Part One West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday, 16th January, 1852. WANTED, A Good Cook, of the Church of England religion, for a small family. She must assist the maid. No dairy kept. Wages good. Application to Mr. GILL, Bookseller, Penry; or, at the Office of this Paper. Dated January 12, 1852. CORNWALL EPIPHANY SESSIONS - Wednesday, January 7. WILLIAM SMITH, was charged with stealing at the parish of Lewannick, on the 31st of May, 1849, an iron [....?] and chain, the property of EDWARD ARCHER, Esq. Mr. PETER of Launceston, conducted the prosecution; Mr. DARKE the defence. It appeared that Mr. Archer's keeper, WILLIAM HAYNES, set three gins in Trekellan [.......?] on Lewannick Downs, for the purpose of catching vermin; and on the following morning he found that the stakes to which they had been fixed had been released. The gins and chains were marked E.A., on the back, but in a manner not easily observable. The gins having been missed as long ago as May, 1849, it appears that in September last, Haynes, the keeper, was in Doney's blacksmith's shop, at Congdon's shop, in the parish of Northhill, and there saw a gin which he immediately recognised as the property of his master Mr. Archer; and he took possession of it. The tracing of the property to the smith's shop was as follows:- About Easter 1850, the prisoner sold the gin to a young man called JOHN PETER, who kept it for almost one year and a half, and then sold it to a farm assistant named RICHARD SLEEP, who took it to the smith's shop for repair. There was also evidence that in May 1850, the prisoner vaunted that, notwithstanding [...?} Archer's keepers, he could catch all the hares on Lewannick Down; and said he had sold one of Mr. Archer's gins for a quart of beer. For the defence, considerable doubt as to the proof of identity of the gin was elicited in cross-examination of the prosecutor's witnesses; a good character of the prisoner was given in respect of honesty; and it was shown that the prisoner's vaunt of catching all the hares on Lewannick Down was made when he had been drinking, and to one of Mr. Archer's keeper's assistants; and it was urged that this was a mere joke at the expense of the keepers. At the close of the case for the prosecution the Court directed an Acquittal. The evidence adduced showed that a period of full ten months had elapsed from the time the property was lost, until the prisoner was at all shown to be connected with it; and therefore, he ought not to be called on to account for [the?] possession of it. JOHN RICHARDS, the younger, pleaded - Guilty of stealing on the 29th of November last, at the parish of Wendron, two gallons of apples and one sack, the property of WILLIAM LANYON. The prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy, and a good character was put in from his previous employer. Sentence Three Months' Hard Labour. A REMARKABLE CASE OF STRONG SWEARING - ELIZABETH OATES, a respectable looking widow of a small farmer of St. Just, was charged with stealing, on the 13th of October, a silver watch and chain, the property of MICHAEL HARVEY, a miner of St. Just in Penwith. Mr. DARKE conducted the prosecution; Mr. STOKES the defence. It appeared that, on the death of her husband, the prisoner was left with one child, and in possession of the house in which she was living at the time of the alleged felony in moderately comfortable circumstances; but the trustees under her husband's will, for some reasons best known to themselves, put Michael Harvey and his wife in charge of the house to live with Mrs. Oates; and violent disagreements between Mrs. Oates and Mrs. Harvey were the consequence. SARAH HARVEY, wife of the prosecutor, gave her evidence in an extraordinary way, especially under cross-examination, interlarding her testimony with violent asseverations that she was speaking truth, if she was at death's door in the day of judgment. She was several times reproved by the Chairman, who told her that the solemnity of the oath was quite sufficient to impress her with a serious regard for truth. She stated that her husband had a silver watch, which used to be kept hung up at a dresser in the kitchen. She saw it hanging there about seven o'clock in the evening of the 13th of October; she put her husband's supper at the fire, at that time, and then after sitting down a few minutes in the kitchen, went out of the house a few minutes to a hedge, across the road for some stockings, leaving no one in the house but Elizabeth Oates, and three children in bed. Her