17 December 1858 . CORNWALL WINTER ASSIZES . The first Winter Assizes for the County of Cornwall were opened on Saturday last, before Mr. Justice BYLEN. About six o'clock in the evening of that day his Lordship arrived at Bodmin from Exeter, and was met at the Judge's lodgings by Mr. JOHN FRANCIS BULLER, the High Sheriff, and the usual cortege, and escorted to the County Hall. The commission of Assize having been opened, his Lordship adjourned the Court till eleven o'clock on Monday morning. On Sunday morning the Judge attended divine service at Bodmin Church, when an excellent sermon was preached by the Rev. J. B. KITSON, the High Sheriff's Chaplain, from Micah, vi., 8. . MONDAY, DECEMBER 13 . Mr. Justice BYLES took his seat upon the Bench this morning at eleven o'clock, when the following were sworn as  . THE GRAND JURY Hon. Viscount Valletort, Foreman Hon. H. Crespigny Vivian Sir Colman Rashleigh, Bart. Nicholas Kendall, Esq. C.B.G. Sawle, esq. John Tremayne, Esq. E. Coode, jun., Esq. D.W.H.J. Horndon, Esq. R. Johns, Esq. J.T.H. Peter, Esq. W.H.P. Carew, Esq. H.R.S. Trelawny, Esq. J. Borlase, Esq. F.M. Williams, Esq. M.H. Williams, Esq. Neville Norway, Esq. W.R.C. Potter, Esq. J.W. Peard, Esq. William Michell, Esq. . Her Majesty's proclamation against vice and immorality was then read, after which the Judge delivered his . CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY . He said he believed the direction of a special commission in the County of Cornwall at that season of the year was an occurrence unusual, if not altogether unprecedented. Unfortunately, however, a cursory perusal of the calendar afforded more than sufficient justification for so unusual a proceeding. It was not a numerous list of prisoners, but of the nine prisoners whose names were found there, eight of them might be placed at the bar to take their trials for their lives. . Upon that solemn occasion, he should think it very inappropriate to address to them any general observations, and such remarks as he should trouble them with, should be confined strictly to the cases which he found in the calendar. . He rejoiced that there was such a numerous attendance of the gentlemen of the grand jury, and particularly as he should have the benefit of their effectual assistance in cases of some difficulty; for it would be their duty to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent, and to concentrate on the evidence in those cases in which a verdict of guilty might be returned. . The first case in the calendar was that of MARY ANN CRAZE, who was charged, first of all, with administering a quantity of arsenic with intent to kill and murder one JANE PAULL; and there was a further capital charge against the same individual - a young woman, he had almost said a child, for she was only 16 years of age - of feloniously setting fire to a dwelling-house in the occupation of her master, ALMOND PAULL. . Now in cases of this kind - he alluded to the poisoning, the first thing to be established was the corpus delicti - was arsenic really administered. Their experience in criminal courts would have apprized them that in cases of poisoning, it was not only not unusual, but a very common practice, to apply decisive tests in order to prove the actual presence of the mineral in its metallic form, so that there should not be a doubt upon the subject; but in this present case neither the substance taken nor any of the substances ejected from the stomach of the injured party had been preserved. Medical men stated that the symptoms exhibited by Jane Paull were those of a person who had been poisoned by arsenic, but these symptoms were not conclusive evidence that she had been poisoned. They would have to be satisfied whether there was arsenic in the milk or broth which was taken by Jane Paull, and next that the prisoner had put it there. It was also usual in cases of this kind to show! that the person accused had bought or was in possession of arsenic, but he did not find any proof of this in the depositions against the prisoner. . It was sought to strengthen the charge by proof of a second attempt, and in this instance it would be shown, according to the depositions, that the prisoner was seen to take a paper which lay upon a shelf, and to mix the contents in some milk. This was mixed with some broth, and the latter was found to have a peculiar taste, and a few spoonfuls produced, though in a slighter degree, the symptoms similar to the first case.  . It appeared that young Mr. Paull had purchased some arsenic for the destruction of rats, and that he had placed some of it in the pigstye; and it would be for the jury to determine whether there was any satisfactory proof that the prisoner was in possession of arsenic at the time. . If there was a deficiency of proof of the corpus delicti they must consider whether the capital charge was sustained. The circumstances of the case might be such as to raise a strong suspicion, but they must go further than that. Grave suspicion was not enough, but there must be reasonable proof to justify them in placing the prisoner upon her trial for the capital offence. He would leave this case in their hands, and he had no doubt that they would arrive at such a decision as their judgment and experience would tell them was right. . With respect to the second charge, of arson, this was an offence that was seldom brought home by direct evidence. In this case, the prisoner was said to be the only person who was seen in the room before the fire was discovered; but, although the case at present was one of grave suspicion, yet he would have them to bear in mind that if they found a true bill for either or both of the offences, the prisoner would be put upon her trial, and if there was not sufficient evidence to justify the jury in finding her guilty, the result would be that she would be acquitted, and in that case she would not be put upon her trial again; whereas if they threw out the bill, and further evidence should afterwards arise, she could then be brought to trial. . The next case was that of William BALL, who was charged with the wilful murder of a man named Daniel Donnaway, at Liskeard. In referring to this case, as well as another in the calender, there were some distinctions which the grand jury would pardon him for noticing, as they might be of some service to them. He need not tell them to stab a quiet person with the intention of killing, was the simplest form of murder; but to stab, not with the intent to kill, but to inflict grievous bodily harm was, in the event of death, murder also. All homicides were prima facie murders, until those extenuating circumstances appeared which reduced the crime in some cases to manslaughter or even to excuse or justify the homicide. So stood the law with respect to a murderous assault upon a quiet peaceable person. But if the sufferer, instead of being a quiet peaceable person, was himself the assailant, and the deadly weapon was snatched up and used in hot blood, then the law looked with an ind! ulgent eye on the weakness of human nature, and though it did not