West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday 28th March, 1851 Part One TRIALS OF PRISONERS - CHRISTIAN LOWRY, 21, was charged with stealing, on the 4th of January, a table-cloth, two bed-gowns, three pillow-cases, two sheets, and other articles, the property of JAMES SANDERS, of the Ship Inn, Truro. Mr. COLLIER conducted the prosecution. From the evidence of Mrs. Sanders, it appeared that the accused had lived with her some time as a servant, and that after she left her house, she occasionally came and worked as charwoman. Mrs. Sanders missed some articles in January last, and went to prisoner's lodgings (where she lived with her husband,) and charged her with taking them. About a week after, having received further information, she again went and charged prisoner with taking the things, and she delivered her two bed-gowns and a pillow-case. Sergeant HARE, of the Truro police, also gave evidence, of his having searched prisoner's lodgings. The learned Judge, however, directed an acquittal, observing that if anything wrong had been done, the prisoner seemed to have been much less a party to it than her husband; for according to Mrs. Sanders's evidence prisoner wished to give up the things when Mrs. Sanders called at her husband's lodgings, whilst the husband seemed to desire concealment. She appeared to have been actuated by a feeling of honesty in the matter. The goods being found at her husband's lodgings were in his possession, not hers; and she must be held also as acting under his authority. Verdict, Not Guilty. - Another indictment against the prisoner for stealing a yard of doeskin and two yards of ribbon, from JAMES HODGE, was not pressed against her. WILLIAM VANSTONE, 27, and FRANCIS GLOYN, were charged with stealing, at Launcells, on the 11th of January, a quantity of horse-hair, the property of THOMAS SHEPHARD. - Not Guilty. JAMES WADE, 20, was charged with stealing a quantity of rope, the property of WILLIAM HOCKEN and others. From the evidence of Mr. Hocken (who is a retired Custom House officer), it appeared that the rope was stolen from the schooner "Touch-me-not," of which prosecutor is part owner, and which on the 1st of January, was lying in the Fowey river, moored between the quay and the broad-slip. Prisoner sold the rope to a dealer in articles of that description, and had also confessed his guilt when before the committing magistrate. Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Six Weeks Hard Labour. FOWL STEALING - JOHN COKER, SAMUEL HOSKIN, and BARTLETT SEARS, otherwise PASCOE, were charged with stealing, at Truthan, in the parish of St. Erme, on the night of the 15th of February, two tame fowls, the property of Mr. COLLINS, Mr. STOCK conducted the prosecution, and Mr. MAYNARD defended the prisoners Coker and Hoskin; Sears being undefended. At the desire of Mr. Maynard, the witnesses on both sides were ordered to leave the Court until called on. Mr. Stock stated that the prosecutor was a magistrate of the county, and then detailed the circumstances of the case, after which he called the following witnesses:- JOHN MICHELL, of Kenwyn parish, was in Truro on Saturday evening, the 15th of February; saw Coker and Bartlett Sears there, walking in the street together, between five and six o'clock. Cross-Examined - Prisoner Hoskin lives with his brother, and Coker with his father; both the brother and father are highly respectable men. WILLIAM BREWER, labourer, St. Erme, was going on Saturday the 15th of February, to Truro; met two men about three-quarters of a mile from Truro, going towards St. Erme; they had a greyhound and a bull-dog. JAMES KNIGHT was with me and said "good night, gentlemen." One of them, I thought it was Bartlett Sears, replied "good night." Had heard him speak before. Notice the greyhound, had seen it since at Truthan, on the 20th of February, lying dead in Mr. Collins's stable. Cross-Examined - Did not know the other man who was with Sears; it was then about a quarter to eight in the evening; never saw the dogs before. James Knight, labourer, St. Erme, was in company with last witness on the night in question. Noticed both the dogs the men had with them; had seen one of the dogs before; saw them both dead afterwards in Mr. Collins's stable. EDWARD WILTON BUDGE, of St. Erme, occasionally works for Mr. Collins; was at Richards's beer-house, at Highway, on Saturday evening 15th of February; saw Samuel Hoskin there; he had on a lightish coloured coat, and dark small clothes, (gave other particulars about his dress). He had a double-barrelled gun, and said he had been to Penair rabbit shooting. Richards's beer-shop is little more than a mile from Truthan. Coker also came into the beer-house; he had on dark clothes; Hoskin and Coker drank together and went away together, Hoskin taking his gun with