If the person who so kindly transcribed the Treweeke article from the West Briton last year could please contact me, it would be great. It's about time for it to be posted, and it would be nice to give credit where credit is due!! Thanks, Julia ....................................................................................................................... 20 JUNE 1851 CORNWALL COUNTY COURTS Helston - JENKIN v ALLEN - MR. T. ROGERS appeared for plaintiff.This was an action for the recovery of GBP 50, the balance of principal and rent due on the defendant's note of hand. Judgment for plaintiff for GBP 50. Penzance - SCOTT against J. S. SCOTT - This matter came before the Court at these sittings on the 10th inst., but want of space prevented its insertion in our last paper. The plaintiff and defendant stand in the relationship towards each other of nephew and uncle.The defendant is a marble mason, carrying on business in Penzance.The action was brought for the recovery of GBP 4.5s.6d., as due to the plaintiff for wages, and the matter came on for hearing at the previous sittings in May.The case was then partially gone into and the leading facts connected with the plaintiff's claim and with the defence were elicited; these are shortly as follows: Mr. BORLASE (of the firm MILLETT and BORLASE) appeared for the plaintiff, and MR. PASCOE for the defendant.There were two accounts produced by the plaintiff, one showing a balance of GBP 5.15s.6d. for wages, for work done between the months of February and November, 1848, and the other account showing a balance of GBP 4.5s.6d., as due on a promissory note and for over-work (the amount claimed for over-work being GBP 1.17s.6d.) both balances making a total of GBP 10.1s., although the plaintiff sought to recover GBP 4.5s.6d. only. The defendant's attorney after perusing the accounts observed on their apparent incongruity, and remarked that the claim for over-work was now made for the first time.He then stated that, with the exception of the claim for over-work, the defendant had paid the plaintiff all he owed him, that the truth of this statement could be borne out by the defendant's accounts, which were kept in a clear and detailed manner, and according to which the plaintiff had been overpaid several shillings.He added that, even supposing any balance were due to the plaintiff, he had forfeited all claim to it by his conduct on leaving the defendant at a moment's notice and a at a time when a press of business particularly required his services. After considerable discussion the parties mutually agreed to leave the matter to MR. ROBERT MATTHEWS, of Penzance. MR. MATTHEWS, at these sittings, (June the 10th) delivered his award.It appeared that the plaintiff had kept no regular accounts, that he was very uncertain in his cash entries, and that the very partial accounts produced by him did not cover more than half the time he worked with the defendant. He had kept no account of lost time, and his accounts were evidently guess-work, whereas the defendant had kept a regular record of the time worked and of weekly payments; and in addition to dates &c., other circumstances were given, which on inquiry, satisfied the referee that the defendant's accounts were entitled to full credit. The defendant's accounts showed plaintiff had been paid 11s.5d. more than his due. This, however, did not include the plaintiff's claim for over-work, with regard to which, the referee stated that the defendant had agreed to pay it for the sake of having a settlement, notwithstanding many serious objections he had to it, although it had come upon him unawares, and the existence of which he only knew of on the morning of the court day. Under these circumstances, after deducting from the plaintiff's claim for over-work, the amount overpaid him on the general account, a balance of GBP 1.6s.1d. remained for the plaintiff to pay. His Honor remarked on the absurdity of an action being brought on such accounts as produced by the plaintiff, then directed the verdict to be entered in accordance with the award. REDRUTH - ARSENIC CASE - This Court sat on Wednesday and Thursday, the 11th and 12th instant, when the case of ARNALL v FOX came on for hearing. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for injury caused to a crop of turnips alleged to have been occasioned by the effluvia of arsenic from a burning house recently erected by the defendant in the neighbourhood of Redruth. The case was tried in January, and a verdict given for defendant, but a new trial had been moved for and granted on the ground of surprise. MR. T. ARNALL, the plaintiff, stated he rented three fields at North Country in the autumn of 1849; one part of one of the fields was in potatoes, another in turnips, and another in mangold wurtzel; the potatoe crop was excellent, the others not so good because not sufficiently manured.The defendant had not them erected his burning-house. When he found them commencing the building, he objected, but was told it would be constructed so as to prevent any damage. He sowed a new crop of mangold and turnips on that assurance, but the first time it was used, he found the ground crusted and burnt up. Told the man at the burning-house I believed the arsenic had destroyed my crop; observed on the ground dry white particles. [The turnips came up beautifully, until the wind blew a different direction then blew over the field and covered it with a "white dew".] Estimated damage received at GBP 8.15s. My cow got in among the turnips for five minutes one day, and her hair was pitched as if she had been out all night. JOHN COCK said he prepared the field for tillage in May, 1850; one day the crop looked well, next morning by three o'clock, one half of the crop was destroyed. Had ploughed the land about three inches deep; Hickes told him he was ploughing too deep and turning up the sand. jOHN ADAMS had seen one day like a hoar frost on the crop.