Part One West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. 9th January, 1852. TRIALS OF PRISONERS - MARY ANN HARRIS, 19, pleaded Guilty of stealing, between the 9th and 22nd of November last, at Redruth, a pair of stays the property of JANE TREBILCOCK. JANE CHYNOWETH, 16, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 8th of November, in the parish of Probus, three sovereigns, the property of WILLIAM NICHOLLS. JOHN MAY, 16, was charged with having, on the 23rd of December last, stolen a gold locket, the property of JOSEPH and EDWARD EDWARDS, of Duke-street, Truro. Mr. STOKES conducted the prosecution. JOSEPH EDWARDS stated that he keeps a silversmith's shop, and about four o'clock in the afternoon of the 23rd December, he sold a gold locket to a lady, and gave it in charge to his son EDWARD EDWARDS, who stated that he took the locket from his father for the purpose of putting hair in it; he placed it on his work bench in the shop, and having occasion to be absent for about ten minutes, on his return he found that the locket was gone. There was no evidence of the prisoner being seen near the premises; but the following evidence was given against him. JAMES FITZSIMMONS, police constable of Truro, stated that on the day named, in consequence of information from Mr. Edwards, he made inquiries at the silversmith's shops in Truro, and, from information given him by Mr. HARRIS, silversmith, went to a man called FRANCIS LANCE, who delivered him the locket which he (Fitzsimmons) had had in his possession since, and now produced. NANNY RICHARDS, who lives with her father, FRANCIS LANCE, stated that she saw prisoner there on the evening of the 23rd December; he took out a locket and showed to the children; and she thinking it was only a child's play-thing, gave him 2d, for it, and afterwards gave it up to her father. Francis Lance confirmed the evidence of the last witness, and stated that he gave the locket to Fitzsimmons. Fitzsimmons produced the locket, which was identified by both Joseph and Edward Edwards, by means of their private marks. The jury took some ten minutes to consider, and to the evident surprise of most persons who heard the trial, found the prisoner Not Guilty. MATTHEW RICH, 30, was charged with having, on the 16th of October, at the parish of Mevagissey, feloniously stolen a quantity of apples, the property of HENRY HARRIS CARVETH. The witnesses against the prisoner were the prosecutor, in whose orchard the felony was committed, and the constable, FRANCIS ORGAN. The prisoner's statement before the committing magistrate was put in, after the proof of the magistrate's signature given by the constable. In it the prisoner said he was sorry he had gone into the orchard; he knew he had no business there; he begged Mr. Carveth's pardon, if he would forgive him, he would never go there again. Guilty. JOHN DYER, 66, was charged with having, on the 3rd of December, at the parish of Lanivet, stolen two shirts, a bed-sheet, and an apron, the property of WM. MARSHALL. He was also charged with stealing, on the same day, a child's robe and waistband, the property of JOHN CHAPMAN, also at Lanivet. In both cases the clothes had been put out to dry, left during the night, and missed the following morning early. The prisoner was not seen near the premises, but between eight and nine on the morning of the 4th of December, he was at the house of EDWARD WILLIAMS, in Luxulyan, about two miles and a half from Lanivet village, and left a bag in charge of William's wife. The bag was subsequently examined, first by Williams and his wife, and afterwards in the present of Mr. Marshall's servant and Mrs. Chapman, and in it were found the various articles alleged to have been stolen. The Chairman, as he had done in the case of John May, directed the Jury as to the accountability of a prisoner for property found in his possession shortly after it had been stolen; and, in the present case, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty. JOHN HARRIS, 20, pleaded Guilty of stealing, in or about the month of October, a gun, the property of the Rev. J. W. HAWKSLEY, his master. The prosecutor recommended him to the mercy of the Court; on the ground, we understood, of previous good character. MARY JANE CELLY, 16, was charged with stealing on the 1st of November, in the parish of Mevagissey, a shawl, the property of BENJAMIN HAWKEN, grocer and draper. Mr. SHILSON conducted the prosecution; and Mr. STOKES the defence. Benjamin Hawken stated that on the first of November, the prisoner came to his shop and looked at some shawls, and asked to be allowed to take some home for her mistress to see. She took away three in her basket. Shortly after she left the shop, he missed a shawl, and noted the description of it in his day book. On the 7th of November the three shawls were returned without the missing