West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday, 6th August, 1858. REDUCED FARES - Truro to Plymouth, 9s. 6d. Truro to Liskeard, 6s. 6d. The Public is hereby informed, that the "Magnet" leaves Pearce's Royal Hotel, Truro, at 9 a.m., on the arrival of the first train from Penzance, reaching Plymouth at 4:30 p.m., in time for the 5:10 train to Exeter, Bristol, and London, and for coaches to Tavistock, Launceston, &c. The "Magnet" leaves the Globe Hotel, Plymouth at 10:15 a.m., after the arrival of the 10:10 a.m. train from Exeter, reaching Truro at 6 p.m., in time for the last train to Penzance. RADMORE, TEDDER, PENFOUND and Co., proprietors. STEAM UNDER 60 DAYS TO AUSTRALIA - Passage GBP14 and upwards. The Liverpool and Australian Navigation Company's celebrated Steam Clippers, in conjunction with the Eagle Line of packets, are dispatched on the 15th of each month, to the consignment of Bright Brothers, and Co., Melbourne, forwarding passengers to all parts of Australia. Packet of 15th August [.........?]. The magnificent new seven years' A [......] class clipper ship "Resolute." Capt. WALLACE, 1,112 Tons Register, 3,000 tons burthen. This magnificent new Clipper, built specially for the passenger trade, is one of the handsomest models afloat, and is expected to prove the fastest ship of the day. Her noble and spacious saloon is fitted in the most complete manner with baths, ladies rooms, &c. The state rooms, 9ft. by 6 1/2 ft. are very large and commodious; and bedding and every requisite is provided. Apply to GIBBS, BRIGHT & Co., 1 North John Street, Liverpool; ROBERTS & IRVING, 9, Cornwall, London; or to Mr. EDWARD HEARD, stationer, &c., Boscawen Street, Truro; Mr. J. S. TONKIN, Gwennap, near Redruth; Mr. JOHN BEST, Falmouth and Helston, Cornwall. ASSIZES - GEORGE HARDING, 39, was indicted for feloniously obtaining by false pretences from THOMAS CORY, at Launceston, a quart of beer, with intent thereby to defraud, on the 28th of June. He was also charged with having on the same day, unlawfully obtained by false pretences from MARY MAY, the sum of thirty shillings, with intent to defraud. Mr. OXENHAM conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. THOMAS CORY, innkeeper of Launceston, deposed:- On the morning of the 28th of June I saw prisoner at my house; he said he had come with an order from his master to have a quart of beer, as he had been assisting his master to take some cattle on to Menheniot Fair; he had a pair of sheep-shears in his hand, and said his master had sent him back to examine the sheep and have a quart of beer. I knew that he was living in the service of Mr. BUCKLER, who is a farmer and cattle dealer; he was at my house on the Saturday night before, with his master, and he said his master had sent him to know whether on the Saturday night he (the master) had his change against a half-sovereign, as he fancied he had not. On that I let him have two pints of beer, and he said his master would call the next Saturday night and pay for it. MARY MAY: I am the wife of CHARLES MAY, and live at Launceston; on the 28th of June the prisoner called at my house, and after speaking to me about some pigs, he said "Have you some money left here for my master?" I said "yes." He said I was to pay the money to him. I hesitated, and said "I don't know whether I am safe in paying you or not." He said "you are safer in paying the money to me than to master, for he is always drunk." He then said he had to make haste, for he had to go to North Petherwyn to receive 35s. more. I then paid him the money - a sovereign and 10s. in silver. JANE MAY (a little girl) daughter of last witness, corroborated her evidence, having been present at the conversation with prisoner. WILLIAM BUCKLER: I live in the parish of Launceston, and the prisoner was in my employ, and on the 28th of June he helped me about some cattle. I did not authorise him to get any beer anywhere; I did not ever send him to Mrs. May about my money, and I never gave him orders to go to North Petherwyn for money. It is not part of his duty to receive money for me, and I have never given him authority to do so. After the learned Judge had summed up, the Foreman of the jury asked the question whether the master had, or had not received the money? On this the master was re-called, and stated that he had not received the money. The prisoner was found Guilty on both indictments; and was sentenced to Two Calendar Months' Hard Labour. JOHN GENDALL, 18, pleaded Guilty of burglariously breaking into the dwelling house of JOHN MADDERN, at Madron, on the 24th of May, and stealing a wood box, 2 lbs. of tobacco, and GBP2 in money, the property of the said John Maddern. Sentence, Four Months' Hard Labour. GEORGE SMITH, 23, a soldier, was indicted for burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of PHILIP PROTHEROE SMITH, Esq., at Truro, on the 12th July, and stealing seven loaves of bread, a quantity of meat, and a basket, the property of the said Philip Protheroe Smith. The prisoner pleaded Guilty and was sentenced to Six Weeks Hard Labour. In passing sentence, the learned Judge said he was sorry to see a person at