WEST BRITON AND CORNWALL ADVERTISER ASSIZES, part 3 SENDING THREATENING LETTERS - WILLIAM BARTLE, 33, was indicted for feloniously sending to JAMES RANDLE, in the parish of Cury, a letter without any name, threatening to burn a certain house and other buildings, and a certain stack of corn, his property. Mr. MOODY and Mr. COLERIDGE appeared for the prosecution, attorney, Mr. HILL; Mr. SLADE for the prisoner, attorney, Mr. PLOMER. Mr. Moody said the prisoner was indicted for a very serious offence, and the case would require considerable attention on the part of the jury. To prove the case he should have to satisfy the jury that the letter set out in the indictment was sent by the prisoner to the prosecutor; and that it had, and was intended to have, the meaning attached to it in the indictment. It seemed that the parish of Mullion had been for nearly two years the scene of fires supposed to have been voluntarily committed, and that persons there had also been the subject of letters threatening fires. It seemed likewise that the object of attack and hostility in regard to these fires and threatening letters, had been the family of MR. THOMAS, especially Mr. JOSEPH THOMAS, of Trevitho, and the persons connected with him. The circumstance that connected Mr. RANDLE, the prosecutor in this case, with Mr. Joseph Thomas's family, was this - that Mr. Joseph Thomas had a son also called Joseph, and that he was engaged to be married to Mr. Randle's daughter. Mr. Randle lives within a short distance of Mr. Joseph Thomas; he is a farmer occupying property there; and on the 25th of May, 1850, he received the following letter: (We give the letter with the faulty orthography, &c.) "Respected Sir I have thought it my duty to write A few lines to you concarning the poor ould Joe Thomas famley Tevitho Sir you have heard About the proceedings of the Thomases family to be bad and still going worse the old Joe have taken the Golrodger farm for his son the long face Joe in A very durty improper way and he is not to keep it but this one year at Michaelmas next to geive it up or else trust to what to come the have two months two consider and be decided if the have resolved through pride and poverty to go on as there going in ten years time there will not be A Trevitho thomas left with one Grote it have being understood that you Sir is very favorable for the long face Joe to have Golroger that he may marry your Daughter but remember Sir if your Daughter Go on Golroger farm better she was never borne and you and your famleys will share the same fate with the trevitho Thomases we have resolved that every one that is connected in putting them on Golroger farm shall suffer A like you are welcome to settle your Daughter and the poor Joe in your own parish Cury or any other place you think proper but on Golroger the shall not go and for your comford the less the come to Mullion the better for their good." Mr. Moody explained that "long faced Joe" in the above letter meant a son of Mr. Joseph Thomas, of Trevitho, and that this son had taken the farm of Colroger some time before, of the brother of Mr. Joseph Thomas, senior, namely WILLIAM THOMAS. Mr. Randle, receiving this letter, with a full knowledge of what had been going on in the parish, could attach no other meaning to it than that he was threatened with the same malignity and revenge that had been inflicted on the Trevitho Thomas family - which was, to have his property burnt by fire. Mr. Moody went on to state that at the prisoner's lodgings when he was apprehended, a letter was found in the same handwriting as the letter that had just been read, addressed to the same person, and sealed ready for delivery. Mr. SLADE objected that it was not competent for his friend to explain a letter which was the subject of the indictment, by another letter which was found some months afterwards. The learned Judge asked if the second letter was in the same handwriting as the first. Mr. Moody replied that he should prove it to be so. The Judge then decided that the case should proceed. Mr. Moody then read the following letter, which had been found at prisoner's lodgings when he was apprehended: "Sir, patience and perseverance surmount difficultes, and you as a man will be placed in those difficulties which you never yet experienced in life if you don't look well at home, you have heard of the fire which happened at prisk not long since to Mr Skin flent yet there have been no change taken place in the thomas family in respect to the golroger form the appear to be so headstrong as ever. Let them go on there are greater preperations making now than ever yet have being for the distruction of the Old Mr. bluebritches and the long face bluebritches and all the familys connected with Mr. bluebritches family did you heer of Mr. bluebritches shot in the pulpit in Cury chapel phraps you did A narrow escape for his head Sir we have understood that the long face joe do sleep at your house when he come a curting two your daughter Afraid to