one. He then went to the house of Mrs. THOMAS, prisoner's employer, and told her that he suspected the girl had taken something from his shop. Mrs. Thomas said there was a shawl upstairs which the girl had found. She went up stairs and fetched it down; it was the same description of shawl that witness had missed, witness then gave information to the Constable. FRANCIS ORGAN, constable of Mevagissey, stated that on Saturday November the 8th, he went to Mrs. Thomas's house, and demanded the shawl from Mrs. Thomas, and she took him into the parlour and there showed him a shawl; and prisoner said "It is mine; I found it out in the road." He asked her to go with him to Mevagissey to see Mr. Hawken, and allow him to take the shawl with him; and she consented to do so. Witness now produced the shawl in court. Miss RAWLINGS, an assistant at Mr. Hawken's shop, proved that the prisoner came there and asked her for three shawls, and witness gave her three to take to her mistress. Witness observed to the prisoner that she had not any paper about the shawls; and prisoner said she did not want any. Witness then took the shawls out of the basket; and under the three, she saw the stolen shawl and took it out; and afterwards that same shawl was missed. The shawl produced by the constable Organ, was identified by the prosecutor, and the jury found a verdict of Guilty. BARTLETT PASCOE 30, and MARTHA ABBOTT, 34, was charged with feloniously assaulting WILLIAM RICHARDS, of St. Austell, and stealing from his person twenty-seven shillings and two pence, the property of the said William Richards. Mr. SHILSON for the prosecution; Mr. Stokes for the defence. The prosecutor, a foreman of labourers on the St. Austell parish roads, stated that, on Friday afternoon on the 31st of October, he paid the men at the St. Austell town-hall, and, a little after six o'clock, was going to his home in St. Mewan, having twenty-seven shillings and two pence in a canvass bag in his left trowsers pocket. Just after he had passed the Globe Inn, the female prisoner came from the causeway towards him and asked him if he was going to give her a glass. He said "no," and walked on; she walked by his left side and once or twice attempting to take hold of his arm, which he drew away. He stepped up on the causeway, and she did the same, and asked him to go back and give her three-penny-worth. He refused, and she then turned and went away with another woman. Then three men came forth and closed him against the wall while the women walked away towards the town. One of these three men was the prisoner Pascoe. Prosecutor afterwards got away and went to the police constables SAMBELLS and WESTLAKE; and then went with Sambells to the St. Mewan Inn, on the Truro road. Sambells went into the Inn, and prosecutor remained outside, and saw the prisoner Pascoe coming up the road toward St. Austell. Prosecutor told Sambells of this, and they went on together and overtook the prisoner on the top of the hill, near the Quakers' Burying Ground. They went on together to the four turnings, and then Pascoe went down the old road, and prosecutor and Sambells stopped. Prosecutor next saw the male prisoner near the Old Bridge, with Sambells, and walked on by them as far as the Globe, and heard prisoner ask Sambells to go into the Globe and have something to drink. Sambells said, "you go in and I will follow." The prisoner did not go in there, but went to the General Wolfe, and the constables Westlake and Sambells went in after him. Prosecutor there saw the prisoner Pascoe and gave him into custody, and immediately saw the female prisoner standing by the door, and gave her also into custody. In Cross-Examination, the prosecutor stated that neither of the men put his hand in his pocket, and that he did not feel the woman's hand there. He missed his purse exactly as the three men came up, but did not know whether or not it was before one of the men put his hand on his collar to hold him against the wall. Neither of the men touched his pocket. While he was standing on the causeway, the other woman was only two or three yards off. He admitted too that on the evening in question, some other persons were placed in custody; but he added that the only man he charged was the prisoner Pascoe. Thomas Sambells, policeman, stated that, after going with Richards to the St. Mewan Inn, he saw Pascoe coming up the hill, as if from Truro to St. Austell; he was walking leisurely; witness walked between him and Richards. Witness told Richards to go on the new road, while he (witness) went on the old road. Pascoe turned down the old road, and witness heard him ask of a man at a quarry, the way into town. Witness walked on, and the man came out at a gate into the road with a candle, and witness being on the St. Austell side of the gate, saw Pascoe turn away in the direction of Truro. The man