West Briton & Cornwall Advertiser. Friday, 11th April, 1856. MILITIA ROOMS - Lord VIVIAN moved that the sum of two guineas be paid to Mr. JOSEPH PASCOE, for making a plan and estimates for storerooms for the militia at Bodmin. The committee appointed last year to inquire into the necessity of building storerooms for the militia, instructed Mr. Pascoe to make the plan and estimates for the building. The motion was seconded by Mr. THOMSON, and agreed to. TRIALS OF PRISONERS - JANE BONE, 18, pleaded Guilty of stealing a sovereign from her grandmother, CATHERINE BONE, at Redruth. Sentence, Two Months’ Hard Labour. MARY FROST, 20, was charged with stealing a gold locket and silver pendant, the property of her master, JOHN MARTIN HARVEY CARDELL, at Bodmin, on the 17th of March. Mr. COMMINS, for the prosecution, called W. T. HARRIS, constable of Bodmin, who produced a locket and pendant which he received from Mr. BROAD, watchmaker, Wadebridge, on the 22nd of March. Mrs. Cardell, wife of Mr. Cardell, chemist and druggist, Bodmin, said prisoner was a servant in her house; she came on the 9th of January and left on the 18th of March. The locket and pendant now produced belonged to witness; they were in a drawer of the dressing table before prisoner left; witness saw them there at the end of February. She lost the locket the Monday evening before prisoner left; did not miss the pendant until it was shown to her. The servant had constant access to her room. JOHN BROAD, jun., of Wadebridge, said prisoner came to his shop on the 19th of March, and showed him a locket which was that not produced. She asked him to purchase it; he said he did not care much about buying it, but he afterwards gave her 9d. for both the articles. He had never seen the girl before; he did not ask her where she came from. The Prisoner here said that a servant called KITTY TREMAIN, who left Mrs. Cardell’s before she did, gave her the articles. Mrs. Cardell said Kitty Tremain left her service on the 28th of February; she saw the articles a few days before that. Tremain, she believed, was now in Plymouth. The Chairman, in summing up, remarked that the prisoner had said nothing about Kitty Tremain when she was before the committing magistrate. If she was at Plymouth, she might have endeavoured to bring her here. In reply to the jury, the prisoner said she did not know Kitty Tremain was at Plymouth; she had not tried to find out where Kitty Tremain was. Verdict, Guilty – Six Months’ Hard Labour. ROSALIND PENPRAZE was charged with stealing fifteen sovereigns and a bag, the property of ELIZABETH JENKIN, of Redruth; and THOMAS PENPRAZE, her father, was charged with feloniously receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. SHILSON for the prosecution, and Mr. CHILDS for the defence. Mr. Shilson stated that Mrs. Jenkin, the prosecutrix keeps a small shop in Redruth and sleeps in the same room as the shop. Between seven and eight in the evening of the 1st of January, she locked the door, intending to go to bed, when she heard a knock, and opening the door, found it was the little girl Rosalind Penpraze, and her sister, come to buy an orange. Mrs. Jenkins had put her bag of money on the quilt of the bed, intending to place it in a drawer. At the post of the bed there was a chair, and the little girl (the prisoner) sat on this chair, whilst she served the other girl with the orange. They went out, and Mrs. Jenkin turned to the bed to take up her bag of money, upon which she found it had been taken away. The bag was afterwards found outside Mrs. Jenkin’s door, but with no money in it. Mr. Shilson said he should also rely for proving the case, upon statements made by the girl and her father. He was about to call witnesses, when Mr. Childs submitted that the little girl, Rosalind Penpraze being under seven years of age, she could not, by law, be convicted of felony. The mother of the child was then sworn and stated that the little girl, Rosalind, would be seven years of age on the 9th of this month (Wednesday). The Chairman then told the jury that the child had been proved to be under seven years of age that day; therefore she was under that age when the offence was alleged to have been committed. The two cases were connected together, and under the circumstances, the jury would say that both the prisoners were not guilty. Verdict, Not Guilty. The Chairman told Thomas Penpraze that there was suspicious circumstances against him, arising from his own expressions. The prisoner, in reply said that the statements which had been made against him were false. They were then discharged. JOHN ROSEVEARE, 17, was charged with stealing, on the 1st of March, a pair of trousers and a pair of boots, the property of his master, HENRY NICHOLLS, a farmer in the parish of Zennor. Prisoner left the house with the articles in question, and was found wearing them at St. Blazey. He said he took the boots because his master had locked away his own boots, and it