Hi everyone - here's  the latest news, brought to you by transcriber Lorena Loubsky!! 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 ________________________________ > > > I, THOMAS SHEPHERD of Truro will not be answerable for any debt or > debts my wife Louisa Shepherd may contract after this notice. Signed, > Thomas Shepherd. Witness, J.R. GOODMAN, Truro, November 16, 1858. > > ------------------ > > LOST, SUPPOSED to have strayed on the night of Saturday, Nov. 13th, > from a field at Perran-porth, TWO COWS, both red; one in calf and in > good order, the other in low condition. > > Information to be given to the Rev. JOHN PERRY, at Perran-porth, by > whom any reasonable expenses will be paid. > > ------------------- > > INSOLVENT DEBTOR. TO be heard before the Judge, at County Court of > Devonshire, to be holden at the Castle of Exeter, on SATURDAY, the > fourth day of December, 1858, at the hour of Ten in the forenoon > precisely. > > AMICE BERTRAM, late of Torquay, in the county of Devon, General > Merchant, and formerly of George Town, Saint Saviours, in the island of > Jersey, General Merchant. JOHN TOBY, Jun., 10, Castle Street Exeter, > Attorney for the Above-named Insolvent Debtor. > > ----------------- > > The Electric and International Telegraph Company. Incorporated 1846. > > Opening of Stations at Truro, Redruth, and Penzance. MESSAGES can now > be forwarded by Telegraph from the above places to all parts of the > United Kingdom and Europe. The offices are at the Railway Station, > where further information can be obtained. By orer. > > ------------ > > SOUTH DEVON RAILWAY. THE Company is open to receive tenders of loans on > debenture, —for not less that three years, at 4 per cent. per annum. > Also of subscriptions to Additional Shares, of $10 each, (paid up)— > bearing 5 per cent. per annum, until 1st March, 1865; and 4-1/2 per > cent. per annum, thereafter in perpetuity, guaranteed. By order. W. > CARR, Secretary. Plymouth, 15 October, 1858 > > ------------------------ > > HARVEY’S FISH SAUCE. NOTICE OF INJUNCTION. The admirers of this > celebrated Fish Sauce are particularly requested to observe, that none > is genuine but that which bears the back label with the name WILLIAM > LAZENBY, as well as the front label signed…. > > --------------- > > EDUCATION. > > SOUTH DEVON COLLEGIATE SCHOOL. > > PLYMOUTH AND HEAVITREE. > > ESTABLISHED 1833. > > PRINCIPALS: > > THE REV. EDWARD HALLORAN, > > Of St. John’s College, Cambridge; and > > MR. ARTHUR B. HALLORAN, L.C. > > THIS Establishment comprises three departments: the Professional, > Commercial, and Preparatory. > > In the first, young gentlemen are prepared for the Universities, > Liberal Professions, Military, or Naval Service. > > In the second, for Commercial occupations in general, the Civil > Services or Agricultural pursuits; and In the third (especially > intended for children under nine years of age), for entering the higher > forms with credit and advantage. > All information relative to terms, references, &c., may be obtained by > application to either of the Principals, at Plymouth, or Heavitree. > > -------------------------- > > TRADE ANNOUNCEMENTS. > > ------------------------------- > > SMOKE! SMOKE!! SMOKE!!! > > THE celebrated Broseley Glazed Tobacco PIPES, Manufactured by WILLIAM > SOUTHORN and Co., Broseley, Shropshire. These goods are the most > suitable for Hotels or private use, and may be obtained in any size > cases from Mr. H. NOELL, Agent, Hayle. > > A medal was awarded to this firm only, at the Great > Exhibition, 1851,class 25, No. 29, for superior Tobacco Pipes. The far > famed London Straw Pipe in one gross Boxes at 8s. 6d. each. > > --------------------- > > MOORSHEAD’S ROYAL HOTEL, > > DEVONPORT. > > R. N. MOORSHEAD begs to inform the Nobility, Genry, Commercial > Gentlemen, and the public generally, that he has Re-opened the above > Hotel, and respectfully solicits a continuance of their support. The > House has recently undergone a thorough refitment, with such > alterations and improvements as adapt it to the requirements of the > present period. > > The Posting Establishment in all its branches will be conducted as usual. > > Hot and Cold Baths always ready. > > -------------------------------- > > STANNARIES’ COURT. (continued from last week.) > > > > TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11. > > > > DAVEY v. GREENWOOD.— > > An action for GBP10, the price paid by plaintiff for a horse warranted > staunch in harness. Mr. CHILCOTT, for the plaintiff, called John DAVEY, > plaintiff’s son, who made the bargain for his father. He proved having > particularly inquired whether the horse was staunch in harness, and > defendant warranted it to be so and promised to return the money if it > proved otherwise—that after various trials the horse always jibbed at > rising ground, and therefore he returned it to defendant, who refused > to pay the money. —William DAVEY, who wa present at the time, > corroborated this, and the plaintiff proved a similar warranty when he > went to the defendant and paid the money. — Mr. STOKES called the > defendant, who denied having given any warranty; but on > cross-examination admitted that he was asked if the horse was staunch, > and said he was as far as he knew, —Mr. A. HAMLEY was also called who > said he was present when plaintiff paid the GBP10, and heard no > warranty given. But on cross-examination it appeared he was subject to > fits of deafness. —The Judge