said to him, "why that's not the way." Witness then turned off with Pascoe, and said to him, "Well Bart, how long have you been here?" He replied, "I have only now come from Truro." They walked on together to the General Wolfe, and Pascoe said, Do you know me?" Witness replied "I know you very well." Pascoe wanted him to go into the Globe to drink, but witness went on to the General Wolfe, where Pascoe ordered a noggin of gin, and then Westlake came in, and shortly afterwards, Pascoe and the woman were apprehended. In Cross-Examination, Sambells said he took in custody, the same evening, four other men, but Richards only spoke positively of Pascoe and the female prisoner. Westlake, another policeman of St. Austell, confirmed the evidence of the last witness, and added that on his saying that he would get a woman to search the female prisoner, she said it was no use to search her - that she did not rob the man; it was COCK's woman who robbed him. Witness knew Cock and his woman; he had not been able to find either of them. WILLIAM FREDERICK CONGDON, of St. Austell, proved that on Friday the 31st of October, he travelled from Launceston to St. Austell by the Times Coach, and saw the prisoner Pascoe and another man get on the coach at Bodmin and leave it at the Globe hotel, St. Austell. Witness also got off the coach at the Globe, and as he left the hotel, saw at the corner of the street, the prisoner and a woman talking. That was about six o'clock in the evening. The jury found the prisoners Guilty of stealing from the person. POULTRY STEALING - ELISHA MICHELL, 24, and JEREMIAH BENNETT, 44, were charged with breaking and entering an outbuilding, and stealing on the night of Saturday, December 6th at Cargoll, in the parish of Newlyn (east), a number of fowls and five ducks, the property of THOMAS and HENRY ROWE. Mr. HOCKIN, for the prosecution called Thomas Rowe who carries on Cargoll farm with Henry Rowe. On Sunday morning, the 7th of December, he was told by his servant that his fowls had been stolen; about thirty fowls and five ducks were carried off. The lock of the fowl-house had been wrenched, and taken away. Witness observed foot-marks, one of a remarkable shoe, having seven rows of hob nails, and in one of the rows some nails wanting. He traced the footsteps (which just out of the fowl-house were covered with ashes), to within a quarter of a mile of the prisoner Michell's house. He then went for constable JEFFERY, and they continued the tracing to within six or seven yards of Michell's house. They found Michell at home; the constable examined his shoes with a rule, and compared them with the footmarks, and they corresponded exactly. The constable went up stairs to search and while there prisoner's wife said to witness, Don't, don't, my dear man." Then turning to prisoner she said, "this is all through drink." He said, "It is, if I had not been drunk I should not have done it." He also said to witness, "I never did such a thing before last night; I will give you anything you may expect to make it up." He further said, he saw three or four men running up across the field, and witness's dog after them, and that he followed and picked up the four fowls they dropped in the fields. He said "after I came into the road I wished I had not done it." Witness and the constable then went to the other prisoner (Bennett's) house, and before Bennett was taken into custody, witness saw him take an axe and rip off the heel-tap from his shoe. WILLIAM SEARLE, constable of Newlyn, on searching Bennetts house on Sunday the 7th of December, found under the stairs a fowl not picked; went up stairs and found three fowls and a duck in a broad-mouthed pitcher apparently put away for salting. Witness also found a jar with entrails of fowl in Bennett's house. SAMUEL JEFFERY, another constable, on going to Michell's house, proposed to search it, but Michell objected to his doing so unless he had a warrant. Witness said he thought he had a right to search if there was strong suspicion; Michell then said, you may do it if you like. On searching, witness found in a bed, placed under a quilt, a dish containing three backs of fowls covered up, and a piece of pudding and some cabbage in a dish, and a little further under the clothes there was a hot pie, not cut; on taking off the top there were some legs of fowls and apples in the pie. Witness also found two fowls in a chest, and in a lower room a large round dish full of portions of fowls, and in the oven there were nine pasties partly dressed; witness lifted the cover of one and saw either fowl or duck in it. In a pot on the fire, there was a very large fowl, and Mr. Rowe looking in, said, "there's our cock." Another witness, ANTHONY MICHELL, said that from information he went into Bennett's garden on the Monday, having his father's servant with him. Seeing some fresh