excuse the guilty party, yet it reduced the offence from murder to manslaughter. . The question would be whether Ball struck Donnaway in hot blood, without premeditation, and under the provocation which he had received from the deceased. If they thought that he did, they would throw out the bill for murder, and he would direct a bill for manslaughter to be prepared. . The other case to which he had referred was that of six individuals who were charged with the wilful murder of a man named Hero ACKERMAN, at Falmouth. In this case there would not be, as in the last, any pretence for saying, so far as he could judge from the depositions, that the deceased was the assailant. On the contrary, it appeared to be a case in which a peaceable inoffensive person was stabbed; and it further appeared from the evidence, that the wound was inflicted by only one person of the six. Supposing they should be able to fix upon the person who actually gave the stab, then the first legal question that would arise was, what was the crime of which he was guilty? And secondly, the more difficult one, what was the nature of the offence of the other five prisoners? . The man who stabbed the deceased was clearly guilty of murder if he inflicted the wound with the intention of killing; prima facie the offence was murder, and there was nothing to reduce it to a lower crime. If they could point out the man who had given the stab, and the petty jury should be of opinion that they had selected the right person, he was of opinion that they would be clearly justified in finding him guilty of murder, whether he intended to kill, or only to inflict grievous bodily harm. . His Lordship then briefly referred to the facts of the case, and said that if the five prisoners charged contemplated the use of the knife - if they participated in the common design to take the life of this man, though it was the act of one alone, they would be all equally guilty of murder. He would venture to submit one or two points for their consideration. In the first place they were all guilty of murder together if they participated in a common design and attempt to kill. There would be some evidence - at least against some of the prisoners, of a murderous intention from the beginning, but supposing they should be of opinion that the others did not know that any one intended or had any design to kill, but if the knife was used in pursuance of a common design to do grievous bodily harm, then he thought that the hand that used the knife was the hand of all. . Again, supposing there was no common design to kill or to use the knife, yet, if they were present assisting in, and stimulating to, the violence, they were equally guilty as the person who struck the blow. If, however, they should be of opinion that none of these modes of putting the case would avail against the other prisoners, and they should be able to lay their finger on the man who had inflicted the stab, then they could find a true bill against him for murder, and acquit the others. . Again, if they should be of opinion that not only was the offence not committed in pursuance of a common design to do grievous bodily harm, but that the assault was unpremeditated on the part of the five, and that they had no knowledge of the intention to use the knife, they would not be guilty of the offence of manslaughter, but it was quite clear that they had been guilty of a barbarous and aggravated assault. If, therefore, the grand jury should be of opinion that the evidence did not support the capital offence they would return no bill against them, and he would direct an indictment for manslaughter to be prepared, which would enable them, so far as the law was concerned, to meet the difficulty of the case. . TRIALS OF PRISONERS CHARGE OF WILFUL MURDER . WILLIAM BALL, aged 20, was charged with having, on the 4th of September, at the borough of Liskeard, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, killed and murdered DANIEL DONNAWAY, by stabbing him with a knife in the left side of the belly, thereby inflicting a wound of which he died two days after. A second indictment charged the offence as that of manslaughter. Mr. COLE prosecuted; and Mr. COX defended the prisoner. . >From the evidence of the prosecution, it appeared that the deceased was a miner, living at Menheniot, and the prisoner was also a miner, living at St. Cleer. On Saturday evening the 4th of September, the deceased and a number of other miners, amongst whom was the prisoner, were drinking at the Bell Inn, Liskeard, it being pay day. They remained there till nearly ten o'clock, when the prisoner and some others left for about an hour. Prior to this there had been some disputes between the men, and what was termed a “scuffle” had taken place between the deceased and the prisoner about a cap. . The prisoner returned in about an hour, and remained with the party till twelve o'clock, when the house was cleared, and they proceeded towards the Wheat Sheaf public-house, the deceased being in advance, and the prisoner walking beside a young woman. When they had arrived near to that house the party came to a standstill, when the prisoner walked up to deceased, and the latter observed “you were rather fast with me down at the tap just now.” The prisoner then asked, “do you want to fight?” upon which (as was admitted by the counsel for the prosecution) the deceased replied that he did, and immediately struck the prisoner. Some of the witnesses for the prosecution stated in their examination that the prisoner struck the first blow, but in cross-examination they admitted that when before the coroner and the magistrates they had said that it was the deceased, and they believed this statement was correct. . Upon being struck the prisoner sprang back, exclaiming "stand back; give me fair play - one dog - one bone." he was then seen by a young man to take a knife out of his pocket and open the blade, upon which he made a rush at the deceased and stabbed him in the body. The deceased did not for an instant feel the effects of the blow, and ran at the prisoner and kicked him, on which the latter exclaimed that if he did not cease kicking him, he would rip him up. . The deceased then complained that the prisoner had knocked the wind out of him, and as he began to be very ill, some of his companions assisted him to the last house out of Liskeard on his way home. He here asked to be allowed to sit down and rest a little, as he was dying, and his request was accordingly complied with. . One of the county police coming up in a short time, and thinking that there had been a drunken row, he desired the party to move on, when the deceased was carried to his own home, undressed, and put to bed, and it was then found that he had been stabbed in the abdomen, that his shirt and trowsers were saturated with blood, and that a portion of the intestines were protruding from the wound. A surgeon was sent for who attended the deceased, but he died two days after. . In support of this statement, Cornelius DONNAWAY, Richard George BENNETT, Rose MARGERY, Henry WILLIAMS, and