there would be money paid into the bank to meet it when it was presented. MORSHEAD v. BATE - Mr. M. SMITH and Mr. MAYNARD for the plaintiff; attornies, Messrs. GLUBB and SON. Mr. COLLIER and Mr. BULLER for the defendant; attorney Mr. MOONE. This was an action to recover damages for sheep, which it was alleged, defendant had sold to plaintiff under a warranty, and which turned out to be unsound. Defendant pleaded, first, that he did not warrant the sheep; and secondly, that the sheep were sound when sold by him. The damages sought to be recovered were of small amount, such as would have come under the jurisdiction of the County Court; but the plaintiff, in the course of his evidence, expressed his dissatisfaction with county court decisions in one or two cases he had brought therein, and said he would not go to that court again if he could take a case anywhere else. Plaintiff was Mr. WILLIAM MORSHEAD, a farmer of the parish of Southhill; and defendant was Mr. DIGORY BATE, a farmer of Linkinhorne. In September, 1854, plaintiff met defendant at Northhill fair, and made an appointment to call and see his ewes, for which purpose he went to Mr. Bate's farm, and after some bargaining agreed to give him 28s.6d. each for eight ewes, and GBP 1 each for five wether lambs. [Plaintiff said when he first saw the sheep, he declined to buy them, and started to leave, but Mr. Bate pressed him to return, and they concluded a bargain.] Plaintiff also said he bought thirteen ewes of another person shortly before he bought these of defendant. The two lots of sheep were kept together; the thirteen got on exceedingly well, but those he bought of Mr. Bate soon showed that there was something the matter with them. [Those sheep were found to be so affected with the "coad" that they were obliged to be killed, and there appeared thousands of "flukes" in their liv! ers. At lambing time, the eight ewes yeaned only five lambs, three of which died.] Seven of the ewes plaintiff sold to the butcher for GBP 7.1s.6d., besides the wool. The thirteen ewes which plaintiff bought elsewhere, (and which had been kept with those he purchased of Mr. Bate) plaintiff said he sold for 33s.6d. each. The witnesses for plaintiff were, besides himself, GEORGE WARING, a workman for Mr. Morshead; JOHN ROWE, a butcher; ABIEZER HARVEY, farmer; JOHN VEAL, farmer; DAVID SCOPHAM, a private in the South Devon Militia, who formerly worked for Mr. Bate; and WILLIAM RIDGMAN, a veterinary surgeon of Liskeard. On the part of defendant the witnesses were Mr. BATE, himself; JOHN STEPHENS, who worked for him; WILLIAM DAWE, a traveling draper of Torpoint; STEPHEN SPETTIGUE, butcher of Calstock; THOMAS SKINNER, hind for Mr. BRIMACOMBE, of Stokeclimsland; and JOHN NICHOLLS, a farmer of Linkinhorne. The main question for decision was whether defendant warranted the sheep sound when he sold them to plaintiff. Plaintiff's evidence on this point was that defendant said he would warrant them perfectly sound; that he was so satisfied of their soundness that if his father was living he should not have them a penny under, and that he wished plaintiff "good luck" a dozen times. On the other hand, defendant swore that he gave no warranty or guarantee of soundness, when he sold the sheep, and that no guarantee was asked for. He also said he never saw any sheep of his "coaded". The two witnesses, Stephens and Dawe, were called to support defendant's evidence that there was no warranty given by him. On the part of plaintiff it was stated by witnesses that there was marshy ground on Wickslade, the farm from which the sheep were sold by defendant, and that such ground tended to produce the "coad." MR. HARVEY, whose father and uncle formerly occupied Wickslade, said he knew they had many sheep die there, but he did not know the cause of it. On the other side, for defendant, Mr. Spettigue, a butcher of Calstock, stated that he and his father had bought sheep of defendant for the last forty years down to 1852, and had never found any of them coaded. Thomas Skinner, hind of Mr. Brimacombe, of Stokeclimsland, stated that in September, 1853, he bought a score of ewes of Mr. Bate, which had fourteen lambs the first year, and there was no disease in them; they kept them the second year because they liked them so well. He picked those ewes out of Mr. Bate's whole flock, and saw no symptoms of rot at the time; he also handed in the weights of five of them when they were killed. Mr. John Nicholls, a farmer of Linkinhorne, had had sheep of Mr. Bate and fed them; they did exceedingly well, and he never had any complaint of any rot or coad in them. On other points there was conflicting testimony, viz. as to the age of the ewes when sold, and the price given for them. [Plaintiff said 28s.6d. each, defendant 27s.6d.] As to the condition of the sheep when killed, it was stated by Mr. John Veal, farmer, and by Mr. Ridgman, of Liskeard, veterinary surgeon, that they must have been affected more than two years by the disease before they were killed. The learned Judge, in summing up the case, said there were two questions for the jury to consider; first, whether the defendant warranted these sheep on the sale of them; and secondly, whether in their judgment, that was a true warranty or not. Their verdict, he apprehended, would depend principally, or entirely, on the view they took of the first question, because there did not seem to be much difference of evidence with regard to the sheep in question being diseased. [The Judge outlined 2 possible warranties; in one, a seller guaranteed them sound; it didn't matter if he knew them to be so or not. The second warranty was of a more qualified character, where he said "they are sound as far as I know". In that case, the prosecutor would have to prove the defendant knew they were unsound. Two witnesses for the prosecution maintained the seller fully warranted the sheep; three witnesses for the defendant denied any warranty. The Judge also mentioned the diseased state of the sheep after they were in plaintiff's possession. Then he mentioned damages, as good sheep would fetch 