son Michael was not in the house at the time. As she was returning into the kitchen, she saw a candle light at the window, and looking across the road into the kitchen, saw the prisoner come out of the dairy into the kitchen, put her hand up to the crook of the dresser and take down the watch. Prisoner went from the kitchen into the back kitchen, and witness followed her into the back-kitchen. Prisoner went into the dairy behind the back kitchen, and then came out again with her child on her shoulders, and up stairs. Prisoner was in the habit of going in and out of the kitchen in the same way as witness did. As witness passed through the kitchen, she saw that the watch was gone from the dresser, and at first went to search for it in the dairy, thinking the prisoner had put it there. Not finding it, witness went to prisoner's bed-room and said to her "Where is the watch you have taken from the dresser?" Prisoner said, "I have not taken it." Witness replied, "You have: I saw you." She then (said the witness) began to blackguard me, made use of a great oath and threatened what she would do if I did not go down stairs. About a fortnight or three weeks afterwards, I went before the magistrates and made the charge against the prisoner. I have not seen the watch since, and I do not know where the watch is now. I have heard that my son Michael has found it. Cross-Examined:- This woman (the prisoner) did not like my living there in the same house with her; there was never no peace there; she always said she would do me an injury for coming there. I said, if I cannot have the whole house, I will not have part of it; but until that we may as well live in peace, but Job himself could not live in peace with her, and I am not Job's wife (laughter). She many times attempted to take the watch off and dash it in pieces; she said "what business has that watch got there?" and would have lashed it into rags many times. She used to be grieved to see it hang there; I suppose because she used to have one of her husband's own there. I was seven or eight yards from the window outside when I saw her take the watch from the dresser; but I swear I saw her lift her hand to the crook and take down the watch. I did not give her a good beating for taking the watch; I did beat her in the forenoon of the same day because she would not allow me to wash in the kitchen. Then, the enemy was busy; the enemy was in me; twas time for the enemy to be in me at that time. (laughter) (Mr. Stokes. - Oh, I suppose you think it needful now and then to have the assistance of the enemy?) I gave her a good thrashing; I struck her and she struck me; as I am much longer in the arms than she is, I beat her. (laughter) I did not give her as much as she could bear; I had mercy; perhaps the enemy left me then. She did not threaten to have me up before the magistrates for beating her. I went for a warrant the next morning; I had told her if she would return the watch I would overlook it, but otherwise I must go for a warrant. She said "you may go to the enemy for your watch." She was mad; like a two-legged bear. At the time I was before the magistrates I did not know that my son had found the watch, I did not know it till several days afterwards. If I had known it, the case would not have been as it was. If I should now close my eyes in death I have not seen the watch since. I think I know WILLIAM STEVENS, a miner of St. Just; and I know a man called PHILIP HICKS, of St. Just. I remember being at the Wellington Inn, in St. Just, with my husband and seeing them there; but I did not think of it then; because Prophets will arise; God's witnesses will arise; I'll tell the truth for or against me, because I must by and by depart from this world. Philip Hicks asked my man if we had found the watch we had lost; I believe I said we have not seen it nor know any thing about it since it was gone. Hicks did not ask me "do you know who has got it or did you see who took it?" I did not say to him that I did not see any one take it, but that I thought the woman in the house took it. I swear I did not say so, nor any words like it. Hicks said "you don't know who took the watch;" and I said "we do know who took the watch, but we have not seen it since. I did not tell him who took it. I can prove that man to be a liar. I did not say to Hicks that I had given the woman one big beating and if it was to do again, I would give her another, I swear I did not say any thing of the kind. My husband did not say that I had better leave the woman alone; nothing