Mr. Dionysius DONOVAN, and Mr. A. HINGSTON, surgeons, were examined. Mr. Donovan deposed that he was called in about three o'clock in the morning of the 5th of September, to attend the deceased, who was suffering from a wound in the abdomen. The omentum, which is an attachment of the bowels, protruded from the wound, and passed completely through the front of the abdomen. It [the cut] was about an inch deep, and slanted downwards. He returned the omentum and attended the deceased, doing everthing[sic] in his power for him, but he died on the evening of the 6th. Witness afterwards made a post mortem examination of the body, which satisfied him that death had resulted from internal haemorrhage. There was a large quantity of blood in the cavities of the abdomen. Mr. Hingston agreed with all that had been stated by Mr. Donovan, and added that there was a second wound on th! e left side of the back of deceased. . Mr. Cox, for the defence, urged that the evidence had not brought the charge home to the prisoner, or shown that he was the person who used the knife. The only person who said he saw a knife in the hand of the prisoner was the boy BENNETT, and yet he had not mentioned the circumstance till a fortnight after, when he told a blacksmith. There was nothing to show that the fatal blow had not been struck by some of the other miners present, with whom he had been quarrelling. . If, however, the jury should be of opinion that it was the prisoner's hand that had inflicted the wound, then the jury must perform the solemn and difficult duty of deciding whether it was done with that malice aforethought - that malice prepense - that calmness and deliberation which was necessary to constitute the crime of wilful murder. If done by the prisoner at all, he submitted that it was done while he was under the influence of ungovernable rage and passion at being struck by the deceased, and then kicked in an un-English way they had heard described. If that was their opinion, they would only be justified in finding him guilty of the lesser crime. . The Judge, after explaining the law upon the case in terms identical with those used in the charge to the Grand Jury, recapitulated the evidence, and then left it to the Jury to decide whether the stab had been given after the deceased had struck, perhaps kicked the prisoner, and before any sufficient time had elapsed for passion to subside, and reason and judgment to interpose. If they should be of opinion that this was the case, then they should take the milder view, acquit the prisoner of the charge of murder, and find him guilty of manslaughter. . The jury, after a few minutes consideration, acquitted the prisoner of murder, and found him guilty of manslaugher. Sentence deferred. . ARSON AT PROBUS - MARY ANN CRAZE, 15, was arraigned for having feloniously set fire to a dwelling-house, in the occupation of Almond PAULL, at Probus, on the 27th of August last, the said Almond Paull and his family being therein. The prisoner had also been committed for attempting to poison Jane PAULL, daughter of Mr. Paull, by mixing in some milk a quantity of arsenic, which she drank, and from the effects of which Miss Paull suffered severely, but the grand jury ignored the bill in this case. Mr. COX prosecuted; the prisoner was not defended. . ELIZABETH PAULL deposed: I am the daughter of Almond Paull, of Nansmerrow, in the parish of Probus, and I keep house for him, my mother having ceased to take any active part in household affairs. The prisoner lived with us as servant, and between six and seven o'clock of the evening of the 27th of August, she was in the back kitchen. She came into the front kitchen where we were at tea, and took a box of lucifer matches and a candle, and returned to the back kitchen. There are means of getting up stairs from the back kitchen, but no person could go upstairs without being seen from the front kitchen. . I went into the back kitchen about ten minutes after, and I then heard her upstairs. I went up and asked her what she was doing there, and she said she was cleaning some boots. I had seen the candle she took out of the front kitchen on the back kitchen table, and some of the lucifer matches strewn on the floor. I desired her to go down stairs to tea, and she then went into the front kitchen, drank one cup of tea, and ate one piece of bread hurriedly, and then she took up another piece of bread and left the room. . In about ten minutes after desiring her to go down stairs the fire was discovered. This was about a quarter of an hour after she took away the lucifer matches. The prisoner had been with us about 19 months, but we had told her that we should be obliged to part with her, owing to her bad conduct and the bad company she kept. . Mr. JOSEPH PAULL: I remember the fire in the lodging-room which I occupy. On the 27th of August, I first saw the smoke issuing out of the window; I went up stairs and found the bed clothes on fire, the bed was burnt, and the floor and ceiling were also charred. I did not look under the bed to see if there was anything. There is no way of getting into this room except through the back kitchen. . SUPERINTENDENT A.H. JARRETT: I am Superintendent of the County Police at Truro. I went to Nansmerrow, on the 28th of August, and found the bed-clothes and bed-tie burnt, and the bedstead and floor charred. I also found under the bed some furze which must have been placed there by some person intentionally. The bedstead was a moveable article. . This was the case for the prosecution. . The JUDGE: There is no sufficient evidence of the burning of the house. The bedstead was a moveable article, and the floor was only charred. . Mr. Cox cited a case in which scorching had been held to be sufficient to support the charge, and another in which charring was deemed to be insufficient. . The JUDGE, in summing up, said it appeared to him that the evidence did not sustain the capital charge of setting fire to a dwelling-house, but still setting fire to household furniture was a felony; and therefore they must say, whether upon the evidence which had been adduced, they considered that she was guilty of setting fire to the bed. . The jury considered that the case was a very doubtful one, and returned a verdict of Not Guilty. . The Court then adjourned. TUESDAY, December 14 . The JUDGE took his seat on the Bench this morning at half-past nine o'clock. . THE CHARGE OF MURDER AT FALMOUTH . WM. PRICE, 22, DANIEL CRONIN, 21, GEORGE GABRIEL, 33, and THOMAS WRIGHT, 24, seamen, against whom the grand jury had found true bills for having feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought, murdered HERO ACKERMAN, at Falmouth, were then arraigned. Gabriel is a Frenchman, but he declined to exercise his privilege to be tried by a jury composed half of foreigners. Mr. COX and Mr. POWELL (instructed by Mr. GENN, solicitor, Falmouth) prosecuted; Mr. COLE (instructed by Mr. STOKES, solicitor) defended the prisoners. . Mr. Cox, in stating the case, said it was perhaps the first time during the experience of any one engaged in the investigation