appeared this had actually been done, but he had no such defence with regard to the trousers. Verdict, Guilty. Prosecutor gave him a good character. Sentence, Four Months’ Hard Labour. JANE ALICE STEPHENS, 18, was committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards her mother, JOANNA STEPHENS, at Gwennap, on the 13th December last. The mother did not appear against her, and on promising the Chairman that she would conduct herself peaceably in future, she was discharged. GRACE GEACH, 22, was committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards MARY ANN ROWE, at St. Austell, on the 8th of January. The Chairman cautioned Geach to be less violent in future, and as Mary Ann Rowe did not appear against her, he ordered her to be discharged. ROBERT STEPHENS, 54, shoemaker, was committed for want of sureties in a breach of the peace towards his wife MARY ANN STEPHENS, at Lostwithiel. The Chairman told the prisoner his wife had shown great kindness in not appearing against him, but if his conduct was repeated they should be obliged to get her to appear. He was then discharged. NO BILL - The bill against ANDREW ROBERT of St. Blazey, for felony, was ignored. ST KEVERNE, appellant, Mr. SHILSON and Mr. F. B. HILL jun.; ST. MARTIN IN MENEAGE, respondent, Mr. CHILDS and Mr. PLOMER. Mr. Hill said this was an appeal dated January the 12th, against the removal of ANNA MARIA DUNN, and SIMON her illegitimate child, aged twelve months, from the parish of St. Martin to the parish of St. Keverne. The first ground of appeal set out that there was nothing to show that complaint had been made by the respondents before the magistrates. To this Mr. Childs replied, that on the duplicate of the order, the magistrates (Mr. POPHAM and the Rev. W. THOMAS) by way of recital set out that the complaint was duly made, and he submitted that that was prima facie evidence that the complaint in fact was made. The Court overruled the objection. Mr. Childs then, on the part of respondents, said he should produce evidence to show a settlement of the pauper’s father, WILLIAM DUNN, by hiring and service with JOHN HARRY, in the parish of St. Keverne. He then quoted from Archbold, that a general hiring for weekly or monthly wages, is to be presumed a weekly or monthly hiring, unless there be something in the terms of the contract to show that it was otherwise intended, and then it was to be deemed a hiring for the year. He should show that in the present case there was a weekly hiring, with a stipulation for a month’s notice on either side, and under those circumstances he said it must be deemed a hiring for the year. Evidence was then given by William Dunn, pauper’s father, and by HENRY HARRY, farmer of Sithney, son of Henry Harry of St. Keverne, for whom Dunn had worked as a journeyman wheelwright. Dunn said he lived in his master’s house three and a half years as a single man, and worked for weekly wages. On one occasion he had a difference with his master’s son, and then gave his master a month’s notice that he should leave his employ. On cross-examination, however, the witness stated that he made his bargain for weekly wages, and that he had not stated that the bargain was to give his master a month’s notice, and that his master was to give him the same. The other witness, Mr. Harry, contradicted Dunn in a statement he made that there were fixed house in his father’s shop, and that Dunn worked regularly from six to six. After this evidence and a few words from the advocates, the court decided that only a weekly hiring had been made out by the respondents; the order was therefore quashed. Mr. Shilson applied for exemplary costs, but after hearing statements on both sides, the court decided on giving GBP5 costs. MAWGAN IN MENEAGE appellant, Mr. SHILSON AND Mr. F. HILL jun.; ST. ALLEN respondent, Mr. CHILDS and Mr. CHILCOTT. This was an appeal against an order made by Mr. H. P. ANDREW and Capt. KEMPE, magistrates, dated the 7th of February last, for the removal of LOUISA LANYON, widow, and JOHN HENRY LANYON, her sons, aged about seven years, from the parish of St. Allen to Mawgan in Meneage. Appellants, in their grounds of appeal, alleged that Thomas Lanyon, the deceased husband of the pauper, had acquired a settlement in the parish of Cury, by yearly hiring and service with JAMES RANDLE. Mr. Childs submitted, that when appellants set up a subsequent settlement, it was their duty to show precisely when the year commenced or ended, so as to leave it without doubt that the settlement was acquired prior to the statute of William the Fourth, (the new poor law act, that abolished settlements by hiring and service, &c.), which came into operation in August, 1834. He said appellants had alleged that the first hiring took place in or about the year 1831, which he contended was not sufficiently definite. The Chairman said, if the grounds of appeal had stated that the yearly hiring was in or about 1832, that might go on to 1833, and