goe home if ever its known from this time that you shilter joe Thomas the young bluebritches in your house all night aney mure while he remain on Golroger form you will have your house and property burnt and in flames while in your bed and if ever you leive your Daughter go on Golroger form you and your sons and family will share the same fate with Mr. Bluebritches." Mr. Moody explained that "skin-flint" referred to in the above letter was another of the Thomas's, and that "blue-britches" was a nick-name that old Mr. Thomas was known by. The learned Counsel said he should show that the first letter was sent by the prisoner, by putting in the witness-box the man who wrote both letters for him, and left them in his possession; and he should trace the first letter as having been sent by post to Mr. Randle, the prosecutor. The person who wrote the letters for prisoner might be considered an accessory before the fact; still, his evidence was admissible; directly he was taken into custody, and wrote, the resemblance of his writing to that of the threatening letter referred to in the indictment, as well as the other that had been read, was so manifest that there could be no mistake about it. Mr. Moody proceeded to speak of other circumstances of suspicion against the prisoner - the coil of safety-fuse found at his lodgings, which might be used to set fire to premises, and that prisoner being a shoemaker could have no use for such an article; also the story he told CHAPPLE, the constable, about a letter that had been put under the latch of his door; the identity of a wafer seal belonging to prisoner with the seal of the threatening letter found at his lodgings; and evidence of declarations by prisoner hostile to "old Joe Thomas." These particulars are more fully detailed in the following evidence: -JAMES RANDLE, examined by Mr. Coleridge - I am a farmer at Colvennor, two miles from Trevitho. In May last I received a letter by the post; kept it for several weeks then gave it to the Rev. Mr. PETER, a magistrate. Had heard of the fires at the Thomas's, at Trevitho. After receiving the letter I felt apprehensive my premises would be burnt as the Thomas's had been. Cross-examined by Mr. Slade - What part of the letter makes you apprehensive your premises would be burnt? Witness - On receiving the letter I was apprehensive. >From what part of the letter? - I can't say any more about it than that. (The learned Judge told the witness he must answer the question, and state what made him apprehensive.) Witness then read the letter aloud, and said the words that made him apprehensive were "You and your family shall share the same fate." This he considered meant that they should if his daughter went to the Colroger farm. Prisoner lives about a quarter of a mile from me; up to the time of these charges I never heard any accusation against the man; did not believe him guilty until he was apprehended. There was a large reward offered (two hundred pounds) for the discovery of the parties who sent the letter. Re-examined: Joseph Thomas, son of Joseph Thomas, of Trevitho, I rather think is engaged to marry my daughter; Joseph Thomas, jun. occupies Colroger. The Thomas's of Trevitho are the Thomas's who have had fires on their premises. -STEPHEN THORNTON - Am a sergeant in the London detective force; was sent down by the Secretary of State to Mullion to investigate some matters going on there; was there three days previous to prisoner's apprehension. on the 9th of November last. I searched his premises at his brother's shop, at a hamlet called Whitecross in the parish of Cury. Prisoner's brother is a shoemaker; prisoner lodged with him, and worked for him at that time; found in the shop a sheet of paper and an envelope in a book where prisoner kept his memorandums. As far as I recollect prisoner claimed the book, and some of the papers taken from it he endeavoured to snatch from me. I found in a box something like a coil; did not know at the time what it was; have since been told it was safety fuse used by miners; I took it from the box and also some coarse powder which was in the box. This box was in the shop, not more than a couple of yards from where the prisoner was sitting when apprehended. I followed the prisoner, and asked him if the safety fuse was his. He denied any knowledge of it, and so did his brother and the other who was there. I believe the box was open to them all. Prisoner was taken by constable CHAPPEL into the dwelling-house. I found in a room which prisoner acknowledged was his bedroom, some papers and memorandums; found in his box a letter directed to Mr. Randle, Colvennor, Cury. Found in prisoner's pocket, after he came down stairs, a small piece of sealing-wax, and a pencil case with a wafer seal at the end. (Pencil case produced.) The letter was in an envelope, and the seal on the envelope was unbroken. I did not open the letter at the time, but from what Chappel, the constable, told me, I afterwards opened it. I tried the seal of the envelope