told the jury that to constitute a > warranty in law it was not necessary that the word “warrant” should be > used. The question was “did the defendant promise?” Verdict for the > plaintiff for the GBP10. > > > > FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12. > > WEST v. PRIOR—Hemerdon Consols —Mr. HOCKIN (for Mr. ROBERTS) on behalf > of the defendant, said that this was a creditor’s petition for the > recovery of a sum exceeding GBP400, and the defendant admitted that > GBP300 was due, but the remaining GBP117, or GBP120, which was > acclaimed by the plaintiff as a long arrear of interest, was disputed. > Mr. STOKES had obtained an injunction, to dissolve which the whole sum > had been paid into court under protest, but a countermand had been > received only that morning, and he thought that if the case was > postponed, the defendant was entitled to his costs. It ought also to be > borne in mind that if the case was postponed, the whole of the money > which the defendant had paid into court would be locked up until the > question in dispute was decided. Mr. STOKES, for plaintiff, said the > sum of GBP417 was sued for by himself as agent for Messrs. BISHOP and > WREFORD, of Fowey, Mr. WEST’S solicitors; and injunction to restrain > sale was issued, and on this a written undertaking was given by > defendant’s attorney to pay the debt, interest, and the costs of the > action, and he anticipated that the case would have been heard at the > present sitting of the court, but owing to the absence of a material > witness (Mr. BISHOP) he was under the necessity of asking his Honor to > postpone it. As a four days notice of a countermand must be given, > however, it would be better perhaps to give notice of a new trial. What > he would suggest was, that the disputed part of the claim should be > referred to the Registrar, and that the latter should afterwards report > to his Honor his decision. Mr. HOCKIN did not object to this course, > but asked his Honor to refer the case at once to the Registrar, in > order that the money which had been paid into court might be locked up > as short a time as possible. His HONOR thought that the order should be > made in such a form as would not leave any vagueness about the > questions, and he should therefore take a little time to consider the > matter. > > CUNDY v. TRISCOTT. — This action was brought to recover GBP39 14s., for > work done, money paid, and goods sold, but from this sum the defendant > claimed a set-off. Mr. STOKES, who appeared for the plaintiff, said > that the action had been instituted in the County Court, in the first > instance, but no formal award had been obtained. The account between > the parties was a very long time to investigate it, Mr. Chilcott, who > appeared for the defendant, and he had agreed to ask his Honor to refer > the case to two parties to be afterwards named. A verdict was then > taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference of all matters of > difference in the cause. > > HORSE CASE, —PRIDHAM v. BALE.— Mr. STOKES and Mr. PASSINGHAM appeared > for the plaintiff, and Mr. HOCKIN and Mr. CHILCOTT for the defendant. > The plaintiff was Mr. Edward PRIDHAM, of Truro, and the defendant Mr. > Henry BALE, of Stonehouse, near Plymouth. The declaration stated that > the defendant took and drove away a horse belonging to the plaintiff > without his consent, and drove and rode it about, using it in a brutal > and cruel manner and with such little care as to render it of little > value, so that the plaintiff was obliged to sell it for a trifle; the > second count alleged that the defendant converted the horse to his own > use, and willfully deprived the plaintiff of it; the third count set > out more particularly the real cause of action, alleging that the > defendant, at his own request, had the use of the horse for the purpose > of trying it, that he took such bad care of the same, and used it in > such a brutal manner, that by reason of defendant’s conduct the horse > was so greatly injured as to be of little use to the plaintiff, who was > obliged to sell it for very little money. To the first of these > allegations the defendant pleaded—not guilty of the charges imputed to > him; and with respect to the second and third counts, he pleaded that > he committed the acts therein charged with the plaintiff’s leave and > license. Upon that issue was joined. > > From the opening of Mr. Stokes and the evidence of the > plaintiff and his witnesses, it appeared that Mr. Pridham, the > plaintiff, is the proprietor of the Times coach running between Truro > and Exeter; and the defendant is a tailor and draper, carrying on > business in partnership at Stonehouse, in the adjoining county. In 1857 > the plaintiff purchased a grey horse from Mr. CLIFT, of Redruth, giving > in exchange for it a bay horse and GBP10. The horse was warranted as a > strong sound horse, and he continued to work and drive it in the coach > sometimes from Truro and Blue Anchor, a distance of twelve miles, and > sometimes between the latter place and Wadebridge. It was a large > powerful horse, 16 hands high, and it continued regularly to do its > work, never having any sickness except once in the month of February, > when it caught the mange while in another stable, but having been > placed under the care of Mr. KARKEEK, veterinary surgeon, it was cured > in the course of a fortnight, and afterwards continued to work in the > coach, never showing the slightest