him; they left at about ten or fifteen minutes before nine. Cross-Examined. - Witness was sober at the beer-house, nearly as he was not, perhaps not exactly. (Laughter) JOHN BUDGE, son of last witness, works for Mr. Collins. On Saturday the 15th of February, was at Richards's beer-house; saw Coker and Hoskin leave; about ten minutes after I left to go to Truthan, went to the gamekeeper's house there; went out watching for poachers at different places on the grounds. About twelve o'clock was in a field called Barn Close, about three or four hundred yards from Mr. Collins's farm-yard. While we were in Barn Close my father gave an alarm, and we went to the Wall-park, myself, SAMUEL WILLIAMS, DANIEL COLEMAN, the gamekeeper, RICHARD KEAST, and PHILIP GILL. These men were watching for poachers, when we got to the gate in Milldowns; saw fowls coming out of the cart-house, in Wall-park, and flying over the hedge. The fowls were kept in the cart-house. Saw two men in Wall-park coming from the yard. It was a clear moonlight; I was twenty or twenty-four feet from the men; knew them to be John Coker and Bartlett Sears; saw the men turn, went after them, and then said to Keast, "there go Coker and Sears." Did not see anything in their hands. They ran away, a grey-hound following close after them. I fired at the dog, and he fell. After that I heard a noise in the cart-house; went back and looked around; saw a man in the cart-house standing in the corner behind a post. He took a double-barrelled gun out of the cart, and pointed it at me; he did not speak. I pointed my gun, and told him, if he did not stand I would blow his brains out. My gun was not loaded at the time. He then ran away; and I said at the time to Keast, "there's Samuel Hoskin;" he was dressed as he was in the beer-shop. I believe it was Samuel Hoskin; but would not swear to a man at night unless I had him in my hand; have no doubt it was Hoskin. Cross-Examined - Had neither Coker nor Hoskin in my hand that night. Samuel Williams, hind to Mr. Collins, was out watching for poachers with Budge and others on the night in question; went to the farm-yard in Barn Close; heard Budge threaten to blow out a man's brains; and saw a man with light clothes run from the cart house and go by the hedge; was about fifteen yards from the man, and thought it was Hoskin. (Witness described the man's clothes.) Had known Hoskin before; as he ran away he fell down. Next morning (Sunday) went with Mr. Collins's gamekeeper, Daniel Coleman; first traced footsteps about a hundred yards from Richards's "kidleywink." Went from Richards's house to a field opposite; saw marks of footsteps there, at the first hedge the footmarks of two men; could not trace the steps across, it being a green field, but found them again, going over a hedge into a muddy lane; there were there marks of three persons with two dogs; one of the dogs had larger feet than the other. After crossing some fields found the same marks again; this was going in the direction of Truthan; tracked them to the farm-yard, they came down abreast with the dogs; the shoes of one of the parties had been lately half-tapped; for the last quarter of a mile saw the tracks all the way to the farm-yard. Cross-Examined - Would not swear positively it was Hoskin that ran out of the cart-house; Coker lives with his father, who is a very respectable man. Samuel Keast, works for Mr. Collins; was out watching with the others for poachers on the night in question; was near the gate in Wall-park and saw the fowls fly over the hedge into Mill-downs. (Corroborated other parts of the previous testimony.) Saw Philip Gill pick up a hen outside the cart-house; the neck of the hen was twisted; it was Mr. Collins's property, whose fowls roost in the cart-house. Saw a bull-dog near the farm-yard gate with a fowl in his mouth. Gill caught the dog; we took it to the hind's house, and hung the dog on the Sunday evening. The dead greyhound and the bull-dog were afterwards put in the stable at Truthan. WILLIAM WOOLCOCK, policeman at Truro, apprehended Sears on Wednesday night the 19th of February, in Truro. After knocking some time at the door of the house where prisoner was sleeping, he came down and opened it; he was not then dressed. He said "Come inside, it is all right," and he then said he did not intend to go away. I had not said anything to him before that. Was at Truthan and saw the dead greyhound in the stable; knew it immediately to be Bartlett Sears's dog; had seen it several times before; had seen it several times before; had seen it two or three times with Sears; he had had it two or three months. He told me some time before that he had bought this greyhound. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. Maynard then addressed the jury for the prisoners Coker and Hoskin. He contended that the evidence did not even make out a case of strong suspicion against those prisoners. Not one of the witnesses pretended to speak with any certainty with regard to Coker; and with respect to Hoskin, the witnesses, with the single exception of John Budge, only speak as a matter of suspicion. John Budge speaks with more certainty, but he had no more right to be certain than any other person; for they saw the parties under circumstances in which it would be impossible to swear to their identity. Budge said he would not swear to any man at night, unless he had him in his hands, and what did that mean but that unless he had this man in his hands (which he had not), he could not swear to him. With regard to the footsteps of which evidence had been given they proved nothing. He would now call the respectable men to whom some of the witnesses had referred, to prove an alibi in the case of Coker and Hoskin. He then called HUBERT COKER, father of the prisoner Coker, who had lived at Lanner Mill twenty-three years, and been constable for seven years. He is my only son, takes part in my business; I entrust him with money, and never found anything against him with regard to dishonesty. Sent him to Truro on the 15th of February, to collect rent; he returned to my house about half-past nine, and after taking tea he went to bed; heard him after that talking to his mother. I went to bed about half-past twelve; he had not then come down, his shoes were at the bottom of the stairs. GEORGE THOMAS, miller in the employ of last witness. Saw young Coker come back from Truro about half-past nine on Saturday night the 15th of February. Truro is about four miles from Coker's Mill. When I came in the last time that night about half-past eleven, saw young Coker's shoes at the bottom of the stairs. I sleep with John Coker the prisoner, and spoke to him when I went to bed about half-past eleven. RICHARD HOSKIN, farmer, St. Allen, brother of prisoner Hoskin, said his brother had returned from America about three or four months, and had been living with witness. My brother went to see his aunt that day, (15th of February), and took his gun with him; returned home about ten o'clock, ate some supper, and went to bed. Sleeps in the same room with me; the beds are touching; did not hear him go out that night. He told me he had been at Richards's beer-house. PHILIPPA HOSKIN deposed that her brother went to bed about ten o'clock on Saturday night, the 15th of February; she carried some changes of linen into his room at twenty minutes to twelve; then saw her brother in bed. The prisoner Sears, on being called on for his defence, said his dog strayed away on Saturday the 15th of February; how he got to Truthan he did not know. Mr. Stock, in reply, made no observations on the case of Coker, but still contended that the evidence was weighty as against Hoskin, and threw doubts on the credibility of the witnesses who had deposed to the alibi, who might be mistaken, he said, with regard to the day. He would make no remark on the case of Sears, because he was undefended. In summing up, the learned Judge said it could scarcely be supposed that the respectable witnesses who had been called, hitherto of stainless character, would now have perjured themselves to prove an alibi. He did not consider that Sears's words to Woolcock when he went to apprehend him, showed his guilt, but were capable of another explanation. The evidence against Sears (except with regard to the dog) was not even so strong as against the others; and the question arose, what reliance the jury could place on evidence which (if they believed the proof of alibi) had been so completely mistaken with regard to the other two men. The jury after a short deliberation, Acquitted all the prisoners. NO BILLS - The Grand Jury ignored the bill against JOHN LOWRY, charged with stealing at Truro, a sleeve-board and pair of scissors, the property of JAMES HODGE. Also against WILLIAM HILL, charged with housebreaking at St. Kew. Also against GERTRUDE WELLINGTON, charged with having murdered, at Luxulyan, her male illegitimate child. The Grand Jury returned a true bill against JOHN MOON, for poaching on the lands of Mr. GREGOR, in Ruanlanihorne; also on a count for shooting at, in order to resist apprehension. Thursday, March 27. - JAMES HENRY HARRIS, 17, pleaded Guilty, after two former convictions, of stealing, on the 6th of March, at the parish of Kenwyn, one yard of duck the property of RICHARD HAWKEY, miller. DAVID ANDERSON, 21, charged with having, on the night of Tuesday the 15th of January, 1850, at the parish of Crowan, feloniously broken and entered the shop of THOMAS SYMONS, draper, and stolen therefrom several pieces of orleans and coburg cloth, a quantity of knives and forks, some tobacco, and other articles, the property of the said Thomas