very carefully at the time, and believed the impression to have been made by the seal I took from prisoner. I found in a room below two sorts of paper and two sorts of envelopes. The two sheets produced (the yellow sheets) correspond with the paper of the letter sent to Mr. Randle, and charged in the indictment. The paper is of the same quality, has the same water-mark, and a little flower on the stamp in both cases. Also compared other paper (blue) found in the room below, with the threatening letter found in prisoner's box, and the two corresponded. The sealing-wax I found on the prisoner is of the same inferior quality as that with which the threatening letter found in his box was sealed. (The paper, letter, seal, sealing-wax, and impression on the envelope were examined by the Judge and Jury.) I afterwards took HODGE into custody, and he confessed that he had written these letters. Cross-examined: Was down to Mullion before when HENDY was in custody; passed for a mining adventurer. Do not know how many shops in Mullion sell paper. When I apprehended Bartle, he seemed very quiet; said he would stop and finish his shoe. -RICHARD CHAPPEL, constable at Helston, had Bartle in custody; had some conversation with him on the 9th of November, the evening he was apprehended. He said "see what people do by sending letters; I was out last night till half-past eleven o'clock; when I came in I found a paper at the latch of my door; I took it down, and it was a letter in brown paper tied round with rope-yarn; it was directed to Mr. James Randle, Colvennor, Cury, whoever finds this is particularly requested to carry or send it;" he said,"I untied the rope-yarn; it was sealed and directed to Mr. James Randle, Covennor, and I put it in the "skibbet" of my box." He then said, "do you know whether the Serjeant found it; if you had not apprehended me, I should have carried it or sent it this afternoon." I told him the Serjeant had found a letter; whether I told him first or afterwards I do not know. -JOHN NETTING, a miner, explained in what way the safety-fuse was used. It is not sold in common shops. Cross-Examined: it would not set fire to wood, but would set fire to hay or dry furze; it burns regularly. -THOMAS THOMAS, lives near Mullion; has known the prisoner a long time; saw him last harvest in a field; PHILIP WYATT the parish clerk was there. Wyatt said to others in the field, "what ought to be done to the man that set fire to the corn at Trevitho, the man that did it ought to have been burnt in the flames." Prisoner turned round and said "Thee know'st nothing about that." Prisoner and I went afterwards to another part of the field; prisoner then said "If I were to see all Thomas's corn on fire, I would not put that hand to save it."- holding out his right hand. About a week after this, there was some conversation about the fires. I said, "what can the parties that burnt Priske have against Mr. John Thomas?" He answered, it was not against Mr. John Thomas, of Priske, only, it was against Mr. Joe Thomas, of Trevitho; the parties that have done this, he said, will do more yet; he would not enter the family of the Thomas's on any account. I then said, if it was against Mr. Joseph Thomas's family, Mr. Randle of Colvennor, and Mr. Hendy, of Polgreen, were as liable to be burnt as Mr. John Thomas, of Priske." He said, any one that enters that family would be as liable to it as they; it would make no difference if it was for ten years to come. I made the remark about the other families, because I understood that Mr. Joe Thomas's son was courting Mr. Randle's daughter, and that a younger son of Mr. Thomas, of Trevitho, was courting a daughter of Mr. Hendy. I cautioned Bartle to hold his tongue. I told him to say no more about it, that Mr. Hendy had transported himself by his own words, and I would advise him to say no more about it. He said if any one came into the shop to arrest him, he would knock them down with the "kelvy" or some other thing. Cross-examined: Mentioned these things to my wife, and to John Thomas, of Priske. Do not get drunk often. By Mr. SLADE - Did not Bartle say to you, it is the opinion amongst the better-most people that Mr. Thomas had set fire to the property himself? Witness - I believe he did. What did you say? I said I had not heard anything like that. Witness further said that since he had been to Bodmin, Mr. MILLS (clerk to Mr. Hill, attorney for the prosecution) had told him what he had stated before the magistrates at Helston. The next witness was Hodge, who had been admitted as Queen's evidence, after he had confessed to writing the letters for Bartle, the prisoner. -JOHN HODGE, a labourer in the parish of Gunwalloe, adjoining Mullion and Cury; had been intimate with Bartle the prisoner four years; lived close to him; had occasionally spent Sundays with him. He has asked me at different times to write letters for him. By Mr. Coleridge - Is that letter (the letter sent to prosecutor) in your handwriting? Witness - Yes, I wrote this from Bartle's reading; he had it written on a slate. When I had written the letter I gave it back to him; he put it in an envelope and I directed it.