earth he directed the servant to dig, and they took up seven heads of fowls, two legs, a wing, and a head of a duck. WILLIAM OXNHAM said he saw the prisoners at the Hawkins's Arms together on Saturday evening, the 6th of December; this was about half-a-mile from Messrs. Rowe's farm; on their way home they would pass by the farm. Cross-Examined - A good many people in the public house on the Saturday night; Bennett is a miner, and Michell a mine carpenter. SUSAN MICHELL said she saw Michell go into Bennett's house on the Sunday morning, December 7th, and afterwards come out with something under his arm. Two other witnesses swore that one or two of the remains of fowls found were those of the Messrs. Rowe's property. Mr. Shilson made a very ingenious defence in behalf of the prisoners, and the jury were some time in consultation; at length they gave a verdict of Guilty against both the prisoners. On this some person in the Court called out "that's right," and was rebuked by the Chairman for his improper expression. JOHN DIXON, 27, was charged with stealing, on the 21st of October, a silver watch, the property of FRANCIS VIVIAN. Prosecutor is a tailor, and had been working in Kent, but was returning to his native county, when at Moorswater, near Liskeard, he met with the prisoner, who accompanied him to Lostwithiel, and slept with him at Mr. HENDY's lodging-house. Prosecutor went to bed about two hours before the prisoner, and placed his trousers, with the watch in the fob, under the pillow. In the morning prisoner was up first; prosecutor, on rising, missed his watch, which was afterwards found in prisoner's possession at Lanivet. Verdict, Guilty. RICHARD RICHARDS, 16, pleaded Guilty of stealing on the 22nd of July, at the parish of Mylor, a coat, the property of WILLIAM SARAH. JOHN COLLICOTT, 33, was charged with stealing a coat, on the 29th of October, belonging to JOHN RANDALL, of Truro, pipe-maker. Prosecutor was at the Prince's Arms, Helston, on the evening in question; prisoner was also there and took the opportunity of carrying off the coat. The landlord, Mr. HOCKIN, went after him, and found him in St. Lawrence fair, with the coat in his possession. Verdict, Guilty. A former conviction for felony in 1846, was proved against the prisoner. JAMES CHAPEL, 12, was charged with stealing, about the 6th of December, at Redruth, a musical box, the property of WILLIAM SEYMOUR, of Birmingham, licensed traveller. Verdict, Guilty, but recommended to mercy. A witness spoke to the prisoner's previous good character. JOHN WESCOTT, 25, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 30th of December, at the parish of Liskeard, three pieces of bacon, the property of JOHN HAINE. PETER INCH, 18 and JOHN DYER, 19, were charged with stealing two geese, the property of THOMAS MARTYN, of Rock, in St. Minver. The geese were stolen from the prosecutor's premises on the night of the 7th of November, and carried on board the sloop "Mary," where they were subsequently found by constable BLANNING. Both prisoners were found guilty, but by Mr. G. COLLINS, on behalf of the prosecutor, were recommended to mercy, the prosecutor believing that they had been made the instruments of others. JOHN TINKUM, 24, was found guilty of stealing, on the 22nd of November, at Penryn, 4lbs. weight of potatoes, the property of ALEXANDER REYNOLDS. ELLEN CUNDY, 20, was charged with stealing money from ISAAC REEMAN, at St. Austell; and MARY ANN TREMAIN, 21, was charged with receiving part of the same, knowing it to have been stolen. The prosecutor is a soldier who has been recruiting in St. Austell. On the 28th of November, between eight and nine in the evening, he saw Cundy, who asked him to give her a glass of ale, he told her he would give her one if she would go to the "Ring of Bells," which she did, and sat down by his side. He had then 8s. 7d. in his pocket; he left about nine o'clock, was then very tipsy, and on going to his billet at Hodge's and calling for a glass of beer, he found his money had been taken from him. Cundy was afterwards given in custody to constable HART, to whom she said that she and Tremain had divided the money and had bought articles with it. A witness called HAWKE, said he charged Tremain with taking some of the money, on which she said she would kill Cundy for having split on her, and that she had only had 2s. from Cundy. Verdict, Cundy Guilty of stealing, Tremain of receiving. The Chairman disallowed the corporal's expenses, and said to him, if you get intoxicated and expose yourself to this kind of plunder, you must not expect to receive any countenance from this court. JOHN FLINN jun., 20, was charged with stealing, at Truro, a silk handkerchief, the property of RICHARD ROBINS. Mr. SHILSON prosecuted, and Mr. HOCKIN defended the prisoner. The handkerchief was taken from prosecutor's pocket on the 27th