[His testimony reinforced that of the other prosecution witnesses.] MR. GEORGE ARNALL was in the habit of damming the main stream which supplied this burning house; had done so at the time these crops were said to have failed; should not think that at such times the launder of the blowing house could have more than an inch and a half of water, but was never on the spot to see the stream. CAPT. JAMES WHITE was the proprietor of the fields. When Mr. Arnall took the ground there had been an excellent crop of potatoes, a bushel to a lace. There was nothing in the bottom that was injurious for grass or vegetables. The water had been an inch and a half deep at that time.Had now let the fields to another for the same amount as Arnall, GBP 5.16s. JOHN ALLEN, a tin dresser, has been for twelve years accustomed to burning houses. Remembers erecting a blowing-house for the late MR. REUBEN MAGOR ,on the same principle as Mr. Fox's, twenty years ago. That was found to answer well. CAPT. JAMES ROSCROW deposed to the scarcity of water in the summer of 1850. CAPT. GEORGE HICKES is toller under the Lords of the land; had known the fields all his time, and never saw or heard of any bad crops on them; knows the principle of this blowing house; it was bad to let the water from the flue go over the wheel, if it fell perpendicular it would not do much harm, "but the end of the flue ought to be stuffed down in the water". In consequence of complaints, went there with Mr. BRIDGMAN, one of the Lords, who saw the trees looking white, and Mr. BURTON said he would alter it. MR. RICHARDS, surgeon, had heard the description of the flue, had not examined it, did not think its construction likely to affect the arrest of arsenical effluvia. It was well calculated to arrest sulphurous acid but not arsenious. A small quantity of water would immediately absorb the sulphurous acid. If there was any sulphurous vapour in that court a bason of water would attract it all; did not think it possible that any sulphurous vapour could escape from this flue, but water would have no effect upon arsenic acid; one of the products of tin burning; the arsenic was volatized at 380 degrees of heat, and having almost no affinity for water would pass over two hundred fathoms of it unchanged and leave the flue the same as it entered it. If the launder were kept quite full of water so that the vapour must pass through the water, the arsenious acid would become converted into arsenic acid by abstraction of oxygen from the water, and the arsenic acid was very soluble; and in this way much of the mischief might be prevented. MR. JOHN JOB , chemist, had heard Mr. Richards's evidence, and could swear that he entirely concurred in it; it was quite correct. For the defence. - SIMON KNEEBONE said he lives about fifty yards from the blowing-house; knows Mr. Arnall's fields well; they were a sandy bottom; three years ago JOHN POLLARD's son leveled abroad a stream bank to make a part of the nearer field to the burning-house. Had known corn tilled in these fields, but it failed; then hay, a pretty good crop; then turnips, which failed; and next year, turnips again, which failed. Pollard had a crop which was sold for the rent. Mr. ARNALL tried vetches in this field, which soon died away; had seen a cow, geese, and a pig among the crop which failed; there was no proper fence between this field and the next; and the cow, pig, and geese were in the field long enough to eat up ten such crops; had told Mr. Arnall about the fence many times; his field was as near to Mr. Arnall's to the blowing-house, and was never injured; had last year an excellent crop of turnips; had twelve head of cattle which had never been injured. The house was worth as much now as before the burning-house was erected, if ploughed deep the sand would injure the crops. He had never seen the flue without water enough to work it with. NICHOLAS BOYNES said he now is the tenant of the fields which Mr. Arnall had rented; remembers Mr. Arnall's crops; did not believe they were injured by the burning-house. HONOR BOYNES, wife of last witness, had seen the cow, the pig, and geese trespassing on the crop of turnips; Mr. Arnall's wife had expressed to her lately the desire to take the adjoining fields for grass. GEORGE HICKES resides close to blowing-house, his father had fields closer to blowing-house than Mr. Arnall's, which had never been injured.These fields were in the direction of the prevailing winds and last year had an excellent crop of turnips.Told COCK when he was ploughing Arnall's field, that he was ploughing too deep; Cock said, he must do as his master told him; I told him he would turn up the stamps sand. T. BISHOP said the water was always sufficient for the flue, he would think three or four inches deep in the launder; I am employed at the burning-house; there has been no alteration whatever in the flue since first erected.They burn now more than ever they burnt before.Last summer they burnt about a week in a month; this summer they have been burning a fortnight a month... If the flue were kept FULL of water, the blowing house could not be worked, as there could be no draught. CAPTAIN MATTHEW STAPLE had once occasion to ignite a pile of a thousand tons of ore amidst a wood in Cuba; great quantities of sulphur were produced, but although the smell was very offensive, not the slightest injury was done to the trees around, nor to the herbage around. MR. J. L. PETER, who conducted the defence, having closed his case, Mr. ROGERS for the plaintiff replied at considerable length.The Judge summed up in a very clear and impartial manner; the jury retired at about half past eleven o'clock at night, and after being locked up all night, were discharged in the morning without having been able to agree upon a verdict. Julia Mosman, OPC for St.Austell,Charlestown, and Treverbyn Website at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~staustell W. Briton newspaper transcripts at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wbritonad Please visit the OPC website at http://cornwall-opc.org