- Did you also write that? (handing another letter, the one found in prisoner's house.) Witness - Yes, that one was written on a book, I also directed the envelope for the second letter and gave it to Bartle. The last letter was written about a week before our feast (the nearest Sunday to the 4th of November.) This was a fortnight before I was apprehended.The first letter, I believe, was written some months before. I was apprehended with Bartle, and now come from the gaol. Cross-examined by Mr. Slade: When I was apprehended, they asked me to write; I did so, and they said it was the same handwriting as the letters. Did you not remonstrate with Bartle for writing those letters? Witness - I mentioned it to him at times; he appeared to have a revenge against the Thomas's. Did you not know that Hendy had been transported for doing the same sort of thing? Not when I wrote the first letter; I mentioned it to him on writing some of the letters. What did he say? (No reply.) Before you were arrested did you ever tell any living soul about the hand you and Bartle had in it? No. Did you know there was a reward of GBP 200 offered? No. Have all your family gone to Australia since the fires? Yes. Had you an intention to follow them? Yes. Witness further said he had been examined by Mr. Hill and his clerk before he went before the grand jury. Prisoner, he said, was a lively and amusing man, and amused his neighbours with singing. Witness said he was apprehended on the Saturday, but said nothing about confessing until the Monday. Re-examined: I was first asked by the jailor whether I was willing to be a witness, and then these two gentlemen examined me. The letter spoken of was written on a Sunday in the shoemaker's shop; nobody was present but myself and prisoner; I wrote a letter before this that I wrote to Randle. By Mr. MOODY - What reason did he give for asking you to write these letters? Witness - Because he said his handwriting was known. When I began writing the first letter, I did not know for what purpose it was; when I came to a certain place in the letter I stopped, because it was language I did not like. -JOSEPH THOMAS, the younger, son of Mr. JOSEPH THOMAS, of Trevitho - am engaged to Mr. Randle's daughter. I occupy Colroger farm; have occupied it twelve months last Michaelmas; my uncle is the landlord; I have heard of my father being called "blue-breeches." "Long faced Joe" I suppose meant me, and also "young blue breeches." I remember the fire at Vounder last march twelvemonths; that property was in my father's occupation; part of a dwelling house and some outbuildings were burnt there. There was corn burnt in the field at Trevitho last harvest twelve months, the property of my father. The letters read by Mr. Moody in opening the case, were now put in as evidence. MR. HILL, solicitor for the prosecution, was then sworn, and deposed that the offer of reward for the apprehension of the guilty parties, was drawn up by him, and circulated in the neighbourhood. No person had claimed anything of that reward. Mr. SLADE then addressed the jury in behalf of the prisoner. He said they were there to try the simple fact, whether the prisoner sent the first threatening letter that had been read to them, and was charged in the indictment; they had nothing to do with any other letter or with the fires at Priske, Trevitho, or other places except in so far as those circumstances tended to throw light on the act of sending the present letter. The charge brought against the prisoner rested entirely on the evidence of the accomplice Hodge. When a man comes as Queen's evidence, the jury might be sure that he was steeped to the very lips in guilt himself. The law therefore required, that an accomplice should be corroborated in some material particulars, as to the facts, and as to the party whom he charges. In the present case the accomplice was unsupported and uncorroborated in every material particular; and he thought he should be able to show that he was much more than an accomplice, that he had been the principal in these transactions, and the only offender. There was nothing stated in the case that did not perfectly consist with the innocence of the party accused. It was said the prisoner read the letter from a slate for Hodge to copy; but no slate had been produced, though the strictest search had been made by the Sergeant from London and the constable. Hodge, being intimate with the prisoner and going into the shoemaker's shop and house, had opportunities of purloining the prisoner's paper and of using his pencil case. The finding of the safety fuse, the gun-powder,the letters and envelopes, might be circumstances of some weight if they had been found in a house which prisoner occupied alone. But there were others in the house, and the articles were found in an open box, or in places to which