of that case - they as jurymen sitting in the box, his lordship on the bench, himself appearing as counsel for the prosecution, and his learned friend who was retained for the defence of the prisoners, that they had had to take part in case in which four men were placed upon their trial for their lives, charged with the murder of a fellow creature; and if their responsibility was great when a single individual stood before them on a charge, conviction for which would inevitably be death, that responsibility was immensely increased when four persons were placed in that awful position. . The learned gentleman then proceeded to state the case to the jury. . The evidence was of great length, and as we have recently reported this case, it will not be necessary to republish it in detail. The following are the facts of the case. The occurrence for which the prisoners now stood upon their trial, took place on the 24th of September last. On that day there was lying in the Port of Falmouth, a Hanoverian vessel named the “Leopard” to which the deceased, Hero Ackerman, and a shipmate, named NICHOLAS JUNGKLAS, belonged; and at the same time there was in the port another ship called the "James Louden," to which all the prisoners at the bar belonged. . Between 10 and 11 o'clock in the evening of that day, the deceased and Jungklas were on shore, and while walking in Church Street, near the Royal Hotel, they were accosted by a girl, named AMELIA PEARCE, whom they asked to partake of a glass of ale. She assented, and they turned up Winn's Hill, towards Brights' Coach and Horses beer shop. When they arrived at this house, they saw Wright talking to ELIZA THOMAS, a companion of Pearce's, and directly after he spoke to Pearce, Jungklas touched Pearce upon the elbow in order that she might receive her glass of ale, upon which Wright spoke to him. Jungklas replied that he was speaking to the girl, when Wright asked "Do you want to fight?" The deceased and Jungklas replied that they spoke German, and walked a short distance away, when they stopped. Wright then gave a shrill whistle, and a number of men came running into the street. Jungklas called upon Ackerman to come away, when the latter replied that they had nothing to do with! these men. They then walked a short distance down Winn's Hill, but the men who were pursuing approaching near, they commenced running, turned the corner quickly and ran up Church Street towards the News Room, the men following them as fast as they could.  . As they proceeded, Jungklas fell twice, and though he was not aware at the time that he had sustained any injury, he afterwards found that he had been stabbed. . On arriving at the News Room, Ackerman stopped at the palisades, against which he leaned with his head bent down. The men who were following rushed upon him, struck and kicked him, threw him upon the ground, and stabbed him in the back. He was conveyed into the house of Mr. WILLIAMS, surgeon, but he died in the passage almost immediately after. . To connect the prisoners with the transaction, it was stated by RICHARD JONES, a mason, who was standing at the bottom of Fish Strand, of Winn's Hill, at the time the crowd rushed down, that when they reached the News Room, he saw Wright catch hold of Ackerman by the head and shoulders, and shout out "Boot the -----". Wright then "booted" or kicked the deceased violently, and Cronin, or a man like him, also kicked him. . FRANCIS ANGLESEA, outfitter, living in Fish Strand, Falmouth, saw all the prisoners, excepting Price, amongst the men who were pursing the deceased and Jungklas. He followed them, and at the News Room Ackerman fell, and while he was on the ground Cronin said he would kick his guts out. He told Cronin that he should not do anything of the kind, but considering that he was rather too big for him to deal with, he picked Ackerman up, and in doing so his hands were covered with blood. He saw none of the prisoners there excepting Cronin and Gabriel, and he took hold of the latter. . ROBERT GILL, shipwright, Falmouth, was at his door, in Church Street, between ten and eleven on the night in question, when the men rushed past shouting. He followed them to the News Room, where he saw Cronin kick another man who was partly on the ground, in a stooping position. Cronin was standing behind the man, and Wright was standing at deceased's head, telling Cronin to "Boot the ----." Gabriel was there, but was standing at the side of the street. Heard Cronin afterwards say to a woman that he had not kicked the deceased, on which he called him a liar, when Cronin admitted that he had kicked him, and said that he would serve him or any one else in the same way that he (deceased) had attempted to serve him. . WILLIAM JEWELL, basket-maker, Church Street, directly opposite to the News Room, heard the disturbance, on which he looked out of the window and saw a man running up the street, and ten or twelve feet behind him five or six men running after him. The five or six men, on coming up to him, at the News Room, threw themselves upon him, and one of them raised his arm and struck a blow. Another man cried "Boot him," went in front of him, and kicked the man, who was down on his head or chest. The men having done all they could to the man, ran off towards the Quay. Only one blow was struck, and immediately after the man that was hit fell. . JOHANNA JEWELL corroborated the evidence of her husband, the last witness, adding that the tall man in front of deceased kicked him most violently. Anther man came behind deceased and struck him a blow on the back, on which blood flowed. This man was a thick set person, and neither the tallest nor the least of the party. . BARBARA ROW, Church Street, Falmouth, was near Mr. SPARGO's shop on the night in question during the disturbance. Saw two of the men holding deceased by the hair of his head and beating and kicking him, amongst whom was Cronin, who afterwards came over to her and said he would kick deceased's guts out, as he had stabbed a shipmate of his. Wright was one of the men who had hold of deceased by the hair of his head. . CHARLES PARRY, assistant to Mr. COBON, grocer, Falmouth, swore that he saw five men throw two other men down, and after one of them got up they began to kick and strike him with their fists violently. He identified Price, Cronin, and Gabriel as amongst the assailants. Heard Cronin say "I hope to Jesus Christ he is dead,' and "I wish the --- soul was in hell." This was after the man was stabbed. . Gabriel had something in his right hand as he passed witness, and he went up and struck deceased, after which blood flowed. Was quite sure that it was Gabriel and not Price whom he saw strike deceased a blow with the instrument which he held in his hand. Saw both Cronin and Price strike and kick deceased. . HENRY HARVEY, assistant at the same shop with last witness, in whose company he was between 10 and 11 on the night in question, said he saw three or four men beat and kick deceased, and directly after another came up and struck him a blow in the back. The man then fell, and the fellow ran off quickly towards the quay. Believed that Price was the man who struck this blow. Did not see his face, however, and only judged it was Price from his size and dress. Could not swear whether it was Gabriel or Price. . JAMES ADDISON, borough constable, Falmouth, apprehended two of the prisoners at the Sailor's Home - Price and Wright - and on the left hand of the former he found blood, and a scratch which had been recently made on his right hand. He appeared to be agitated. There was also a scratch on his neck, which was bleeding. . Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS, surgeon, said the deceased died in ten minutes after he was brought to his house. Made a post mortem examination of the body on Monday. The face was contused all over; the left temple was abrased; the left side of the face, neck, shoulder, and fore arm were much bruised. There was only one stab, which was between the 10th and 11th ribs about two inches from the spine, and it extended into the lower lobe of the right lung. He died from internal hemorrhage. The bruises on the head &c. had nothing whatever to do with his death, but he died from the punctured wound and from internal Hemorrhage. . Mr. J.J. PEARSON, purveyor of the Sailor's Home, on the night in question, deposed to Wright, Lyon, and Holmes coming to the Home about five minutes to eleven. Ten minutes after that hour Price rang at the gate. Witness went down and unlocked it, and let him in. He asked if the others had come in; was excited as if he had been running and drinking. . THOMAS PRATER, police-officer, deposed to approaching Cronin and Gabriel first on the night in question, and to the former having admitted that the had kicked the deceased. He next apprehended Price, Wright, and Holmes, and on taking them to the station-house Price was so agitated that the perspiration ran down his face. Found spots of blood on the inside of his right hand, and there was a bit of a scratch on his left hand. . WILLIAM RICHARDS, police-officer, gave corroborative evidence. He examined Price when he took him into custody, but found no blood on his right hand. . This concluded the case for the prosecution. . Mr. Cole then submitted that there was no case to go to the jury as against the prisoners; and, at all events, if there was any evidence against two of them, there was no case whatever against Cronin and Wright. There was some direct evidence of a blow having been struck as regarded Price and Gabriel, but not as regarded the other two, and, therefore, there must be an acquittal in their case. . The JUDGE - there is no evidence that Wright and Cronin struck the blow. . Mr. Cole objected to Mr. Cox's interpretation of the law. His friend had stated, that if there was evidence to connect several parties in a common assault, and one of them committed an act which produced death, they would all be guilty of the more serious crime. Before they could make one party guilty for the act of another, it must be shown that they were all engaged in one common object, and that the act which caused death, was the carrying out of the common object. . Suppose, for instance, a poaching affray. A number of men went out in pursuit of game at night, and while they were so engaged, the keepers came; some might run one way and some another, but if one of them should fire a gun and shoot one of the keepers, the others would not be guilty of the murder, although they were all engaged in an unlawful act. He cited several cases in support of his argument. . The JUDGE apprehended that if several parties were out for the purpose of committing an illegal act, and in carrying out that act one of them used a knife, the others being present, and assenting and assisting in the illegal act, would all be equally guilty. To constitute the crime of murder, it was not necessary that there should be a design and intention on the part of all the persons engaged in the first instance, to inculpate them in the crime. Mr. Cole submitted that there was no evidence showing a participation, aiding and abetting in an unlawful act, and that one of them had used a knife, while carrying out that common act. It was true there was some brutal treatment during which some one committed an act for which the others were not and ought not to be held answerable. . Mr. Cox contended that the evidence showed that the accused had acted on a common design and purpose. The whistle drew them together in the first instance, and from that moment till the fatal wound was given, they acted together with a common design and purpose. That being so, then all who were engaged in the transaction were equally guilty of the murder which was committed by the hand of one of them. . The JUDGE said that he had no intention to withdraw the case from the jury, and overruled the objection. . Mr. Cole addressed the jury for the prisoners. He pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence, and contended that there was nothing to show that any one of the prisoners had in reality committed the crime. They had been engaged since half-past nine o'clock that morning in endeavouring to ascertain who was the man that struck the blow, and now at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, he appealed to the jury whether they had any idea who the guilty party really was. The case was full of doubt, difficulty, and improbability, and the jury were asked to take a leap in the dark, and to fix upon Price or Gabriel, whichever they thought proper. . The prosecution, however, was bound to show that one man had given the stab, and that the others were aiding and assisting in the act which had produced the death. If his learned friend failed in perfectly satisfying the jury on that point, the prosecution failed altogether; for it was impossible that any of the prisoners could have aided and abetted the act which had not been shown to have been done. . It was not for the jury to say where the balance of probability lay, and then to hang four men on such an assumption. The probability was that a seventh man had struck the blow, for they had heard one of the witnesses state that as soon as the stab was given, the individual ran away and made his escape. . He did not like to put the case to the jury as even one of manslaughter, as he submitted that the evidence did not support that charge against the prisoners. Still, as the charge was laid as manslaughter in one of the indictments, he submitted that should the jury be of opinion that the evidence criminated any of the prisoners, they could only find them guilty of the lesser crime, and that they ought not to sacrifice the lives of four fellow creatures upon such improbable and imperfect testimony as had been laid before them. . The Judge then summed up. He said there was a discrepancy in the evidence as to who had inflicted the blow. There was evidence that it was done by the hand of Price, and there was evidence that Gabriel was the guilty party; and it would be the duty of the jury to decide this point; and whatever might be the fate of the other two, he was afraid that if they found that either Price or Gabriel inflicted the wound, that man, whoever he might be, would be guilty of wilful murder. The learned counsel for the prosecution affirmed that the prisoners were all guilty of murder; and if not of that crime, at all events they were guilty of manslaughter; the learned counsel for the defence contended on the other had that they were not guilty of anything – but if guilty at all, they were only guilty of manslaughter. . In his judgment, there was very little ground for reducing this crime to manslaughter, for according to the evidence it amounted to murder or to nothing at all.  . If the deceased had struck the man who had dealt the blow, and the latter had in the heat of passion, and before reason could interpose, struck his assailant with a knife, and caused his death, then he would only be guilty of manslaughter and not murder, but there was no evidence showing that the unfortunate deceased ever struck a blow at any person. . His lordship then proceeded to read over the whole of the evidence, pointing out such portions as bore for or against the prisoners, and in particular dwelling on the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. In conclusion, he said that the first question the jury had to decide was - who was the man who struck the first blow - was it Price or was it Gabriel? One witness positively swore that it was not Price, but Gabriel, whilst another just a positively swore that the man who gave the stab had no whiskers, and Gabriel had large whiskers. . Again, it was stated that the man after he gave the stab ran away, and there was positive evidence that Gabriel was present after the wound had been inflicted. They would probably consider it dangerous to convict the prisoners on such evidence of a crime which would render their lives forfeited. . Then came the question, supposing they could not decide as to the first point – were those men who, it was admitted by the prosecution, had not inflicted the stab, guilty of that which would justify their conviction for murder? They were not, unless it was shown that from the first they intended to kill, or unless they knew the deadly instrument would be used, and they assented to its use, and aided and abetted the guilty party in committing the act. In that case the hand of the one would be the hand of the other. . The jury after a few minute's consideration, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY in the case of all the prisoners. . William PRICE, Daniel CRONIN, George GABRIEL, Thomas WRIGHT, JOHN HOLMES, 25, and WILLIAM LYON, 22, were then charged with having violently assaulted and inflicted bodily harm on Hero Ackerman, on the day in question. The Grand Jury had on the previous day ignored the bill against the two last named prisoners charging them with the capital offence. . The prisoners pleaded NOT GUILTY in the first instance, but after Mr. Cox had stated the case for the prosecution, Price, Cronin, and Wright withdrew that plea, and pleaded GUILTY. Holmes and Gabriel, against whom there was no evidence in support of the charge, were then ordered to sit down, and the trial of Lyon alone was then proceeded with. The only evidence against him, however, was that of Charles Parry and Amelia Pearce. The former said he was "pretty certain" Lyon was amongst the assailants of Ackerman, and that he saw him strike and kick him. He admitted in answer to the Judge, however, that in evidence before the magistrates, he had said the prisoner only struck the deceased, and he believed that statement was the correct one. Pearce said that she thought Lyon was one of those who ran after the deceased when Wright whistled. . After a brief address from Mr. Cole, the jury acquitted the prisoner and no evidence having been offered against Holmes and Gabriel they were also acquitted. . Price, Wright, and Cronin were then called up to receive sentence. His lordship said they had pleased guilty to a most cruel and barbarous assault. Were he to inflict the utmost punishment which the law allowed, he thought that it would endanger their health and lives; but the sentence would be a severe one, namely that they be each imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction for the space of two years. . The court then adjourned. . WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14th . The Court was opened this morning at half-past nine o'clock. . THE STABBING AT LISKEARD . WILLIAM BELL, who was found guilty on Monday of the manslaughter of Daniel Donnaway, at Liskeard, was now called up to receive sentence. His Lordship said that the jury had come to the merciful conclusion that he had not been guilty of murder, and while it would have been wrong to convict him of that crime, no one could doubt that it would have been equally wrong not to find him guilty of manslaughter. The most aggravated part of the case was that death had been caused by a wound inflicted with a knife, and the use of sharp instruments under such circumstances must be put down by the strong arm of the law. The sentence of the court was that the prisoner be kept in penal servitude for the space of four years. . CHARGE OF PERJURY . RICHARD HARVEY. 48, was placed at the bar, on the charge of having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in the County Court at Truro, on the 5th of November. Mr. COX and Mr. POWELL, instructed by Mr. BULLMORE, attorney, of Falmouth, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. COLE, instructed by Mr. STOKES, of Truro, appeared for the prisoner. . Prior to the jury being sworn, Mr. COLE objected to the indictment, on the ground that it disclosed no offence whatever, and was, without exception, the worst indictment he ever saw. For the honour of the Western Circuit he was happy to say that it had not been drawn up by any barrister on that circuit. . The indictment merely set forth that the defendant swore to certain facts, in a trial which took place in the County Court at Truro, but it did not allege that what he then swore was material to the issue before the court. The singular part of the matter was, that, as he was informed, the indictment had been drawn up by Mr. ARCHBOLD, and in that gentleman's book, it was expressly stated that it was material, to constitute a charge of perjury, that it should be set forth in the indictment that what a defendant swore was material to the decision of the case. He proceeded to refer to several cases in support of his objection. . Mr. Cox submitted that the facts sworn to by the defendant disclosed sufficient materiality, although there was no averment to that effect. According to the usual practice, before the passing of the 14th and 15th Victoria, sec. 20, the indictment would have been good in itself, and under that act, any informality in the indictment could be amended by the judge. . The Judge did not think that the omission was a mere formal matter, which he could amend under the 14th and 15th Victoria. But looking at the facts of the case, there could be no doubt that what the defendant swore was material to the issue tried in the