like it. I don't know that the man had five words to say to me. My son Michael is seventeen years old. I am living in the house still with the prisoner; we have lived there peaceable lately; there is no enemy at work there not; Job has been reigning within. MICHAEL HARVEY the younger. I am the son of the last witness. I recollect my father having a watch which I was in the habit of carrying sometimes for weeks together. I heard about the watch being lost; I was living home at the time. I next saw the watch out against the hedge about twenty yards from the house; this was one morning before I went to work; took it up, put it in my pocket, and carried it with me to work; I kept the watch and did not say anything to father or mother about it. I first mentioned it to a boy, JAMES ROBERTS, who worked at the same mine with me. That was three or four days after I found it. I took the watch to my work, and used to leave her at the bal, in the leavings house. Roberts worked there with me, and saw the watch there. I left her there a brave while. I don't know where the watch is now. I left her there at the mine one night, a brave many days after I found her, and when I came next morning, she was gone. I have not seen her since. Cross-Examined:- On the 13th of October the day when the watch was missed, I reached home about six o'clock in the evening; took my supper, and went to a neighbour's house - old TOM DAVEY's. Before I went there, a few minutes after six, I saw the watch hanging at the dresser. When I came back from Tom Davey's, about eight o'clock, I heard my mother say the watch was gone, and that the woman (prisoner) had taken her. I had not had the watch that day. I found her three days afterwards; I went to a hedge for a certain purpose, and pulling up a lock of grass, found the watch under it. I did not tell father or mother that I have found the watch. I swear I never showed the watch to WILLIAM STEVENS, a tin-dresser, at Wheal Cole. William Stevens did not ask me how I came to have a watch of that kind; he did not ask me where I got the watch, nor whose watch it was; he did not say anything to me about the watch. I swear William Stevens did not speak to me at all about the watch. I did not tell him it was my father's watch. Stevens did not tell me that there was a flaw on the face of the watch, and that she ought to have a new dial plate. I was at the mine from day to day in November; I swear I had no conversation with William Stevens, in November, about the watch. Stevens never at any time said to me, "Michael, this is a bad job for you to have the watch in your own keeping, and know it at the same time that Elizabeth Oates is condemned for it." I recollect that I did say to Stevens that it would never have been found out but for the boy Roberts. I did not say to Sevens that I had the watch a fortnight, and that no one knew anything about it; I did not say that if I could put my hand on Roberts I would drown him in the river, and that I owed him 5s., but now would not pay him. Stevens did not say to me that it was a wicked thing of me to keep the watch and not to say anything to the magistrates about it. Stevens asked who was the first one that said anything about the watch; and I said if it had not been for Roberts, it would not have been found out. Mr. Stokes - Do you remember saying to me just now that you never spoke to Stevens at all about the watch! Witness - I told you I never showed him the watch. Mr. Stokes - Did you not also tell me that you had never talked to Stevens about the watch, nor he to you? Witness - Did I? I don't know that I did." The Chairman here read from his notes - William Stevens never did say anything at all to me about the watch. Examination resumed - I showed Roberts the watch, the same day that I found her in the hedge; three or four days after the watch was stolen. I used to leave the watch for nights on a nail in the leavings house, because I did not like to carry it home, for fear I should have a hiding for not bringing her home before. On Saturday afternoon, I let Roberts have the watch, and he kept her till the Monday morning, and then gave her back to me. I did not tell Roberts were I found the watch, nor yet that she belonged to my father. I never told Roberts that I bought her of a boy called WILLIAM EDDY BOYNS. I did not tell my father or mother about the watch, when they came back from going before the magistrates. For the defence, Mr. Stokes addressed the jury. He spoke of the improbability, from the prisoner's circumstances, of