would have been a fatal blunder; but in or about 1831, which might go to 1832, was not a fatal blunder. Mr. Shilson then entered on the case for appellant by calling as witnesses, ANN LANYON, aged 75, mother of the pauper’s deceased husband, and a farmer called HENDY, living in the appellant parish. On the other hand to rebut the evidence of a yearly hiring and service in Cury, respondents called as witnesses JAMES RANDLE, of Cury, farmer, with whom THOMAS LANYON, pauper’s deceased husband, had served; MARTHA ROGERS, servant with Mr. Randle for twenty-nine years; and SAMUEL RANDLE, living in Stithians, son of James Randle. The advocates afterwards addressed the court, Mr. Chilcott, for respondent, contending that he had shown that the boy Thomas Lanyon did not enter Mr. Randle’s service in Cury till December, 1833, and that his year’s service in Cury, till December 1833, and that his year’s service was not ended till 1834, after the passing of the act. That was also shown, he said, by the statement that the boy was fourteen when the service commenced, he having been born in 1819. As to the statement of Ann Lanyon that there were three separate bargains, in three succeeding years, for her son to serve with Mr. Randle, he submitted that she must be wrong in that statement, as she was contradicted by the evidence of those in the house, Mr. Randle, his son, and Martha Rogers. Mr. Randle had brought only one of his account books, showing the period of Lanyon’s service from 1833 to 1834, but in so doing Mr. Chilcott submitted that the witness had not from design kept back any of his books, but had brought that one which alone had reference to the case. Mr. Shilson replied on the part of appellants, stating that Ann Lanyon’s belief was that her son went to service with Mr. Randle when he was thirteen; and with regard to the three bargains of which she had spoken, they had some corroborative evidence from farmer Hendy, who lived on an adjoining farm to that of Mr. Randle, and said he had seen the boy in two lambing seasons going towards his home, which was four or five miles distant. The account book produced by Mr. Randle showed that Lanyon’s service with him ended in September, 1834; if then there were three bargains he must have served with him three years prior to that date. Randle had been subpoenaed to bring all his books and papers; as he had not done so, he (Mr. Shilson) was warranted in assuming that they contained something in favour of the appellant’s case. The magistrates retired, and on their return into court, the Chairman said the court was of opinion that the settlement was gained prior to the operation of the statute of August 1834. The order was therefore quashed, with common costs. GWENNAP appellant, Mr. SHILSON and Mr. COMMINS; LISKEARD respondent, Mr. CHILDS and Mr. CHILCOTT. This was an appeal against an order made by Lord VIVIAN and the Rev. A. TATHAM, for the removal of MARY PERRY, widow, and her two children JOHN, six years, and CHARLES, four years, from the parish of Liskeard to Gwennap. Mr. Childs, for respondents, said the settlement and chargeability were admitted by the appellants, and he should only have to prove the marriage of the pauper to her husband and the birth of a child, one of the children having died since the order was made. Appellants resisted the removal on the ground that Mary Perry had resided as widow and wife for five years in the respondent parish, and that she was therefore irremovable under the statute 9th and 10th Victoria. Perry, the husband, and his wife, resided in Liskeard parish five or six years before he went to Australia, between two and three years ago; and that going to Australia, Mr. Childs contended, was a break of residence, in consequence of which the wife and her children became removable to her own settlement in Gwennap. Mr. Childs cited Queen v. Halifax, Queen v. Holbeck, Queen v. Coulston, and especially Queen v. Stapleton, 32 Law Journal, p. 102, in which it was laid down that where there was an intention to return, it was held to be a mere temporary absence, and not considered a break of residence; and anticipating that appellants would make use of those cases, he contented that the pauper’s husband, in going to so distant a place as Australia, to work as a miner, could not be held as having an intention to return, as laid down in the cases cited, but that his going thither must be held as constituting a break of residence. He quoted also Queen v. Llanelly on the same point, and submitted that the onus probandi rested on appellants to show that the pauper was a widow in fact, and that her husband has an intention to return; also he contended that appellants could not couple her residence as widow with her residence as wife, to make up a five years settlement, because her residence was broken when her husband quitted Liskeard for Australia. He then called the pauper Mary Perry, who stated that she lived in the parish of Liskeard, that