32s. or 33s. each, the loss of wool, and some amount to be reckoned for lambs, all having died but two.] The jury, after considering the case about twenty minutes, returned a verdict for the defendant. The Judge asked upon what issues they had decided. The Foreman said they were not satisfied that there was a warranty; they had not discussed the other point, as to whether the sheep were sound at the time of sale. The Judge said they must also consider the other issue; the first point they had decided as to the warranty would give the defendant the verdict; but upon the second issue would depend the question of costs. The jury then, after further consideration, found that the sheep were partially diseased at the time of sale. Verdict for the defendant on the first and third issues; for the plaintiff on the second. The case lasted between six and seven hours. MORSHEAD v. COOMBE - In this case the record was withdrawn. TREMBATH and WIFE v. HOSKING and WIFE Counsel for plaintiffs, Mr. M. SMITH, Mr. Coleridge; attorney, Mr. PAYNTER. For the defendants, Mr. COLE; attornies, Messrs. MILLETT and BORLASE. This was an action for defamation of character, to which the defendants pleaded not guilty. Mr. M. Smith said the plaintiffs were WILLIAM TREMBATH and his wife Mary Trembath, who live at Trevilley, in the parish of Sennen, near the Land's End; William Trembath renting an estate of about GBP 100 a-year belonging to a relation of his, besides having a small farm of his own. The defendants were JOHN HOSKING, a farmer living near plaintiff, and Barbara his wife. The two wives are first cousins, and it was to recover damages for slanderous expressions used by Mrs. Hosking against Mrs. Trembath, that the present action was brought. On the part of the plaintiff, it was represented that a few years ago, Mr. Hosking was summoned before the magistrates, and fined 2s.6d. and expenses for trespassing on Mr. Trembath's farm, and taking heath for a broom; and that the statements which had now been circulated by Mrs. Hosking, in reference to Mrs. Trembath, were put forward with a malicious intention, and in revenge for her having been summoned before the magistrates. The occasion on which the statements alluded to were circulated by Mrs. Hosking was the following; that on the 24th of January last, Mrs. Trembath had her pocket picked in the Penzance market of 23s., of which she gave information to the police. On the same evening, Mrs. Hosking was riding home from Penzance in a market-cart with MRS. HICKS, who lives in St. Just, when she asked Mrs. Hicks if she had heard anything about Mrs. Trembath. On Mrs. Hicks replying she had not, Mrs. Hosking said she saw Mrs. Trembath going through the Green Market at Penzance, between two policemen; that she went with the policemen from Mr. CORNISH's to Mr. DENNIS's shop, when the door was shut, and one of the shopmen came out and said to those outside, there was no entrance for people for a short time. She also told Mrs. Hicks that she heard Mrs. Trembath was accused of stealing a coat. WILLIAM OATS, a miner, and THOMAS OATS also gave evidence of what Mrs. Hosking had said in their hearing about Mrs. Trembath. Thomas Oats said he saw her on the 28th of January, at MR. LETHAM's house, when Mrs. Hosking said to him there are thieves here, and thieves at Penzance. Oats asked her what she meant, and she said William Trembath's wife had stolen a little coat from Mr. Dennis's at Penzance. Oats said, if that were so, she would have been laid hold of in Penzance. Mrs. Hosking then said, money would clear her from this just as it had before. At another time, at Letham's house, Oats said he heard Mrs. Hosking say Mrs. Trembath had stolen feathers seven years ago, and it cost her father GBP 50 to clear her from it. ANN NICHOLAS gave evidence of what Mrs. Hosking said to Mrs. Trembath when charged with circulating reports about her. Policeman WALLIS, of Penzance, stated that Mrs. Trembath did not walk through the market with the police, and that he never heard of any charge against her. Mrs. Trembath said the same, and that there was no truth in any one of Mrs. Hosking's statements about her. Mr. Cole addressed the jury for the defence, submitting that the reports of which Mrs. Trembath complained were only some women's gossip at Penzance; that there was no malicious feeling on the part of Mrs. Hosking; and that she only repeated what she had heard others say. He also called ALEXANDER LETHAM, who stated that Mrs. Hosking never said anything at his brother's house about Mrs. Trembath having stolen feathers seven years ago, and that it cost her father GBP 50 to clear her. He thus contradicted the witness Thomas Oates; and Barbara Hosking, in her evidence, said she never uttered such words as Thomas Oates had stated. She asserted, however, on cross-examination, that she did see Mrs. Trembath walk through the green market between two policemen, with Ann Nicholas behind her, though in this she was contradicted by three witnesses. She said she heard a report at Penzance that Mrs. Trembath had stolen something, but when she mentioned it to others she did not believe it; she could not say from whom she had heard the report. Mr. Montague Smith, in replying on the part of plaintiff, said vindictive damages were not sought, and that if Mrs. Hosking had made an apology, and contradicted the report she had circulated, this case would not have been brought into court. The learned Judge summed up, and told the jury, if they thought the plaintiff was entitled to damages, it was not, in his opinion, a case for considerable damages, but for a moderate amount. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages GBP 1. The Court rose about nine o'clock. CROWN COURT, Wednesday, March 26, before Mr. Justice CROWDER JANE ALLEN, who was found Guilty yesterday of stealing various articles the property of Thomas Williams, of St. Clement, was sentenced this morning to Twelve Months’ Hard Labour. HENRY FAULL, convicted of unlawfully wounding Cornelius HARFORD, at Phillack, by firing a gun at him, was sentenced to Nine Months' hard labour.