symptoms of unsoundness, and always > eating its food heartily. On the 18th of April, last, Mr. BALE came to > the plaintiff in Truro, to enquire if he had a horse which would suit > him, as his own was such a kicker that he was determined never to drive > it any more. Mr. Pridham took him to his stables and showed him five > horses which he had there, one of which he recommended as likely to > suit the defendant. The latter, however, did not like this horse and > thought that another, a bay horse, would suit him better. Mr. Pridham > said that he might have this in exchange for his own horse and GBP10, > and the defendant agreed to take it on trial. In the course of > conversation, the plaintiff told Mr. Bale that he had a grey horse at > Wadebridge which he thought would suit him, at the same time, > mentioning the character of the animal which had been received from Mr. > LEE of Penzance, from whom it had been purchased by Mr. WICKETT, the > agent of Messrs. MAGOR’S brewery at Redruth, for Mr. Clift, of that > place, and which he warranted to be perfectly sound. Mr. Bale agreed to > take the bay horse on trial, and left his own horse to be worked in the > Times coach, promising to meet MR. Pridham on the Tuesday or Saturday > following, on the evenings of which days the latter would in the course > of his business be in Truro. On neither of these days, however, was the > plaintiff able to see Mr. Bale, but having sent the grey horse from > Wadebridge to Truro on the Wednesday, he learnt on the Saturday, that > Bale had, on the previous day, the 23rd of April, taken it away and > left the bay horse, which he said would not suit him. The horse, it was > alleged, had merely been sent to Truro in order that the defendant > might look at it, and that no authority had been given him to take it > away. On the Friday morning, however, he sent Gill the ostler, to Mr. > Pridham’s stables for the horse, in order that he might try it, and it > was presented to the horse keeper that Mr. Pridham had authorized him > to do so. On this representation, or rather misrepresentation, the > horse keeper allowed him to take the horse away, but the plaintiff was > so displeased with the defendant’s conduct, that he stated he should > have had him apprehended for felony, had he not known his partner to be > a very respectable man. The defendant on obtaining the horse, had it > put into his dog-cart, and drove to Chacewater, taking another person > along with him. After remaining there a few minutes, he returned to > Truro, then proceeded to St. Austell, and next to St. Blazey, a > distance altogether of about 30 miles. The next morning he started for > Plymouth a distance of 40 miles, over a very uneven and bad road, and > some idea of the rate at which he proceeded, might be inferred from the > fact that on arriving at Dubwalls, a little on the side of Liskeard, > the Magnet coach came up, on its way to Truro, as the defendant was > going down the very long and steep hill at that place, and he was then > driving at a rate which Mr. TEDDER, the experienced driver of that > coach, did not consider safe. The defendant proceeded onward, and about > half-past five o’clock he was passed at Antony, about four miles from > Plymouth, by the afternoon mail, which always traverses this distance > at a gallop, but notwithstanding the rapid rate at which they > proceeded, the defendant arrived in time to catch the same bridge at > Torpoint. On the Monday following the defendant wrote to Mr. Pridham > stating that neither of the horses he had of him on trial would suit > him “at any price,” that he had driven the grey horse to St. Blazey on > the Friday, and to Plymouth on the Saturday— that some miles before > reaching Torpoint, he found him quite done up, that he would not eat, > and if a horse would not eat, he could not work, and asking where he > might return him— if at Launceston, as he “should like to be off or > on.” On receiving this letter, the plaintiff wrote the defendant > requesting him to deliver the horse at Truro, the following Saturday. > On that day the horse was not brought to Truro, as requested, but early > in the morning, the defendant, who’s weight is 16 stone, and who for > size is well suited for either Her Majesty’s Lifeguards, or the > regiment of Blues, mounted the horse for the purpose of returning him. > He crossed the steam bridge at Torpoint shortly before six o’clock, at > the same time as the mail which leaves Plymouth at half-past-five > o’clock, and he was here joked by the driver and the guard about his > weight, and the heavy job the horse which the horse had before him. He > told them that the horse would not eat, and he was taking it home to > Mr. Pridham, its owner, upon which the guard advised him to go steadily > down hills, and to walk up. The guard also advised him to take the old > road between Torpoint and Sheviock, as it was half a mile nearer. At > the latter place as well as at Skilly, a distance of nine miles, the > mail changes horses, and as the stages were only short, averaging but > 4-1/2 miles each, it proceeded at a gallop nearly all the way in order > to allow the horses between Skilly and Liskeard, which was perhaps the > heaviest stage between Plymouth and Falmouth, a longer time; but on > leaving Torpoint, defendant kept up with the mail until they came to > the place where the old road branches off, which he took, and then on > coming into the new road again he was ahead of the mail. He