County Court, and that being so, any averment of the materiality beyond what was stated, though it might be usual to insert it in indictments for perjury, was not necessary. He was, therefore, of opinion that the indictment was good. Should the prisoner, however, be convicted, and Mr. Cole could furnish him with a copy of the indictment, he would consider the objection more fully than he could do at that moment, and if he should be of opinion that the objection was good, the defendant should have the benefit of it. . Mr. Cox then stated the case. He said that the perjury with which the defendant stood charged was committed in an action for debt, brought against him in the County Court of Cornwall, at Truro, on the 5th of November last. The defendant occupied a respectable situation in life, being the post-master at Chacewater; and was a married man with a family of children. . The plaintiff in the action, Mr. STAFF, was a mariner, but his wife kept a coffee-house at Penryn. In the month of February last, a person named KITT called at this house with a female named MARY PAULL, and took lodgings for her. Afterwards, the defendant several times visited this woman, and from what Mrs. Staff saw, she was led to complain of Paull being in the house, on which the conversation took place out of which had arisen the first of the charges of perjury. . The learned counsel having concluded his statement, called the following witnesses: . Mr. REGINALD ROGERS, solicitor, said "I am Registrar of the County Court of Cornwall, at Truro; Mr. BEVAN is the Judge. I was in the court on the 5th of November. I produce the plaint book. The handwriting here is my clerk's, and he is not here. The practice is this - A solicitor for a claimant comes to my office, for a summons against a debtor. We enter the names of the parties in this book, from which we make out a summons, one copy of which is served on the defendant, and the other is filed in the office. The duplicate summons in this case is in the possession of the Judge of the court, who is at Liskeard, but who was here yesterday." . Mr. Cole submitted in limine that the summons, which was in reality the plaint, must be produced before the case could be proceeded with further. . The JUDGE referred to the County Courts' Act, which directed that all plaints and summonses, judgments, and orders should be entered in a book by the Registrar, and observed that the entry in the book produced was evidently the original plaint. . Examination continued - I was present in an action in which Staff was the plaintiff and Harvey the defendant, on the 5th of November. The witness read the minutes of the case which he made at the time. . Mr. BULLMORE, solicitor, of Falmouth, deposed, that he was present at the trial of the action between Staff and the defendant and acted as solicitor for the former. Took a note, but not of what he was going to state. When Harvey was called upon for his defence, he was asked whether he had told Mary Ann Staff to write for her husband to come home immediately. He swore that he gave no such orders. Witness cross-examined him and repeated the question whether he did not request her to send for her husband. So far as witness's memory served him, he said that he had given no such instructions, and he stated what she did say - which was that she said her husband would be home soon, and probably he (defendant) would require him. . A question was put to the defendant by his own attorney, whether on Mary Ann Staff complaining of her husband being so long at home, he had said it her "You are all right - his wages are going on all the time;" to which he said that he did not say anything of the kind - she was mistaken. . Witness cross-examined the defendant upon this statement, but he adhered to it. . Staff had said in his evidence in the defendant's presence, that he had complained to the defendant of the latter's delay in not sending him away, to which Harvey replied "you are all right enough - your wages are going on - what does it matter to you how long you are about at home; I will send you away shortly." Harvey in answer to his own attorney, said that he had not made any such statement - that he had said nothing about wages, and that wages were not to commence until after the meeting on the 23rd of May. Harvey was cross-examined on this point but he adhered to the statement. . CROSS-EXAMINED: I took notes of the proceedings, and I have part of them here, but no part refers to this indictment. I burnt the other part on returning to my office after the trial. I took no notes after the judge directed the prosecution for perjury. I am not prepared to swear that I have stated the identical words used, but I have stated the impression on my mind. Harvey said that he had paid GBP 3.10s to Staff, and that he then said "You may take that for the time you have been at home; and you may give up the berth, or go and join the vessel." I did not hear him say that he had "advanced" the money. . I saw the Judge's notes of the case last Friday, and again on Monday, after Mr. Stokes had seen them, but not to refresh my memory. I did not require it to be refreshed. I should have given the same evidence had I not read the notes, and I sent up instructions for the indictment on the Saturday previous. (With the view of testing the accuracy of the witness, he was requested to repeat once or twice the statement he had just given, as to what was said by the defendant at the trial, and although his versions were substantially the same in effect as in the first instance, the language varie don every occasion.) . MARY ANN STAFF was next called. She deposed that in the month of February the defendant was at her house, and asked her what her husband was. She said that he was a mate of a vessel. He said that he had bought a vessel which was at Southampton, at the same time showing her the certificate, and that he meant to put her husband in as captain, and that she had better write to him to come home immediately. In consequence of this, she desired her daughter to write to her husband at Sunderland to come home, informing him that he was to be made master of the defendant's ship, the "Caroline Alice." . On the 25th of March, Staff came to Penryn, and he remained at home, doing nothing for eight weeks, being told by the defendant that the "Caroline Alice" was not ready for sea. She asked defendant when he meant her husband to join his ship, when he said - what need you be afraid of, Mrs. Staff, your husband's wages are going on all the time. . Staff deposed that on receipt of his wife's letter, he returned to Penryn on the 27th of March, and saw the defendant, who said he was very well satisfied with him for a master of his vessel; that six men had applied for that situation but he had made up his mind that no one but he should have it. He was to be paid GBP 1 a week until he joined the ship. . He remained at home doing nothing during eight weeks, and on complaining of this delay to the defendant, the latter said "You are all right, your wages are going on; what does it matter how long