her committing such a robbery, and next asserted that it was apparently impossible that Mrs. Harvey could have seen, as she had sworn, Mrs. Oates take down the watch from the dresser, at the distance stated. But, beyond this, Mr. Stokes said he should prove, by most creditable and credible witness, that the evidence of Mrs. Harvey was, at least, not to be relied on, and that the extraordinary evidence of her son, Michael, was wholly undeserving of credit. He also intimated the probability that Michael Harvey, the son, was the actual felon; and strongly insisted on the violent ill-feeling proved to exist in the mind of Mrs. Harvey towards Mrs. Oates, and on the former's expressed determination to get her out of the house, Mr. Stokes called the following witnesses:- JAMES ROBERTS, a lad aged 14 years, (the witness referred to in the evidence of Michael Harvey) stated that Michael Harvey first showed him the watch about a week before Saturday the 25th of October, on which day he let him have the watch till the following Monday. Michael used to keep the watch in his pocket, and sometimes, but very seldom, hang it up. I never saw him hang it up or leave it at the mine at night. When I first saw the watch, I asked him whose it was; and he said he had bought it of William Eddy Boyns. It was a silver watch, and the dial was broken. Cross-Examined - I heard something about the going before the magistrates, but I did not tell any thing about my having seen the watch in his possession, until GEORGE WILLIAMS, the prisoner's brother asked me if I knew anything about the watch. When he let me have the watch on the Saturday, he told me it was because he did not like to carry it home, for fear his father should see it. William Eddy Boyns stated that he never sold, gave, or lent a watch to Michael Harvey, and that he never had any conversation with him about a watch. WILLIAM STEVENS, tin-dresser at Wheal Cole, stated that the witness, Michael Harvey, worked there in October. About two days after the proceedings before the magistrates concerning the prisoner, I saw a watch in his possession. He came down by my workings at tin-dressing, and one of the girls there asked a man what o'clock it was; when Michael Harvey took out a watch from his pocket and gave the time of day. I said to him, "I never knew you had a watch before;" and he said it was his father's watch. I looked to the watch and said it ought to have a new dial plate; it had a flaw in it. I next saw him after I had heard that the prisoner had been taken before the magistrates. I said to him, "tis a very hard job that you have the watch in your possession and Betsy Oates is condemned for stealing the watch." He said "If it had not been for that boy Roberts, it never would have been found out; I had it a fortnight, and no one did not know nothing about it." He also said, if he could put his hand upon the boy Roberts, he would drown him in the river, and, 'I owe him five shillings, but he shall never have it.' This witness also gave the prisoner a very good character. PHILIP HICKS, who gave portions of his important evidence in a very confused manner, said - I live in St. Just, and am a tin-dresser at Wheal Cole. On the 18th of October, I was at the Wellington Inn, St. Just, and saw Mrs. Harvey and her husband there; it was about eight o'clock on a Saturday evening. She said to us she had got a watch stolen. I said to her 'did she know who had got it?' She said "no, no more than she thought it was the woman of the house; I gave her one big beating, and if it was to do again, I would give her another." Michael, her husband said to her 'you had better leave the woman alone.' This witness then said - I think I have left one word out; I asked her, "did she know who had got it, and did she see any person take it?" I am quite clear I asked her if she did see any body take it. The witness who had known the prisoner nearly twenty years, gave her a good character as a quiet honey woman. WILLIAM MICHELL, (a lad 17 years old) a miner at Wheal Cole, was at the Wellington Inn on the occasion referred to by the last witness, and confirmed his testimony. JOHN POLLARD, farmer, of St. Just, gave the prisoner a good character, having known her 15 years. Mr. DARKE addressed the Jury in reply; and, after a careful summing up by the Chairman, the Jury in less than three minutes returned a verdict of Acquittal. The verdict was received with clapping of hands, in which some gentlemen in the Grand Jury joined. They were reproved by the Chairman. Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH immediately ordered the witnesses Sarah and Michael Harvey, to be held in custody while he went to consult the senior Chairman, Mr. LETHBRIDGE. On his return, Sir Colman Rashleigh addressing the two witnesses said:- Sarah and Michael Harvey, the court detained you while consulting Mr. Lethbridge whether we should not commit you in order to be prosecuted for perjury. That you, Michael Harvey, have committed wilful and corrupt perjury in that box there can be no doubt. And I very much fear that your mother also has done the same. I would have it known by all persons who come to this Court, that we have the power to commit at once and to order prosecution for perjury at the next Assizes. As we think there would be some difficulty in proving the case, we shall not do so on this occasion. I have also just heard that you (Michael) are of weak intellect; and that circumstance has weighed with the Court. If you have sufficient intellect to know right from wrong, you must know you have committed an awful crime in this Court - one of the worst crimes that a human being can be guilty of. I advise you when you go home, to be more careful how you behave in future. The witnesses were then discharged; but Michael's expenses were not allowed. JOHN BURLEY was Acquitted of stealing a pair of stockings from WILLIAM CRADOCK, of St. Clement, Truro, on the 1st of July. The main point urged in defence by Mr. STOKES was the length of time - nearly four months - which elapsed between the time of the property being lost, and the prisoner's being proved to be in possession of it. The prisoner also received a good character from Mrs. TIDDY, and from Mr. RICHARD ROBINS, of Truro. WILLIAM RICKARD, 17, pleaded Guilty on two indictments - one charging him with stealing, on or about the 1st of December, from the sloop "Catherine," of Padstow, a gun, the property of Mr. RICHARD J. E. SYMONS, of Wadebridge, and the other charging him with stealing, from the said sloop, two books, the property of Mr. W. MARSHALL KNAPP, of Wadebridge. Sentence, Two Months' Hard Labour. JOHN PELLOW, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 4st [th] of January, at the parish of Budock, 42 lbs. of rope, the property of JOHN STEPHENS, the elder, and JOHN STEPHENS the younger. Sentence, Three Months' Hard Labour. CHARLES PALMER, 20, a recruit was found Guilty of stealing, on the 13th of December, at Bodmin, a silver tea spoon, the property of MARY ANN KENT, widow, landlady of the London Inn. Sentence, Two Months' Hard Labour. JANE PASCOE, wife of WILLIAM PASCOE, of Redruth, labourer, was charged with stealing, on the 10th of November, a walking stick, the property of THOMAS JAMES, of Saint Day. The felony was committed at a sale by auction, at the King's Arms, Redruth. The stick had been placed near a table, by the prosecutor, while he picked together some articles he had bought; and on his return to the spot, he found that his stick was missing. He followed Mrs. Pascoe into the street. She was carrying away some articles she also had bought, and had under her cloak the stick in question. The stick was of a very peculiar kind, and the prosecutor said he gave GBP1 for it in the island of Cuba. Verdict, Guilty - One Month's Hard Labour. WILLIAM CAHILL, 20, was found Guilty of uttering counterfeit half-crowns at Mr. WILLIAM HENWOOD'S grocer's shop in Redruth, on the 11th November; and at Mr. HAWKE's, at the Golden Lion, Penryn, on the 19th of November. There was also proved against him a previous utterance of a counterfeit shilling to Mrs. FRANCIS, at a grocer shop in Mabe. Guilty on all counts of the indictment. Mr. HOCKIN conducted the prosecution. Sentence, Eight Months' Hard Labour. JAMES DAVEY, the younger, 14, pleaded Guilty of obtaining under false pretences, at Penryn, from WILLIAM STEPHENS, the sum of five shillings, the property of SAMPSON STEPHENS. Mr. HOCKIN, who appeared for the prosecution, said he (prosecutor) begged to recommend the prisoner to mercy, believing that he had been induced by other persons to commit the offence. He was sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to Hard Labour for One Week. ALFRED REYNOLDS,14, pleaded Guilty to the charge of having, on the 22nd of December, at Redruth, opened an aperture in the roof of a warehouse the property of THOMAS NICHOLL the younger, and unlawfully entering the same with intent to steal therefrom. Six Months' Hard Labour. MARY ANN STRIKE, 27, pleaded Guilty to two indictments - one for having obtained