kept up > with it until they reached Sheviock, an while they were changing horses > there, he had some rum and milk, which he drank on horseback. He > started a few moments before them, and they saw nothing of him again > until reaching Paulpethick, a distance of three miles, where they found > the horse standing at the door of a public-house. About a mile and a > half from Liskeard he overtook the mail, when Mr. Page, the driver, > said to him “you will kill that horse if you do not mind,” to which he > replied, “all right, old fellow.” He kept up with the mail into > Liskeard, a distance of 16-1/2 miles, and must consequently have > galloped a considerable part of the distance. What the defendant did > with the horse after arriving at Liskeard — whether he visited any > places for the purpose of transacting his business the plaintiff had no > means of ascertaining; but about half past four- o’clock in the > afternoon he arrived at Blue Anchor, which was about 46 miles from > Plymouth, where the plaintiff has stables, and his coach changes > horses. The horse was then in a very distressed condition, evidently > completely knocked up; it was immediately taken into the stables, where > it no sooner got than it fell down. Mr. Pridham’s horse-keeper called > Mr. Bale’s attention to the animal, when the latter replied that he > supposed it was tired. The horse-keeprer said he was afraid the horse > was in a very bad state; and he then caused some reed to be spread in > another stable, and two stalls thrown into one. The horse was got up > with difficulty and led there, when it directly fell down again. While > they were talking about the horse the defendant said that if he had > injured it, he would be answerable for it. About a quarter to five > o’clock the plaintiff, who was driving the Times coach to Truro that > day, arrived at Blue Anchor, and was informed of the state in which the > horse had been brought back. He had not time then to talk about the > matter, but on the defendant getting upon the coach in order to come to > Truro, he told him that he considered he had taken a most unwarrantable > liberty, first in removing the grey horse without his sanction, and > then in riding it such a distance, that defendant had used him ill, and > that if he had driven the horse instead of riding it, it would have > been uninjured. The defendant said that he had several times ridden his > horse from Blue Anchor to Plymouth, in one day, and he asked Mr. > Pridham if he would buy this horse, which the latter declined. As the > horse got no better its feet were fomented with warm water and it was > bled in the neck and kidden vein by Mr. Wm. DENEH, an experienced smith > and farrier, at Blue Anchor, and on Monday, Mr. Karkeek, veterinary > surgeon at Truro, went to see it at the plaintiff’s request, who > ordered its shoes to be taken off and prescribed for it. It continued > to get worse; the hoofs nearly came off, and its body became covered > with sores, and on the 13th of June it was sold at auction, to a farmer > for half-a-crown, with whom it died two days after. It was urged by Mr. > Stokes, that during these journies the horse was so over driven and > ridden by the defendant, as to produce the injuries of which it died, > and that consequently the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for > the loss he had sustained, and the expenses to which he had been put in > being deprived of the use of the horse, and in retaining the services > of the veterinary surgeon, and other attendants during its illness. The > horse was valued by the plaintiff at GBP40; then there was the amount > which the plaintiff had to pay for the hire of a horse during the > illness of the animal in question, together with Mr. Karkeek’s bill for > attendance &c., making altogether about GBP70. > > In support t of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff himself, James > PERRYMAN, his horse-keeper in Truro, Mr. Wickett, the agent for Messrs. > Magor’s brewery, Redruth, Mr. George NICHOLLS, brewer, at the same > place, Ferdinand PASCOE, foreman to the late Mr. Karkeek, veterinary > surgeon, Truro, Mr. Alfred TEDDER, coach proprietor, and driver of the > Magnet Coach, Mr. Thos. PAGE, one of the drivers of the Mail, MR. Wm. > BRICE, guard of the same; John SALOMNS, horse-keeper at Blue Anchor, > Mr. P.B. HUDDY, landlord of the inn at the same place, Frederick > SOLOMON, son of the horse-keeper; and Mr. Wm. DENCH, smith and farrier, > Blue Anchor , were called; and, in addition to deposing to > the above statement, they described the horse as a strong and powerful > animal, perfectly sound in constitution, that it always did its work > well, and eat its food heartily. It was admitted, however, in > cross-examination, that there was a mark below one f the knees, as if > caused by a “speedy cut,” that one of the hips was higher than the > other, and that there was a mark left by a blister on the neck, but it > was stated that the cut had evidently been made while young, and that > the difference in the hips in no way impaired the action of the horse, > and that he was perfectly sound while in Mr. Pridham’s possession. In > his cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted, that he warranted the > horse in every respect, and he told the defendant it was up to heavy > weights, was good in either saddle or harness, and that it was fit for > a day’s hunting, if the defendant was fond of that sport. But he did > not