Symons. Mr. COLERIDGE conducted the prosecution; Mr. SLADE the defence. The fact of the housebreaking and robbery being proved by the prosecutor's son, the witnesses, MARY NICHOLLS and JOHN JULYAN, deposed that a man whom they believed to be the prisoner, and who was pock-marked (as was the prisoner) was selling Orleans and coburg cloth, and knives and forks at Treviskey, on the 17th of January, 1850; but these witnesses were not positive that the prisoner was the man. Another witness, however, JOHN GAY, swore positively that the prisoner was the man. ELIZABETH TIPPET proved letting three men, of whom the prisoner was one, into a lodging-house at Camborne, on the night when the robbery took place. In the course of the trial, and in summing up, the learned Judge remarked strongly on the absence of any evidence concerning the prisoner's apprehension (which took place lately in Wales), and any observations made by him at the time. His lordship also deprecated any attempt to substitute the opinion of a jury on a description of the person and dress of the man who sold the cloth and knives, for the opinion of witnesses who had distinctly stated that after their means of observation at the time the articles were sold, they could not positively identify the prisoner. The prisoner received a good character from a Mrs. FORD, keeper of a temperance hotel, at St. Just in Penwith. The jury found a verdict of Acquittal. PARKYN v. WYLD - Was one in which Mr. Parkyn, draper, of Bodmin, brought an action against Mr. Wyld, M.P., to recover the sum of GBP105 for flags and ribbons supplies for the use of the honourable member's party at his election in 1847. After the cause had been entered, it was settled out of court, the defendant, as we understand, paying the debt and costs. DOE DEM. - RICHARDS v. FORD - This was an undefended action of ejectment, in which a verdict passed for plaintiff. The plaintiff, we understand, resides at Penzance, and the defendant at St. Just in Penwith. ANDREW and ANOTHER v. BREWER - This was also an undefended action. Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH appeared for the plaintiff. The action was brought on a deed, dated the 19th of September, 1835, in which THOMAS ROWE BREWER, the father of the defendant, covenanted for himself, his executors and administrators to pay to the plaintiffs - HENRY PRYNN ANDREW, and THOMAS WHITFORD - the sum of GBP400 with interest at the rate of five per cent. The only witness examined was FREDERICK JOHNS, attesting witness of the deed referred to. The amount of interest claimed being GBP45. 3s., the Judge directed a verdict for plaintiff for GBP445. 3s., and ordered execution in a week. KEMPE v. KEMPE - Mr. COLLIER for plaintiff. An undefended action in which WILLIAM PETER KEMPE was plaintiff; and WILLIAM CORYTON KEMPE was defendant. The action was brought on a promissory note whereby the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff GBP100 on demand, with interest at five per cent. The note was dated the 23rd of November, 1849. The defendant's handwriting in the signature of the note was proved by Mr. JOHN CARLYON, solicitor. There being no demand for interest, the Judge directed a verdict for plaintiff, for GBP100 debt, and one shilling damages. His lordship ordered execution in a week. DOE DEM - GRENVILLE v. HICKS - Mr. CROWDER and Mr. KARSLAKE for plaintiff; Mr. SLADE for defendant. This was an action of ejectment brought on the demise of the Honourable ANNE BARONESS GRENVILLE, against the defendant GEORGE HICKS, to recover possession of a farm in the parish of Lanteglos by Fowey, called Triggabrown and Warren. Mr. Karslake having opened the pleadings, Mr. Crowder stated that the defendant had been a yearly tenant of the farm for some years, at a rent at first of GBP200 a year, which was subsequently reduced to GBP160, from which fifteen per cent was afterwards taken off. Still the rent was not paid, and, at length, it was found necessary to give notice to quit. That notice was given on the 23rd of March, 1850; and expired at Michaelmas last. After receiving notice, the defendant was anxious to continue on the far; and on his application to Mr. PEASE, Lady Grenville's steward, to that effect, that gentleman informed him by letter that it was not wished to turn him out immediately, provided some terms could be arranged; and he (Mr. Pease) appointed a meeting at Boconnoc, in order to have an interview with Mr. FORTESCUE, who had for many years managed Lady Grenville's estate. From that time, many attempts at arrangement were made, but without effect, and at length it became necessary that the notice to quit should be enforced. The only defence he (Mr. Crowder) anticipated was, that the notice had been waived in consequence of the negotiations that took place between the parties subsequent