of October, when he was standing amongst a crowd in the High Cross at Truro, looking at Wombwell's menagerie. He felt his pocket disturbed, and putting his hand back he caught hold of Flinn, who however escaped, but was afterwards taken, and then assaulted prosecutor by striking him. Prisoner was intoxicated at the time. Mr. Hockin, in defence of Flinn, represented that he had taken the handkerchief out of prosecutor's pocket for a lark, and that instead of being charged with stealing, he ought to have been dealt with merely for the assault, for having when tipsy struck the prosecutor. Verdict, Guilty, and a previous conviction for felony in June, 1848, was proved against the prisoner. ARTHUR DOIDGE, 39, pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 19th of December, two pigs' cheeks, the property of WILLIAM BATE. RICHARD LANGDON, 19, pleaded Guilty of stealing at Camelford, three fowls belonging to FRANCIS PEARCE, on the 26th of October last. SAMUEL SOUTHARD, 41, was charged with stealing, on the 17th of September, at Falmouth, a number of casks, the property of WILLIAM CARNE. Mr. T. COMMINS conducted the prosecution. ROBERT JORDAN, clerk to Mr. Carne, who is a merchant at Falmouth, stated that Mr. Carne has stores on the north quay, in which casks and superphosphate are kept. It is a store that is locked, but witness found that the door had been wrenched open by an iron bar, or some such means, and that several casks had been taken away. He afterwards saw in Mr. WILLIAMS's stores thirteen casks which belonged to Mr. Carne, and at Mr. HAYMAN's, at the Market Inn, three casks belonging to Mr. Carne. Another witness stated that he saw prisoner, about a month since, go to Mr. Carne's store, the door of which he opened, and went inside and came out afterwards with a brandy hogshead, which he removed to the door of a cellar belonging to Mr. Williams. Witness informed Mr. Jordan of this; it was about five o'clock in the afternoon when he saw prisoner take the casks away. Mr. Williams, merchant at Falmouth, said he has stores on the north quay, and at Harvey's docks. He had known prisoner several years as a porter on the quay, and employed by the quay-master. When the casks were missed he told the witness Jordan to examine his stores, and he found some of the casks at his stores on the north quay, and some in the store at Harvey's docks. Those casks witness delivered to Mr. Jordan. He purchased them at intervals of the prisoner, and had always purchased them singly, giving him 2s. 6d. or 3s. for each, all of them not being sound. The prisoner said he had them on shipboard, in return for his labour; he always brought them to his (Mr. Williams's) stores himself, and rolled them down there. WILLIAM HAYMAN, of the Market Inn, said he purchased a wine cask of the prisoner in July last for 2s. 6d., which prisoner said he had on shipboard for his labour; afterwards he bought three other casks of prisoner, which were subsequently identified as belonging to Mr. Carne. Prisoner was found Guilty, and a former conviction for stealing a blanket in 1844 was proved against him. ELIZABETH MACLEAN, 26, was indicted for stealing from the person of JOHN HARPER, a half sovereign. Mr. CHILDS prosecuted, and Mr. SHILSON defended the prisoner. Prosecutor is a miller, and was at Launceston on the 17th of November, at the Cornish Inn. He lost his purse and half a sovereign, which loss he discovered after he left the inn. He gave a description of a woman to whom he had been speaking, and from that description policeman SAMBELLS apprehended Maclean, who as soon as she was charged with robbing a man, said she did not take the man's half-sovereign, yet nothing had been previously said to her (as the policeman stated) about any half-sovereign. She was taken before the magistrates next morning, when Harper swore that she was the woman who had robbed him, and that he had the half-sovereign in his pocket when he left the Cornish Inn. He admitted that he had so sworn before the committing magistrate, but said he could not now swear to the woman; that he had reason to believe she was not the woman; he had spoken to another woman on the same evening, and he could not now say positively that the purse was in his pocket when he left the Cornish Inn. In reply to Mr. Childs, Harper said he had received no money on account of this prosecution, and had had no promise made to him; he would swear to her with the greatest pleasure if he could. The policeman, on being asked, said Harper gave an exact description of the prisoner on the night of the robbery, and he was not drunk at the time. The Chairman directed the jury to acquit the prisoner, and after consulting with the bench, told Harper his conduct had been exceedingly disgraceful, and the count had hesitated as to whether they should not avail themselves of the powers of a