tell the defendant that the horse could go sixteen miles a hour, > though if he had done so, it would have been true. > > A letter was also put in from the plaintiff to the defendant, written > in May in which he informed him that Mr. Karkeek gave little hopes of > its recovery—that he attributed the injury entirely to the defendant, > as he (defendant) was aware the horse was perfectly healthy when he > took him away from Truro, and had he driven it fairly into Plymouth or > even a longer distance, he believed the horse would have been in good > health that day. But he was prepared to prove that the defendant did > not drive it fairly. Had defendant asked his consent to ride the horse > from Plymouth to Blue Anchor, knowing his weight, he should certainly > have refused permission. Under these circumstances he expected that the > defendant would pay him GBP40. The plaintiff further added that he saw > the defendant in Exeter two days after writing the above, and offered > to refer the matter to any two respectable veterinary surgeons. > > Mr. HOCKIN then addressed the jury for the defendant. He complained of > the prejudice which both the advocate and witnesses on the other side > had sought to excite in the minds of the jury against the defendant by > distortion of the real facts of the case, and also by the introduction > of statements which were utterly untrue, and he reminded the jury that > most of the witnesses that had been called were directly under the > control and influence of the plaintiff. He submitted that the defendant > had not subjected the horse to what could be considered a severe or > unfair trial. The animal was represented to him as being perfectly > sound in every respect,, thoroughly up to his work, capable of going 16 > miles and hour, of taking him a day’s hunting, and the test of driving > him 30 miles one day, 40 the next, and then, after a week’s rest, of > riding him back to Blue Anchor, was not too severe a trial, considering > the character that had been given with it. So far from the defendant > having been guilty of cruelty, it would be shown that he had treated > the horse with the utmost care and consideration, that instead of > driving it furiously, he had gone at a moderate pace, walking it up the > hills during a great part of the way, as he found the animal was > distressed. The last was however, that the defendant discovered on the > first trial that the horse was not what had been represented— that > while driving to Chacewater, it showed symptoms of weakness, started > and panted as if it had an affection of the heart, and on returning to > Truro on Friday, the 23rd of April, he would have left it had he not > found that the plaintiff had taken away his horse in the coach. The > horse would not eat, and the defendant upon arriving at Plymouth, > immediately wrote to the plaintiff stating that neither of the horses > would suit him, and asking if he should meet the plaintiff at > Launceston with it, which was a much shorter journey than to Truro. He > submitted that under the warranty that had been given, the defendant > was fully justified in trying the horse in the way he had done, and if > the trial proved too severe, the blame must attach to the plaintiff > himself for having misled the defendant as to the character of the > animal. He also urged that the horse had been neglected by the > plaintiff, and improperly treated by those who had the care of it, in > the first instance, after its arrival at Blue Anchor , on the 1st of > May. It was evidently attacked with what was commonly called lamanites > or “acute founder,” that was, inflammation of the feet, a disease that > was very rapid in its progress, but instead of a proper veterinary > surgeon being called in, who would have instantly had the shoes taken > off, and bled the horse in the feet, a village blacksmith was sent for, > who treated the animal for inflammation of the spine, and it was > neglected until the arrival of Mr. Karkeek on Monday, when that > gentleman, seeing the nature of the disease, at once ordered the shoes > to be removed. The diseases, however, had by this time made too great > progress. > > The defendant was then called and examined at great length. He > positively contradicted the plaintiff’s statement in many particulars. > He denied that he had taken the grey horse without his consent, as he > had told him that he should want to take him to Plymouth in order that > his partner might see him before he bought him, and to this arrangement > the plaintiff agreed. Plaintiff described the horse as a very fast one, > on which defendant remarked “perhaps he is too fast – I like a horse > that will go seven or eight miles and hour, not faster.” “Oh,” replied > the plaintiff, you may ride or drive this horse from six to sixteen > miles an hour, and if you are fond of a fay’s hunt, he is the very > horse for you, – he is up to heavy weights, and will carry you a whole > day.” Defendant said, suppose an accident should happen to the horse? > To which plaintiff replied ­ – “I will risk mine, if you will risk > yours.” So far from taking the horse away without the plaintiff’s > permission, the ostler of the Red Lion told him on his return to Truro > on Thursday evening, the 22nd of April, that he had a grey horse in the > stables waiting for him. The next morning he drove the horse to > Chacewater in his dog-cart, observing before he started that it had not > eaten its corn, and so satisfied was he