to its service. In point of fact, however, there had been no waiver, although there had been various attempts to prevent its being carried into effect; but the defendant would not comply with terms that were absolutely necessary for the proper cultivation of the farm. The witnesses examined were Mr. JOHN BOWEN, formerly steward to Lady Grenville for many years; WILLIAM POND, woodranger at Boconnoc, who, on the 23rd of March, 1850, received from Mr. Fortescue a notice, in the hand-writing of Mr. Pease, which he served the same day on the defendant; and Mr. WILLIAM PEASE, the present steward of Lady Grenville, who had succeeded Mr. Bowen in that office in March, 1850. Besides giving evidence on the subject of the notice and the subsequent negotiations, Mr. Pease stated that with respect to Lady Grenville's property he always communicated with Mr. Fortescue, who lived at Boconnoc, and, also gave evidence of an interview which a few days after service of the notice the defendant had with Mr. Fortescue on the subject of his tenancy. On the subject of the negotiations between the parties, Mr. Pease stated that after the notice referred to had been served, Hicks was very desirous of remaining in the farm, and if matters could have been arranged, there would have been no objection to his doing so. Negotiations went on for some time, Mr. BISHOP, solicitor, acting on behalf of Hicks. On the 27th of March, he (witness) wrote a letter to Hicks, informing him that if any satisfactory arrangement could be come to, the notice to quit need not be acted upon, and requesting him to meet Mr. Fortescue on the following Saturday at Boconnoc, and see if any arrangement could be made. He attended at Boconnoc on that day, and there was a long interview. On the 5th of September, 1850, he (Mr. Pease) wrote to the defendant, information him that he had that morning seen Mr. Fortescue with reference to what had passed between him 9Mr. Pease) and defendant the previous evening, and begged to inform him that the decision Mr. Fortescue had come to was, that the notice to quit must be acted on, unless he (Hicks) could manage to pay the rent at once without selling off the stock, and would enter into necessary covenants for the proper management of the estate, and also informing him that notice for letting the estate would be published the following week. Mr. Pease went on to state that notices for letting were published the following week. After that, Hicks and his attorney, Mr. Bishop, came to him, and were desirous of holding on for one year. Witness saw Mr. Fortescue on the subject, and communicated what had been said, and it was agreed that Hicks might remain on certain conditions. In consequence of that, witness saw Mr. Hicks and Mr. Bishop, and told Mr. Bishop he would write out the conditions in a day or two, and let him have them. Witness did so on the 24th of September, and, after two other letters, witness received a letter from Mr. Bishop, concluding the matter by stating that no agreement could be come to and no agreement was come to. Cross-Examined. Did not communicate directly with Lady Grenville on the subject. After the service of the notice to quit, and the letter which suggested payment of rent, the defendant paid a portion of the rent, but not all. He paid GBP150; but there were GBP230 due at the previous Michaelmas, after allowing him fifteen per cent. It was afterwards agreed that if he would pay GBP150 by the end of May, all the remainder should be forgiven hi. He did not pay by that time. He paid part in September or October; but he had not paid in respect of any rent that became due after Michaelmas, 1850. A distraint was levied on the 31st October last. At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Slade objected to the notice, on the ground that Mr. Fortescue was not shown to have had any authority to send it. The Judge was of opinion that there was evidence for the jury that Mr. Fortescue had sufficient authority. The notice to quit was then admitted and read. Mr. Slade addressed the jury for the defendant, still urging that it would be for them to consider whether it was satisfactorily proved, in the absence of power of attorney, that Mr. Fortescue was authorised to give the notice in question. The learned Judge summed up, and concluded by directing the jury that the real question would be whether Mr. Fortescue had or had not authority to give the notice in the case. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. The Judge ordered immediate execution, Mr. Crowder having stated that the defendant had 112 acres - more than half the farm, including all the meadow land - in tillage. This concluded the Nisi Prius business of the day; the two remaining cases - BODILLY v. THOMAS, and REGINA v. GARLAND - special jury cases - being fixed for Thursday.