she was married to Charles Perry, eight years ago last January, and had had two children. Her husband left for Australia in September 1853, and she had not seen him since. Cross-Examined – Her husband had GBP60 in the bank when he left; he left her GBP20 in the bank, and some pounds in the house; he worked at the Caradon mines. She did not become chargeable to the parish of Liskeard till October last, when her money was gone. Her husband could not write; she had received three letters since her husband left, but did not know the hand writing; she did not know the hand writing of the letters now produced; she received a certificate of her husband’s death, which took place in Australia on the 30th of April, 1854. Mr. Childs objected to the reception of the certificate as evidence of Charles Perry’s death; upon which Mr. Shilson remarked, that although respondents would not now admit the death of Perry, they had made use of facts to show it before the magistrates who made the order, and had described Mary Perry as a widow in the order. Mr. Shilson said he now came to the point, that as wife and widow, Mary Perry had resided five years in the parish of Liskeard, and was therefore irremoveable; and secondly, that there was no disruption of residence by the husband going to Australia. The Chairman here said, that if a man went abroad as captain or supercargo of a vessel, or for some such temporary purpose, he should not consider it a break of residence, but a miner going out to Australia, for the purpose of bettering his circumstances was a very different case, and one which he thought involved a break of residence. Mr. Shilson said he still hoped to satisfy the court that there was no break of residence. Charles Perry did not desert his wife, he left her with GBP20 in the bank, and with money in the house, he did not leave her chargeable to the parish, nor did she become chargeable as his wife, but in October last as his widow. She had resided two years in the parish after her husband left her, before she became chargeable, and she had resided more than five years previously to that. He then proceeded to contend, on the authority of Queen v. Glossop, Law Journal, that he was entitled to connect the residence of the wife with that of the widow, in which case more than five years residence would be shown, and she would be irremoveable. The Chairman said, in the case of Queen v. Glossop, the residence of the wife with the husband for three years was united with the two years of her widowhood; but in the present case it was sought to make use of a certain period when the husband was not with the wife; the case of Glossop was not encumbered with that break. Mr. Shilson replied, that in Queen v. Glossop it was not required to be a constructive legal residence, but a residence in fact. He then drew attention to the case Queen v. Llanelly, and said it was no matter how long a man was absent if he had the intention and ability to return; and the inference, from the husband having left his wife with money in the bank and in the house, was that he intended to return. Mr. Childs having replied on one or two of the cases cited, the magistrates retired, and on returning into court, confirmed the order. Mr. Shilson then applied for, and was granted a case upon two points, first, that the widow was irremoveable by reason of her five years residence as wife and widow; and secondly, that the fact of the husband having left her, caused no break in his residence. The order was confirmed with common costs, and GBP2. 15s. maintenance. FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE – Tuesday, April 8, 1856. - 1st Regiment Cornwall Rangers – Ensign SCOBELL to be Lieutenant, vice ARCHER, promoted. THE MOORSWATER VIADUCT - The piers of this viaduct, respecting the safety of which some doubts were entertained, have been recently inspected by Mr. BRUNEL, who has certified their efficiency. THE CHILD MURDER AT TRURO - We stated last week, that after the committal of RICHARD JOSE, JAMES GEORGE, ANN MATTHEWS, and ELIZA BURNS, to take their trial for the wilful murder of Mrs. Matthews’s new-born child, the Mayor of Truro, Mr. Stokes, directed that the body of the infant should be disinterred, in order to ascertain whether poison had been administered to it, as one of the prisoners, Richard Jose, had stated before the magistrates, that the other male prisoner, James George, had thrown the contents of a bottle into the child’s mouth, and that the child was then “like a thing strangled.” Accordingly, on Thursday afternoon, the body was exhumed from St. Clement churchyard, and taken to the surgery of Mr. PAINTER, Ferris Town, Truro, where an examination was made by Mr. Painter and Dr. BULLMORE, and the result was, that not the slightest effect of vitriol or any kind of poison was discoverable. COUNTY COURTS OF CORNWALL – LAUNCESTON - On Wednesday last, before W. M. PRAED, Esq., Q.C., BROWN v. SHORT. This was an action brought by WILLIAM REDDAWAY BROWN, a large cattle dealer, living in Bratton Clovelly, Devon, against the defendant to recover the sum of GBP8. 