other persons had access, and to which even Hodge might have had access. As to the safety fuse it might have been left in the shoemaker's shop by any miner calling there. The seal of the pencil case tallying with the impression on the envelope, even if it did so, was no material fact in evidence, because those pencil cases are made by the gross, and turned out in a mould, and no doubt there were hundreds of them in the county. So as to the paper found at prisoner's lodgings, no doubt many others in Mullion would have the same type of paper, probably bought at some shop in the neighbourhood. He then went on to remark on the evidence of Sergeant Thornton, Thomas Thomas, and Chappel, and to contend that the facts they had deposed to were all perfectly consistent with the innocence of the prisoner. On the other hand, Hodge had been pre-determined to shift the guilt on other shoulders; through it was only after he was detected, and found no loop-hole for escape, that he endeavoured to implicate Bartle; and he had other inducements for doing this, there being a reward of GBP 200 offered, and his family having gone to Australia,the amount would have assisted him to go over there. He contended that there was nothing which could satisfactorily corroborate the evidence of the accomplice, and therefore that the prisoner must receive an acquittal. The learned Judge, in summing up, said the jury were bound to give this case their most serious and anxious affection. The indictment charged a very grave offence, - an offence that might be made the means of persecution, and of harassing and distressing the feelings, and disturbing the happiness of a whole family, almost of a whole community. When such an offence had been committed, it became a grave duty, on the part of all those concerned in the administration of public justice, if possible to discover the aggressor. On the part of the jury, it was their duty to take care that they fixed the guilt on no person that was innocent; and it was equally their duty that they let no one escape whom they believed to have been implicated. With regard to the accomplice, his own impression was, that if he had known as much of the case as he now did, when he was asked to permit that man to come here to give evidence, he should have said, "no, let them stand in the dock together and take their trial," for as far as he could form an opinion, the testimony of that man had added very little, possibly nothing, to the case against the prisoner; the handwriting of Hodge might very likely have been proved without the assistance of his evidence. He concurred with the observations of the learned counsel as to the little credit that was to be given to the statements of an accomplice, whose testimony should be used merely for the purpose of explaining those matters that otherwise might appear obscure, and even then it should be taken with considerable caution. They were therefore now to consider what was the real value of the evidence against the prisoner, apart from the testimony of Hodge the accomplice, who, however, if his story were true, appeared to have been rather an instrument than a principal in the offence. He then remarked on various circumstances in the evidence; the remarkable conversation of prisoner with Chappel, after he was apprehended; the endeavour of prisoner to snatch the papers from Sergeant Thornton (which however, was not stated before the magistrates); the papers and threatening letter found in a box in the house which prisoner stated to be his, in a bedroom which he acknowledged to be his; the correspondence of the paper and letters, and the seal on the envelopes with a seal found in prisoner's possession, and other circumstances which had been deposed to. As to prisoner's story about the letter he found under the latch of the door, the jury were to consider whether that was likely to be true, or was a mere artifice to get rid of the effect of the letter which he knew the policeman would find in his box. He did not think it necessary to rely much on the evidence of Thomas, though in the conversation that passed, the expression "ten years" was used by prisoner, and it was remarkable that the same occurred in the threatening letter. From the whole of the circumstances conjoined, the jury were to form their opinion. The public and the prisoner were deeply interested in this questions. Their sympathies, their feelings, perhaps, should go with the prisoner; but they should take care to do that which was just, and deliver the verdict which according to their consciences they believed to be true. One of the jury requested that Sergeant Thornton should be recalled; and the following questions were put to him by the learned Judge at the request of the jury: You found a letter in a box in his bedroom? Yes. Was that box locked or not? Not locked. The Jury then retired,and after deliberating about an hour and a half, returned into court and gave as their verdict, Not Guilty. ........... End of Part three............