that it was not what it had > been represented that on his return, he asked for his own horse, having > made up his mind to have nothing more to do with the grey, when he was > informed that Mr. Pridham had driven it away that morning to take his > coach. He then proceeded to describe his journies to and from Plymouth. > The first day he drove tot St. Blazey, resting however above five hours > in St. Austell. His evidence went to contradict that of the plaintiff’s > witnesses as to his having driven or ridden the horse fast or cruelly, > and to show that he had gone at a very moderate pace, eased the animal > on going up hill, and taken the greatest care of it. On arriving the > first night at St. Blazey, however, he found that it would not eat its > corn, and the next morning, being anxious to get to Plymouth, he > ordered it to be given a quart of flour in water. Before he got to > Antony, however, the horse was completely knocked up. He denied that he > drove down Dubwalls at a rapid rate, and said that the horse on seeing > the Magnet coach started, which must have led Mr. TEDDER to imagine he > was driving quickly. He also denied that he crossed at Torpoint on the > same bridge as the mail on the afternoon of the 24th, and said that he > did not get into Plymouth that night till eight o’clock. He ordered his > groom to prepare a mash of bran for the horse, but it only ate about > two-thirds of it; it would not touch corn or beans and very little hay. > The morning after his arrival he wrote the letter which had been read, > to the plaintiff, telling him that the horse would not suit, that it > would not eat and could not work, was knocked up before arriving, that > he would not give his own horse for both the bay and the grey, and > asking where he might send the latter. He denied that he got into > Liskeard at the same time as the mail on the morning of the 1st of May, > on his way to Blue Anchor, or that the guard and driver had spoken to > him a mile and a half out of that town. Story continues in this vein > for several more pages. Concludes with: In like manner he put it to the > jury whether they considered that the defendant acted fairly and > rightly in riding the horse, he being a man of 15 stones weight, from > Plymouth to Blue Anchor in one day when he knew at the time that the > horse had refused its corn since it was in his possession, and that it > exhibited, according to his own evidence, symptoms of weakness and > distress. The question for them to consider, was, whether in their > opinion the trial was a fair and proper one. If they thought it was, > they would find for the defendant; if not, they would find for the > plaintiff, and in the latter case they would state the damages they > considered the plaintiff was entitled to. > > The jury then retired, and after an absence of nearly an > hour, they returned into court with a veridict for the plaintiff – > Damages GBP70, the full amount claimed. > > The trial lasted two days, and appeared to excite considerable > interest, the court being thronged during the whole time. > > ?….The Saloons charge the Generals with conspiracy, and sue for damages > and protection. The public is very deeply interested in the result, as > in consequence of the racing and “nursing” which have been so long > carried on, several serious accidents have occurred, and life has been > endangered. > > We no longer labour under the reproach of not being a musical people. > Music has become quite a rage among us. During the past season three of > the largest theatres in London were occupied by opera companies, and at > one of them the gallery was nightly filled by a class which a few years > ago would have found an opera utterly incomprehensible. Costermongers > and dock labourers might have been seen crushing up the stairs in their > working clothes, some in their shirt sleeves, all as eager to secure > places as any habitué of her Majesty’s or Exeter Hall. The success of > this cheap opera at Drury Lane has induced the manager to take the new > Opera House in Covent Garden for a winter season. He proposes to open > on boxing night, and begin with a first-class English opera, with a > pantomime to follow. The great English tenor, Mr. Sims REEVES, is > engaged; and the amount of patronage which good singing now obtains > will be best gathered from the salary which this gentleman can command, > viz., GBP60 a night. There is no art so well rewarded in these days as > the singer’s. Madame GRISI was lately paid GBP400 for singing in an > oratorio at New York. The same lady received GBP240 for singing at a > private soiree in London. LaBLANCHE, the great bass singer, would not > sing a single song for less that GBP70. The Queen received several > lessons from him, and paid him GBP40 per hour. These seem monstrous > sums to pay for a few songs, but there is no denying the commercial > axiom that a thing is worth exactly what it will fetch on the market. > > Mr. Albert SMITH returned from China on Saturday. He has brought with > him ample materials for a new entertainment, which will be opened to > the public in the scene of his Mont Blank triumphs, in the Cattle Show > week. This is, indeed, an age of enterprise, when an author travels > twelve thousand miles to procure subject matter for two hours’ lecture. > Mr. SMITH has already made a fortune by his “ascent of Mont Blanc”­ – > it is confidently asserted GBP25,000. > > Lord STRATFORD de REDCLIFFE has fulfilled his mission