you are at home?" . The witness proceeded to state further, that on remonstrating with the defendant, on the 23rd of May, he paid him GBP 3.10s. at a public house, telling him that he might take that money as a settlement of the matter, or he might go down to Southampton and remain with the vessel until she was ready to sail. . He proceeded to Southampton the next day, but after remaining there for some time, and finding he could obtain nothing satisfactory, he returned to Penryn, and demanded the wages due to him, amounting to GBP 23.14s., which, with the travelling expenses, and money advanced on account of the vessel at Southampton, made the total sum of GBP 27.14s.9d, from which was to be deducted the GBP 3.10s advanced by the defendant, leaving a balance of GBP 24.4s.9d. . A witness named LEWIS corroborated the evidence of Mrs. Staff, as to the defendant having directed her to send for her husband, and his saying that her husband's wages were going on. . MARY PAULL also gave corroborative evidence. She said that when Mrs. Staff complained of her husband being kept at home idle, she added that he had had three berths offered to him, to which the defendant answered "What does he want with berths? He has one already." On cross-examination, she said that the words were "he would have a berth," and "the wages would be going on." . Mr. Cole, for the defence, urged that this prosecution had arisen altogether through a mistake on the part of Mrs. Staff. The probability was that the defendant, on one of his visits to her house, had heard that she expected her husband home soon, and that he then requested her to tell him that he was in want of a master for the ship which he had bought. She being deaf had misunderstood him, and thought that he had made her husband an offer of a situation. This was evident from the evidence of Staff himself, who admitted that no engagement was come to until the 23rd of May, a fact that was utterly inconsistent with the statement that he was to be paid wages from the commencement. . He submitted that upon the evidence adduced, the jury could not convict the defendant of the offence charged in the indictment. He concluded by calling Mr. JOSEPH CARNE, collector of taxes, Truro, Mr. JOHN BARNETT, shop keeper, Chacewater, Mr. GEORGE MARTIN, of the same place, Mr. THOMAS WAREHAM, merchant, ditto, who gave the defendant an excellent character, as an honest, upright, truthful, and honourable man. . The JUDGE, in summing up, said that this was not an indictment for swearing falsely to any act that had taken place, but it was a prosecution for certain words which were alleged to have been spoken by the defendant, and there was no evidence of so uncertain and fluctuating a character as that relating to words. A man might allege that in the morning of a certain day he did not utter certain words imputed to him, and if they called ten witnesses who heard him, and examined them separately, the probability was that nine of them would all give different statements as to the language really uttered. . In this case, there were two sources of uncertainty - first, the uncertainty as to what Staff really swore in the County Court, and next, what it was alleged the defendant really swore in contradiction, and which it was asserted was false. . In the next place he must observe that what the defendant was alleged to have sworn was not proved in the most satisfactory way. He did not wish to cast any reflection or imputation on the respectable gentleman who was engaged in the prosecution, but still he stood in a peculiar position. When the action was brought, Mr. Bullmore was counsel for the plaintiff and therefore the evidence which had been given as to what the defendant said came from a most unfriendly source. . Then again, that gentleman had told them that he had taken notes of the proceedings in the County Court, and whether these notes contained what was said by the defendant or not, they had no means of knowing. He had burnt them, so that the counsel for the prisoner was deprived of the opportunity of cross-examining upon them. That gentleman had afforded them an instance of the way in which statements of persons varied; for on being asked to repeat his statement, he did so several times, and on every occasion the words varied. Therefore, however fair and honourable Mr. Bullmore might be thought, the jury would consider that it would be hardly right to convict the defendant on the evidence of the attorney who was against him, and whose accounts of what was said had varied in the way they had heard. . Another observation arose on that gentleman's evidence. They had heard that he had read the Judge's notes, and he (the Judge) was not sure that he had not refreshed his memory from them. If he had been satisfied that he had done so, he should have felt it his duty to exclude his evidence entirely; but as he stated that he should have been able to give his evidence had he never seen the notes, he considered that it was admissible. Still, without intending to cast any imputation on Mr. Bullmore, they could not help looking upon his evidence with some suspicion. He expressed his regret that the judge's notes had not been produced, as they would have constituted the very best evidence of what was sworn to at the trial, that could have been given. . After recapitulating the evidence, his lordship observed in conclusion, that the jury must say whether, in the absence of the judge's notes, they could fully rely on the evidence which had been given as to what the defendant swore to; if they could not do that, then they must not convict him of the charge. . Secondly, if they thought that Mr. Bullmore's memory had been refreshed by the judge's notes - if they considered he had given his evidence partly from these notes and partly from memory, then he thought they ought not to convict, because these notes were not present, nor was the judge himself there to be examined on the subject. . Thirdly, they must be satisfied, that the other witnesses who had deposed to the words used, clearly and accurately remembered them. And lastly, they must be satisfied not only that the defendant distinctly swore what was attributed to him, but that he did so wilfully and corruptly, knowing that he was committing perjury. If they were satisfied with all these points, they must find the defendant guilty, whatever might be the consequence; but if they were not satisfied on all these heads, then the case was one of those in which they might give the prisoner the benefit of the good character which he had received. . The jury, after considering for two or three minutes, returned a verdict of "Not Guilty". Harvey was at once ordered to be discharged. . This concluded the business of the Assizes, and the Court separated. His Lordship soon after took his departure for Taunton, to open the Assizes for Somerset. Julia M.   West Briton Transcriptions, 1836-1856 at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wbritonad St. Austell Area History and Genealogy at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~staustell