10s., the price of a steer sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, warranted sound, and for the expenses of taking such steer to Hartley Row. According to the plaintiff’s statement, the steer was bought by him at Launceston, on the fair-day; it was warranted sound. It was afterwards taken to Hartley Row, a distance of about one hundred and fifty miles from Launceston, and there sold with seven others to a Mr. CHALLIS, a farmer residing in Sussex, and was by the plaintiff’s son warranted sound. The steer died shortly after it came into the possession of Mr. Challis, and the plaintiff paid him the value of the steer. The steer was in colour, between red and yellow, with cocked up horns and black tips to the horns. Mr. Challis, a highly respectable farmer, who had been brought from Sussex by the plaintiff, proved that he bought of the plaintiff’s son, at Harley Row, eight steers, warranted sound; that one of them died shortly after it came into his possession, the colour, the shape of the horns, and the black tips agreed with the description given by the plaintiff. He had been paid the value of the steer by the plaintiff. According to the statement of the defendant, confirmed by his son, and another person, (who was present when the plaintiff was in treaty for the steer) not one word was said about the warranty – that the steer was in good condition, healthy and sound when sold; that the description given by Mr. Challis of the dead steer did not correspond with the steer sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, which was a very dark red, with horns not cocked up but rather turned inwards. The learned Judge said the evidence was very contradictory on all points; on the warranty, on the soundness of the steer, and on the identity of the steer sold, with the dead steer, he should therefore give a verdict for the defendant with costs. Mr. WHITE was the advocate for the plaintiff; Mr. R. K. FROST, for the defendant. HENRY ROSSITER, insolvent, late of Fairmantle Street, Truro, watch and clock maker and jeweller, came up for his final order. In consequence, however, of judgment having been obtained against him in this Court on the very day in which he filed his petition, the Judge could not give him his final order until that matter was settled. John Truscott, FORMERLY OF St. Austell, afterwards of St. Stephens in Branwell, subsequently of St. Austell Street, Truro, and now of St. Clement Street, coal-merchant, agricultural implement maker, blacksmith and whitesmith, filed his petition and schedule, and obtained an interim order until his first examination on the 9th of May. WILLIAM JAMES REED, of Richmond Hill, Truro, farrier, agricultural smith, blacksmith and whitesmith, filed his petition and schedule, and obtained an interim order until his first examination on the 9th of May. THE PROPOSED LAW OF DIVORCE - The Standard, after quoting a brief description of the divorce law of Scotland which lately appeared in the Daily News, observes:- “The murdered BOUSFIELD was a person in circumstances to expend GBP20 or GBP30 in getting rid of a wife whom he supposed (falsely, indeed) to be unfaithful, and we must suppose him a worse monster than he was, if, under an impression of his wrongs, he had not preferred getting rid of a faithless wife by legal means to the commission of a murder upon her and three innocents. Believing, as we have reason to believe, the wife of the wretch to have been a woman wholly without stain, would not the truth have been laid open to the stupid husband, as well as to the rest of the world, by a public trial, and our country, nay, our species, protected from the infamy of such a crime and such a punishment as has shocked and disgusted the country? We are not of the number of those who think that capital executions for murder can be dispensed with, or would hide such executions from the vulgar; but we must say that the processional parades at such frightful scenes at the Old Bailey are the reverse of edifying. At country prisons things are more decently conducted. Our present business, however, is with the proposed law of divorce; and we contend that such a law would go further then almost anything else we can imagine to the general purification of morals, and to the softening and refining the manners of those who stand in greatest need of such improvement. THE CONVICT HANS HANSEN - The public are aware that this man, late a soldier in the German Legion, was sentenced at the recent Cornwall Assizes to be hanged for the wilful murder of his comrade CHARLES JACOBI. After this awful sentence was passed upon him, he was placed in the condemned cell at the county gaol, where he exhibited great penitence, and gave much of his time to prayer, and to reading the scriptures and various religious books in the German language. He also