from HENRY HAYMAN at Launceston, by a false pretence, a bonnet, a yard of ribbon, three yards of flannel and a pair of hose, with intent to defraud; and the other for obtaining from THOMAS NICHOLAS VOSPER, of Launceston, by false pretence, a quantity of Saxony, lining and calico. FOUR MONTHS' HARD LABOUR. MATTHEW TRESIZE, 30, was charged with having on the 18th of October, at the borough of Launceston, unlawfully obtained from RICHARD GERRY, by a false pretence, three shillings, with intent to cheat and defraud the same Richard Gerry. The circumstances in which the case originated occurred at a drinking and dancing party at a public-house in Launceston, and the pretence alleged to have been made by the prisoner was that the mistress of the house had a sovereign of his in her charge, by which pretence he obtained three shillings from the prosecutor. On the hearing of the case it appeared that at the time of the occurrence, both the prosecutor and the prisoner were pretty far gone in liquor; and the prosecutor was now unable to swear distinctly whether the prisoner said "the mistress of the house" or the mistress of my house - the latter expression, of course, not sustaining the charge of false pretence. The Chairman directed a verdict of Not Guilty; and said the case was another proof of what he had observed on Tuesday - that many cases in which offences were brought before the Court, were consequent on drunkenness. The result, in the present case, would be a lesson to both parties. JOSEPH and ELIZABETH SMITH were indicted for keeping a disorderly house in the parish of St. Mary Magdalene, Launceston. Mr. CHILDS (for Mr. DARKE) conducted the prosecution, and Mr. PETER appeared for the defendants. GEORGE HIGGS deposed that he and defendants live in Bray's Court, Tower-street, Launceston, and that he had frequently seen common prostitutes going up and coming down the steps leading to Smith's room. He had also seen men going up and down there both by day and night. Witness had frequently heard singing and dancing in the room, and had seen liquor carried there, and from time to time there had been disturbances in the room to the great annoyance of the neighbours. He gave some particulars of a disturbance that occurred there about a month ago, when the policeman was obliged to be sent for. He said he had given notice to the overseers respecting this place as a public nuisance, and the magistrates ordered the present prosecution. Mrs. HIGGS, who has a room in the same house, underneath Smith's, also deposed to the disturbances in Smith's apartment, and the disreputable characters who went there. Smith, the husband, is a carrier, and is a good deal absent from home; the noises in his house were generally when he was absent, but sometimes when he was home, though to a much less degree. The drinking and swearing and noise sometimes continued all night, and witness had had to call to them when they had been dancing and singing at unseasonable hours. JOHN MAY, who has a room adjoining Smith's had been obliged to remove his children from that room that they might not overhear the expressions of the bad characters who frequented Smith's house. BENJAMIN SAMBELL, policeman of Launceston, also gave evidence respecting the disturbances at Smith's, and said it was a reputed house of ill fame. Mr. Peter, in behalf of the prisoners, said the evidence only went to establish that there had been singing and dancing carried on in the house, which was not to be objected to as a means of amusement. The husband was generally absent, and therefore not answerable for what took place without his knowledge, though he contended that there was no adequate evidence to show a disorderly house. The Chairman, in summing up, said the jury could scarcely doubt, after hearing the evidence, that this was a house of ill fame, and the question was whether the male prisoner had not a guilty knowledge of what was carried on so as to render him equally culpable with his wife. The jury returned both prisoners Guilty. They were sentenced on the following morning, when the Chairman, Mr. LETHBRIDGE, observed, it was almost unnecessary for him to say that houses of ill fame were a very great nuisance. He was sorry to remark that in Launceston, his native town, there was a great deal of disreputable conduct, which was stimulated very much by persons of the character of the prisoners, who keep these places which lead to vice and crime. He then sentenced the prisoners each to Four Months' Hard Labour. The jury were then discharged.