to > Constantinople. He has read the Sultan a lecture on the necessity of > being more economical, and the result is an imperial order under his > Highness’s hand for bidding jeweled pipes, four horse carriages, and > four oared boats. ­– How like a Turk’s notions of retrenchment! His > first thoughts fly to pipes, and carriages. After this order was > issued, the Sultan sent as a present to the Princess Mathilde, Louis > Napolean’s sister, a superb prayer carpet of the value of GBP4,000; > phrases from the Turkish poets are worked in diamonds, pearls, and > emeralds, into the cloth of gold which the fabric is composed. Who but > a Turk would think of weaving diamonds into a carpet? Can there be any > hope of the rule of a sovereign steeped in such imbecile folly? > > _________________________ > > POSTSCRIPT ­– WEDNESDAY. > > The officials at the Colonial Office are in great consternation and > perplexity. Sir J. YOUNG’S dispatch relating the Ionian Islands was not > made public by the authority, or with the consent of the government, > and Sir Bulwer LYTTON cannot imagine how the papers got hold of it. His > secretary writes to say that a strict enquiry is being made into the > affair. Some one has clearly betrayed trust, or possibly some > enterprising penny-liner has filched a copy, or seized an opportunity > of making one. The mischief however is done, and no enquiry can mend > the matter. After the avowal of Sir J. YOUNG, it will be useless for > Mr. GLADSTONE to attempt anything. People are asking suspiciously if > the whole affair is not a cunning trap to catch Mr. Gladstone as Lord > PALMERSTON caught Lord John RUSSELL when he sent him to Vienna to make > peace. It looks not unlike it. > > For the first time fro a long period Mr. DISRAELI yesterday had the > honour of dining with the Queen en famille. It was probably designed to > be a literary party; Lord John MANNERS being invited to keep Mr. > Disraeli company. The court newsman does not say if Lord John favoured > her Majesty with a recitation from his own poems. That distich about > the old nobilitie would have told well in royal halls. An invitation to > dine with the Queen is a command; you must go if you are not absolutely > ill, cost what it may. Disraeli left the deputation on the hop duty > completely in the lurch. They were obliged to put up with his > secretary. > > A Cabinet Council was held yesterday early in the day, and afterwards > Lord DERBY received a deputation of Quakers, who are desirous of > putting a stop to the growth of opium in India. The “friends” did not > take off their hats in the audience room, and the courteous Earl shamed > them by showing them, the utmost civility; and, of course, he promised > to give opium his “most earnest consideration.” > > A terrible east wind is blowing to-day; the town is as dry as a chip, > and every nose is as red as a cherry. Consoling fires, great coats, and > wrappers at a premium. > > ___________________________ > > TRURO POLICE—On Monday last, before the Mayor, (Dr. BARHAM,) and Mr. > CHAPPEL, Thomas DAVEY, of Boscawen Row, Charles COURTIER, Edward ROWER, > and George HOWE, lads of about 16 and 17 years of age, were summoned > for playing “pitch and toss” on Sunday, to the annoyance of the > inhabitants. Complaints have been made from time to time to Mr. NASH, > police superintendent, of lads between eleven and twelve o’clock on > Sunday mornings, collecting at the top of Pydar street, and playing > “pitch and toss” under the railway arch. Police constable JOHNS saw > five boys paying three, but he could only recognize the four above > mentioned, and as he was not quite sure that Howe was playing, the > charge against him was withdrawn. The others were reprimanded, but let > off on this occasion by the payment of expenses. It appears that under > the local improvement act, they might have been fined 40s. for > annoyance to the inhabitants of the borough.— On Wednesday, James > POWELL, of Michellhill, labourer, was charged before Mr. Chappel with > stealing a cloth coat, value 10s., the property of Richard BOTTRAIL. > Both parties were debtors confined in the county gaol, but Powell’s > time being up, he was discharged from prison, and at the same time > there left with him another debtor called Thomas HOLMAN, of the parish > of Kenwyn. The coat was missed by Bottrall soon after Powell and Holman > left the prison, and on Tuesday morning last, Mr. Nash received a > letter from Bottrall, stating the loss of his coat, and that Powell was > observed leaving with a coat of that description. The case was remanded > until Wednesday evening, when both Powell and Holman were charged with > the offence, the coat having been found in Holman’s possession. > Bottrall, however, then attended from the county prison, and said he > did not wish to press the charge, as he had received a letter from > Holman stating that the coat had been taken in mistake for his own. The > prisoners were thereupon discharged, on payment of prosecutor’s > expenses, and delivering up the coat. > > > > STEALING MONEY.