thankfully received spiritual counsel; and we are informed that the Rev. THEOPHILUS CLARKE, Master of the Bodmin Grammar School, who is a German scholar, was frequently with him. He sometimes said that Jacobi was his friend that he had no intention of killing him, and that he was not dead when he left him. He persisted in saying to those around him that he had no previous intention of killing his comrade. We state last week that a memorial in favour of the condemned man had been sent up to the Secretary of State from the jury who convicted him. Eleven of the jury signed that memorial, which stated their opinion that the evidence at the trial offered no proof of motive for the commission of murder; that they believed the death of Jacobi was caused by an unpremeditated act on the part of Hansen, and that, on re-consideration, they felt that their verdict should have been one of manslaughter. We should also add that Mr. PRESTON WALLIS, of Bodmin, who felt strongly convinced that the act was one of manslaughter, applied himself energetically to the getting up of this memorial, and to obtaining its signatures, and otherwise most judiciously exerted himself to procure a remission of the sentence on the condemned criminal, for which purpose he incurred much personal labour, and directed the exertions of others, in obtaining information on which to ground an application to the Home Office. There were also, we understand, memorials sent up from other parts of the country; the memorial from the jury to the Home Secretary being presented by Dr. MICHELL, one of the members for Bodmin. The application was successful. On Friday last, Mr. EVEREST, the Governor of the County Gaol, received from the Home Office a letter marked “respite” on the outside, which intelligence was immediately communicated to the prisoner, who was so affected (not having expected that his life would be spared) that we are informed he fell prostrate in the cell. He was at once removed from the condemned cell appropriated to murderers, and arrayed in the ordinary prison dress, and placed in another part of the gaol. On the following day (Saturday) the reprieve arrived from the Home Office, with a commutation of the prisoner’s sentence to transportation for life. ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS - Among those who, after undergoing the necessary examinations for the diploma were admitted members of this college at the meeting of the courts of examiners on the 4th instant, we observe the name of Mr. THOMAS CARTHEW GILLET, of Truro. At the Court of Examiners, held on the 8th instant, Mr. J. PENBERTHY, of Redruth, was enrolled a Licentiate of Midwifery. Mr. JOHN LANGDON HAYDON DOWN, of Torpoint, was on Monday last admitted a member. APOTHECARIES’ HALL - Among those who passed their examination and received certificates to practice on Thursday the 3rd instant, we observe the name of Mr. FITZROY PHILIP DARKE, of Grampound, in this county. PRESERVATION FROM DROWNING - During the launch at Padstow on Monday, a fine lad of about seven or eight years of age, named RICHARD FRADD, fell into the water and sunk, when JAMES GAMMON OSBORN, rushing to the spot, jumped off the quay, and diving, succeeded in bringing the boy to the surface, and ultimately to land, where prompt measures produced the desired effect of restoration. This is the second life recently saved from drowning, by the noble intrepidity of James Gammon Osborn, who deservedly merits the attention of the Humane Society. MINE ACCIDENT - On Tuesday last, as a man named JAMES COLLINGS, of Todpool, in the parish of Kenwyn, was at work underground in St. Day United Mines, a “scale” of ground fell on him, which injured him in so serious a manner, that we regret to state his recovery is considered entirely hopeless. CORONERS’ INQUESTS - The following inquests have been held before Mr. JOHN CARLYON, county coroner:- On Thursday the 3rd instant, at the George and Dragon Inn, Truro, on the body of JOHN MILLS, blacksmith, aged 35 years, who was found dead in bed by his mother between six and seven o’clock in the morning of that day. He had taken his supper and gone to bed the evening before in his usual health, but he was subject to fits of epilepsy, and the jury after hearing the evidence of Mr. PAULL, surgeon, were satisfied that he had had one in the course of the night, and hence the death. Verdict accordingly. On Saturday, at North County, Redruth, on the body of RICHARD HAMMILL, aged four years, who was killed on Friday last by falling into an old engine shaft in Wheal Mary sett. The mine had been “knocked” between four and five years, and the shaft in question had been sollared over and perfectly secured, but some party or other, no one knew who had subsequently stripped off the timbers which had been nailed against the bob end of the shaft and it was through this opening that the deceased fell. He had been playing there with three or four other little boys about the same age as