recent act of Parliament, and send him to gaol to be indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury. The court had the power to do so, when a witness makes so great a difference from that which he had stated before the committing magistrates. It was important the public should know that this court, and all those courts, had now the power to commit for perjury. They should not, however, in the exercise of their discretion, use that power in his case, but the court would disallow his expenses. JANE WALLIS was Acquitted of a charge of stealing a knife, belonging to F. H. COLWILL, of Broadoak. CATHERINE STEPHENS pleaded Guilty of having, on the 15th of December, unlawfully attempted to break into the dwelling-house of JOSEPH CASS, of St. Winnow. She confessed also to a previous conviction for felony in October last. JOSIAH WILLIAMS, 14, was charged with stealing a half-crown, the property of WILLIAM RANK. Prosecutor is a grocer at Bodmin. His wife stated that on the 17th of December, there were two half-crowns in the shop till, and some small silver. She had occasion, it appeared, to leave the shop and go into the kitchen; her husband came in whilst she was absent, and found the prisoner in the shop. He asked what he was doing there; the lad then asked for a bit of tobacco for his father, which Mr. Rank declined to give him. After he left the shop, the half crown was missed, and constable BRAY went after him and apprehended him in Evans's lodging-house. The case was fully proved against the prisoner, who was found Guilty, and a former conviction of felony in March last was proved against him. STEALING BARLEY FOR HORSES - THOMAS MOORE, 25, and STEPHEN COLLINS, 17, were charged with having, on the 27th of December, stolen a quantity of barley, the property of THOMAS STANLAKE. Mr. CHILDS appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. SHILSON for the prisoners. The prosecutor is a farmer at Treburgie, in the parish of Liskeard, and the prisoners were his servants. Prosecutor has five horses, and the prisoners had to look after four of them. From prosecutor's barn there is a door leading to the granary, and from the latter a door into the farm yard. The door between the barn and granary is secured by a bolt, but by the framework of the door there is a hole, into which a person can put his hand and push back the bolt and get into the granary from the barn. On the 9th of December, prosecutor had twenty-four bushels of barley in the granary; after this, from observations he had made, he was induced to put a wedge behind the bolt of the door. Finding that barley was given to his horses, he charged his servants on the 27th of December with taking it from the granary, and they admitted it. He measured what remained in the granary, and found that about five bushels had been taken. Mr. Shilson, for the defence, submitted that the prisoners had evidently not taken the barley with any felonious intention; they took it for the purpose of giving to their master's horses. Servants frequently take a pride in seeing the horses they use look well, and in this case they took the barley because the master's allowance of oats, one gallon per day, was not sufficient. When questioned about it, they made no secret of the matter, and Moore told his master that if he would not allow the horses more he should leave his service. Moore also said to him, we took the barley, but not all that you say is gone. The master it appeared said to them, he would forgive them if they would pay him twenty shillings each for the barley, which, said Mr. Shilson, was not very liberal considering they had been fattening his own horses with it; he did not seem to know that it was a felony to compound a felony. Mr. RUNDLE, hind to Lord Vivian, and Mr. GIBBET, of St. Cleer, were then called by Mr. Shilson, and gave prisoner Collins a good character. It had been urged, on the part of the prosecution, that it was almost impossible to believe the prisoners could have given the whole of the barley that was missed to the horses in about eighteen days, from the 9th to the 27th of December. In summing up, however, the Chairman said that other persons might have taken some of the barley when the barn was open, and in fact the prosecutor did not seem to be very clear as to the quantities he had sold. He thought, therefore, there was no pretence for saying that any part of the barley was taken for the prisoners' own use, but that they took it for their master's horses. Still, the Judges had decided that such a taking was a felony, for servants had no right to take corn in this way, even though the master may allow an insufficient quantity. The jury found both prisoners Guilty, but recommended them to mercy. ASSAULT - JOHN JULIAN was indicted for assaulting and beating SAMUEL HILL, a constable of St. Breock, whilst in the execution of