—On Wednesday last, at Truro, John DONALDSON, seaman, of > Belfast, was charged before Mr. Chappel, magistrate, with stealing from > the schooner “Dash” of Bideford, now lying at Falmouth, GBP3 10s. the > property of the master, Captain POPHAM. On Wednesday morning last, Mr. > Nash, police superintendent at Truro, received a telegraphic message > from Captain Popham, informing him that the sailor had left the ship > that morning, and had carried of 70s., and he also described the dress > of the sailor. Mr. Nash went about the town to look for him and sent > police-constable Gav to the railway station, where he saw a man > answering the description given, and brought him to the police station. > On being questioned the man said he had only a shilling or two in his > possession, but Mr. Nash subsequently, found on his GBP2 10s. and a > shilling. It was also found that he had bought in the town a pair of > new trowsers, a blue serge shirt, and a cotton handkerchief, the cost > of which, together with the money in his possession, corresponded with > the amount that he had taken from the vessel. The prisoner was remanded > till Thursday in order that Capt. Popham might attend and appear > against him. On Thursday the case was gone into, and it appeared from > the statement of Captain Richard Popham that DONALDSON had engaged as > an ordinary seaman at Plymouth. It was his watch on deck from five to > eight o’clock on Tuesday morning last, when the schooner was at anchor > in Falmouth harbour. About eight o’clock the capain came on deck and > could not see him, and he found that the boat was gone from the side of > the vessel. On going into his statesroom, the captain found that his > desk had been broken open, all his papers scattered about, and the > money in the desk stolen. The boat was subsequently found on the rocks > on the shore opposite Falmouth. The prisoner pleaded guilty of the > offence, and wished to be dealt with summarily. He was sentenced to six > months’ imprisonment with hard labour. > > ------- > > PADSTOW POLICE. — On Saturday last, Henry Tabb, of Little Petherick, > was apprehended by P.C. HAWKE, for stealing turnips from the field of > Mr. THOMAS SPEAR, of Padstow, farmer. He was taken before Mr. H.P. > RAWLINGS, county magistrate, and fined 2s. 6d. and costs. Mr. Spear, > the proprietor, wished the magistrate to be as lenient as possible > towards him. On the same night Alfred ROWE, sailor, of Padstow, was > apprehended by Sergeant LUXON for lying in the street drunk and > incapable of taking care of himself. On Monday he was taken before Mr. > Rawlings and fined 5s. and costs. > > ------------ > > CAMBORNE PETTY SESSIONS.— At these sessions, before the Rev. U. TONKIN, > (Chairman) MR. MAGOR, and Mr. C.A. REYNOLDS, magistrates, John > TREVORROW, of Marazion, was fined 5s. and costs for being drunk and > disorderly. Thomas Henry TROUNSON, of Phillack, was brought u p for > assaulting his wife Mary Trounson; it being proved, he was fined 3s. > 6d. and costs. John DELBRIDGE, of Gwithians, agent of Boilingwell Mine, > was summoned for firing a pistol within 50 yards of the highway. The > charge being proved he was ordered to pay the costs, 9s. William > REYNOLDS, of Marazion, was summoned for laving his horse and cart in > the highway at Marazion; he was fined 6d. and the costs 10s. John LAITY > of Redruth, was brought up by warrant for not appearing to a witness > summons; he was ordered to pay the costs, 8s. Benjamin HOCKING, of > Camborne, was charged with assaulting Joseph GLASSON, beer-house > keeper, Camborne; also with assaulting P.C. SCOBLE. The assaults being > proved, he was fined GBP2 including costs in each case, and bound over > to keep the peace for twelve months. Thomas BAWDEN and John EDWARDS, of > Camborne, were apprehended for stealing timber from the adventurers of > West Wheal Basset mine. Bawden and Edwards were each found guilty and > committed to Bodmin Gaol for one month’s hard labour. > > ------- > > STEALING GEESE.— On Thursday, before Mr. GLENCROSS, county magistrate, > Charles MICHELL and Thomas WHITFORD were charged with stealing, on the > Saturday night previous, ten geese from Northwood Farm, in the parish f > St. Neot, the property of Thomas MALLETT. On Sunday morning Mr. Mallett > missed his geese, and made known his loss to the police, who traced > them to Common Moor, in the parish of St. Cleer, but failed to discover > the guilty parties. On Tuesday, as some persons were passing through > the village of Common Moor, they saw a cat jump over the wall near the > residence of Charles Mitchell with the head of a goose in its mouth. > This circumstance was immediately communicated to Mr. Mallett, who sent > his son with the police again to Common Moor. They arrived about ten > o’clock at night, and on looking in at Mitchell’s window, perceived a > small family party, consisting of Mitchel and his wife, and Thomas > Whitford (a relation of Mitchell’s,) and his wife about to partake of > supper. The policeman entered and proceeded to examine into the > contents of two pies evidently just placed on the table. One was a beef > pie, and the other a fowl pie, and contained in addition the neck of a > goose, and in the oven, nearly ready, was a “goose pie.” Mitchel was > taken into custody, and afterwards Whitford was secured. On the > following morning, search was made in Mitchell’s garden, and the wings > and feet of four geese were found buried under a heap of weed, and they > were identified by Mr. Mallett as belonging to the geese stolen from > him. In consequence of further information, the shaft of an old mine, > near Mitchell’s residence, was afterwards examined, and on looking > down, six geese were seen floating on the water, at a depth of about 30 > feet; they were got up,, and also identified. The prisoners were > remanded to enable the police to make further inquiries.