himself, who as soon as they saw what happened made an alarm which brought a person called GEORGE HICKS to the spot, and he at some personal risk was lowered into the shaft by a rope and succeeded in recovering the body but life was extinct. Verdict, “accidental death.” On Wednesday, at Mylor, on the body of CHARLES DAVIES, aged 15 years. The deceased was an engine fitter and worked at Perran foundry. On Tuesday last he and three other workmen went to do some repairs to the machinery on board the “Alexandrie” steamer then lying at the entrance to Restronguet Creek, and as he was stepping on board from a boat along side he accidentally fell into the water and was drowned. Verdict, “accidental death.” The following inquest has been held before Mr. HAMLEY county coroner:- On the 8th inst., at St. Columb, on the body of an illegitimate child, five weeks old, belonging to ELLEN TREGILGAS. It appeared from the evidence of the mother, the nurse, and another woman who slept in the same room that the deceased went to bed apparently as well as usual on Saturday night, but was heard to cry once or twice during the night by a woman who slept in another bed in the same room. She awoke the mother, who suckled the child about midnight. On Sunday morning the mother, who had the care of another child, got up, dressed, and prepared meat for her own child, but on going to the bed to take it out, she found it was dead. She ran to the nurse with the child in her arms, and asked what was the matter with it. Mr. MARTYN, surgeon, was sent for, and from appearances stated that the child died from convulsions. It appeared that the mother, who is only sixteen years of age, always seemed to be very kind to the child. The jury returned a verdict, “died from natural causes.” On Thursday the 27th ult., an inquest was held by Mr. GOOD, county coroner, assisted by Mr. HAMLEY, on view of the body of a new-born male child found dead at a village called Nutstakes, in the parish of Calstock. It appears from the evidence that a woman named MARY ANN ROBERTS, whose husband has been absent for the last three years, had for a long time been considered by the neighbours to have been in the family way, which she always denied. Her husband came home about a week ago, and discovered the report was too true, left her and went to lodge about a quarter of a mile distant. A young woman called MARY SMITHERAM was in the habit of sleeping with her, and on the previous Sunday night was awoke by hearing a choking sound; she asked her what it was, and Mary Ann Roberts made no reply. She (Mary Ann Roberts) then said, “I must get up and go down stairs; I may as well go first as last.” As she was going down stairs, Mary Smitheram heard something screech twice; she thought it was the cry of a child, and was afraid to go down, but in about twenty minutes she got to the head of the stairs, and met Mary Ann Roberts coming up, who then said, “I have got child, but for God’s sake don’t you every split.” Mr. Ann Roberts returned to her room, and the girl Smitheram went into her mother’s, who lives next door. As she was passing through the kitchen, she saw a child lying upon its back, before the stove, apparently dead; there was a candle on the table. Mary DODGE, the mother of Mary Ann Roberts, and a neighbour called VENNING, then came in, and the child was washed. Several marks and bruises were discovered on the neck and chest. Mr. WOOD, surgeon, made a post mortem examination of the body, and stated that it was a full-grown male child; that he had no doubt that the child was born alive (he was quite sure that it must have breathed). He observed several marks about the face and neck, and one very large patch in front of the neck, apparently caused by pressure. There were no other marks on the body; he had no doubt that the child died from congestion of the brain, produced by the pressure he had spoken of, which in his opinion would not have been caused by the mother in delivering herself. One of the jury asked Mr. Wood whether it was possible that the bruises might have been done by the mother during delivery, and before the child was wholly born? Mr. Wood said, in his opinion they were not, but he could not undertake to say that it was impossible. He was also asked if the child have been wholly born alive, and had received the injuries on the throat during delivery, whether it would not have lived for some little time after their application. His answer was that he thought it might, and that it was possible for the mischief to have been inflicted before the child was wholly born. The Jury then at once unanimously returned as their verdict, “ that the said male child was born alive, and that it died from congestion of the brain produced by some violent pressure, which might have been occasioned by the mother during self delivery.” After the inquest, the coroner considered it his duty to communicate the circumstances of the case to the magistrates of the district.