his duty; in a second count, he was charged with unlawfully and maliciously cutting and wounding Samuel Hill; and a third count he was charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm. Mr. G. COLLINS, for the prosecution, called Samuel Hill, who said he had been constable for the last seven years. On the night of the 8th of November he had been round Wadebridge, to see that the public-houses were closed. He was going down Fore-street, when he heard a noise, and looking into a court he saw John Julian, who he believed was drunk. Prisoner went into Mrs. SCANTLEBURY's house; witness went in after him, and prisoner then swore at him, and told him he had no business there. Witness said all he wanted was for him to go into his own house, and not to disturb the neighbourhood. Hill then went into his own house, and witness pulled fast the door and held it for a minute or two. He then left and was going up the street, when prisoner came out and called after him to come back. He went back a few steps, and Hill came up to him, holding something behind his back. He then made a cut at witness and struck him in the head, saying at the time "d---e, that's a settler for you." Witness then saw that he had struck him with a hook, and putting up his hand he found that the blood was streaming down from his head. The hook cut through the brim and part of the side of the hat, and inflicted a severe wound in witness's hand, the mark of which he showed to the jury. This happened a little before twelve o'clock at night. Witness was unable to attend to his shoemaking business for three weeks, and it was more than a month before he could put on a hat. MARY H. TRUSCOTT corroborated some part of the previous evidence, and said the blow as struck with a straight hook. JAMES HOOPER, blacksmith, gave evidence that after the blow had been struck, Julian told him Hill had followed him where he had no business to do so, but he had almost cut off his head, and suppose he was dead by that time. Mr. FRY, surgeon at Wadebridge, said he was called after one o'clock on the Sunday morning to dress Samuel Hill's wound, the blood and hair being then matted about the head. He discovered a recent clean cut wound directly over the ear, and on examining he found that the centre of the wound exposed the skull. The wound was seven-eighths of an inch long, and after sponging and getting it dry he sewed it up, and went through the process for wounds of that description. The wound was inflicted on a part of the head where the skull is thicker than at other part. Hill was under treatment for about three weeks, and the wound was calculated at first to interfere with his ordinary business. He complained of pain in the head, which witness attributed to the blow. Cross Examined - Witness had not known of any accident to Julian by which his head had been injured; he had at one time received a dislocation of his shoulder. Mr. SHILSON, in behalf of the prisoner addressed the jury, admitting that a serious assault had been committed, but he contended that the constable had been officious and brought the assault on himself. He did not excuse the act of Julian, but it was no more than a common assault, and not an attack on an officer in the execution of his duty. He then called ELIZABETH SCANTLEBURY, who lives in the same court with Julian and stated that he had been making no noise on the night in question, and that he was sitting by her fire smoking when the constable came in. She also said that Hill afterwards locked Julian in his own house, which greatly irritated him, and that after he unlocked the door he held the door against Julian to prevent him from coming out. She said the constable was as much intoxicated as Julian, but on this and other points her testimony was at issue with that given for the prosecution. RICHARD HOOPER was also called to show that the prisoner had been making no disturbance before he was interfered with by the constable. The Chairman, however, in summing up and comparing the evidence, said he could not see that the constable had in this case exceeded his duty. The jury deliberated about a quarter of an hour, and then returned a verdict, Guilty of common assault. The Grand Jury ignored the following bills:- Against WILLIAM MERRIFIELD and GEORGE LIDDICOAT, charged with stealing bacon from JAMES RETALLICK, of St. Wenn; against HENRY NICHOLLS, charged with maliciously cutting and wounding RICHARD NICHOLLS, of Mylor; and the bill against GEORGE SAMPSON, on a charge of Mr. AVERY, of Boscastle. WILLIAM MATTHEW, of Towednack, who had preferred a Bill against THOMAS RANKS, failed to appear with his witnesses JOHN CHAPPEL and EDWARD EDDY. They were called three times in court, the preliminary form to their recognizances being entreated. COUNTY BUSINESS - WILLIAM SLOGGETT, Esq., of Boscastle, took the oaths as a magistrate.