the bar wearing the uniform of her Majesty's army. There were, however, some circumstances in his favour, and particularly that he did not take away some articles of considerable value, which he had the opportunity of taking. His lordship hoped this would be the last time he would ever be guilty of any such offence. WILLIAM WALSH, 20, a seaman, was charged with stealing a cloth coat, cloth trousers, cloth waistcoat, a Guernsey frock, two shirts, two prints, one neck-tie, and one pocket-handkerchief, the property of JAMES CARTER, at Illogan, on the 1st of July. A second count charged felonious receiving of the goods. The prisoner pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to Two Months' Hard Labour. THOMAS HICKS, 47, labourer, was charged with stealing a drake, the property of JOHN CLEMOES, at Endellion, on the 7th July. Mr. HOULDSWORTH conducted the prosecution; Mr. COLE defended the prisoner. John Clemoes, the prosecutor, deposed that he was a farmer living at Trecreage, in the parish of Endellion, and also occupied a farm about two miles distant, in the parish of St. Minver. He had eight ducks removed from his farm in St. Minver, to Trecreage; on the 7th July, seven of them strayed, and only six of them were brought back to him; the one that he did not get back was lame. WILLIAM RANDALL, a farmer living in St. Minver, on the 7th of July was travelling with his servant in a cart to see his uncle, the prosecutor, at Trecreage. As he was going along the road, about 1 1/4 mile from Trecreage, he saw prisoner, and gave him a lift in the cart. After riding on about half-a-mile towards Trecreage, they saw a drake lying by the road-side; and witness said to his servant (and the prisoner heard him) "there's a duck there, either wounded or tired." After that, prisoner went on about 50 or 60 paces, and then jumped out, saying he must go into a field after a donkey. Witness and his man went on to Trecreage, and gave information of what they had seen. Witness then returned, across some fields, to the place in the road where he had seen the drake but ten minutes before, but found that the drake was gone. Afterwards saw the drake at the office of Mr. SYMONS, clerk to the committing magistrate. WILLIAM LAMERTON, police constable at Endellion, went to the prisoner's house about 12 o'clock at night of the 7th of July; prisoner lived about half a mile from Endellion Churchtown. At the house, saw the prisoner and his wife, and told the prisoner that he was suspected of having a duck in his possession. He said he had no duck in his house. Witness asked him if he was willing for him to search the house. Prisoner said, "not to night; you can search to-morrow morning if you like." (Laughter.) Prisoner afterwards said he had not got the duck in his house, but he knew where it was, and it was just out at the back, and said, "if you go round at the back, I will go through the house." Witness, having a brother constable placed at the back, refused to go round, but went through the house with the prisoner. When they came to the back door, prisoner pointed outside to a spot where he said the duck could be found. Witness went and looked and saw there was no duck there; turning round, he looked into the back kitchen and saw the duck on the floor; upon which he took charge of the duck and apprehended the prisoner. The drake being produced was identified by the prosecutor. Verdict, Guilty. One Month's Hard Labour. There was another indictment against the prisoner for stealing four geese, the property of RICHARD WILLIAMS, at Endellion, on or about the 12th of July; but this charged was not tried. JOHN MACDONALD, 21, a seaman, was charged with stealing a pair of trousers and a Guernsey frock, the property of GEORGE RADFORD, at the parish of Falmouth, on the 20th of July. Mr. COX conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. MARY RADFORD, a lodging-house keeper, at Falmouth, stated that on the 20th of July the prisoner was lodging at her house. At that time she had in her house, in charge for a little boy, a bundle containing a pair of pilot trousers and a new knitted frock, tied up in the boy's bag. About half-past nine in the evening of the 20th July, she missed the bundle; the prisoner having been in the room where the clothes were, during the afternoon. She saw him come down the stairs with his oil coat on, and looking very large under the arm. FRANCIS ANGLESEY, who keeps an outfitting shop in Falmouth, remembered the prisoner coming there between nine and ten o'clock in the night, with a frock which he asked witness to buy; and witness gave him 3s. for it. LOVEDAY PADDON, living at Falmouth, deposed that on the 20th of July, prisoner came to her and said "mother, would you be kind enough to do me a favour; will you sell a pair of trousers for me?" He gave her a pair of trousers which she pawned at Mrs. OWEN's for 4s. and gave the money and ticket to the prisoner. EMMA OWEN, pawn-broker, proved that she received the trousers in pawn, from the last witness, and gave them to the policeman. WILLIAM HITCHINS, the policeman, apprehended the prisoner on the 20th July, and on the same day received the trousers from the last witness, and the knitted frock from Anglesey. Witness produced the articles where were identified generally, by Mrs. Radford. The prisoner's statement before the committing magistrates was:- "I don't know anything about it; I was in liquor;" and the prisoner now made a similar statement to the jury. Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Two Months' Hard Labour. WILLIAM PHILIP AVER, 13, labourer, and WILLIAM KERNICK, 21, miner, was charged with burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of MARY ANN BLIGHT, of St. Agnes, on the 5th of July, and stealing GBP2. 10s. in silver coin of the realm, two metal seals, an American silver coin called a half-dime, and a Mexican silver coin. Mr. COLE conducted the prosecution; Mr. STOCK defended Kernick; Aver was undefended. Mrs. Blight, the prosecutrix, deposed:- I live at Mithian, in the parish of St. Agnes, and keep a shop there. On the 5th of July I saw Aver there several times during the day, having gooseberries, and pears and sweets; he lives about half a mile off from me. When he came there, he saw me put money into the silver-drawer. I have a large bull-terrier, and Aver would very often slock him away from the door and feed him; I saw him that afternoon, playing with the dog a great while, and giving him crusts and other things. On the night of the 5th July I went to bed about twelve o'clock, fastening my house properly; I left the dog in the parlour, with the middle door open leading into the shop. When I came down next morning, about six o'clock, I saw that the house had been entered at the back window leading into the flour closet; a pane of glass had been taken out with a knife large enough for a hand to be passed through; and the back window of the closet was opened wide enough for a person to pass through. The door of the shop was open, and on going into the shop, I found that the silver was taken away, together with the drawer in which it had been placed; there was quite a pile of silver there the night before - I have put it low in stating that it was 50s.; there were two seals and two foreign coins - American and Mexican. I sent for a police officer. That same morning, Kernick came to my shop and said he had heard a noise in the town that my shop had been broken open; he said, "I hear you condemn Aver for it." I answered "I do." He said I don't believe he did it any more than I did, and as for myself I was never in your shop but once before in my life." He instantly went to see where Aver had got in; and I pointed to him where it was, but he walked straight to the spot, and came back to Aver who was standing outside the door, and said to him, "Aver, do you know the police are up in the town? If you do not, I tell you of it." They then went off together. Before Kernick left the shop, I said to him, "it was a fortunate thing that you did not carry off my sovereigns, which were kept in a drawer adjoining the silver drawer." ALFRED HIPWOOD JARRETT: I am superintendent of police for the Truro district. On the 6th of July, I got in formation of the burglary at Mrs. Blight's, and in the morning of the 7th I went and examined the premises, and ascertained how the burglary had been effected. On a portion of the putty remaining at the lower part of the window, I observed marks which had been made with a knife. I apprehended Aver on the 12th of July, and after that, in consequence of a statement made by Aver, I apprehended Kernick on the 16th. Afterwards I traced the possession of a knife to JOHN KERNICK, prisoner's brother; I compared the knife with marks on the window and found it corresponded; in my judgment, the window was opened with the knife; and before the magistrates, Aver admitted that the window was opened with the knife. (Witness produced the knife). SUSAN HARRIS: I am a servant at Mr. LETCHER's public-house in Mithian, a very short distance from Mrs. Blight's. About eleven o'clock on the night that Mrs. Blight's house was broken into. I saw Aver in my master's court and asked him what he was doing there, and he said he was waiting for SAMUEL MOON, who, he said, was in my master's house. Aver stopped there till about twelve o'clock. I had seen Kernick in the house; he went away about eleven o'clock. MARK FLINT, a sawyer, living in the parish of Kenwyn, and working at Wheal Kitty, was at Mithian on the 9th of July in the evening, at Letcher's public-house. When I first went in, Kernick was there alone, but after that, Aver came, and Kernick asked him to come in. After that, I and Kernick tossed for a pint of beer; I could not see how much money Kernick then had; I did not see any money with Aver. Afterwards Aver and Kernick went away, and when they came back again, there was not much money in Kernick's purse. EDWARD PARNELL, a boy, stated that the day after Mrs. Blight's house had been broken into, he saw Aver at Mithian; Aver had a knife with him, which witness bought for three-half-pence. (It was the same knife as was now produced.) Witness bought it for John Kernick, who gave him the money to do so. John Kernick, another boy, confirmed the last witness's evidence, and stated that he gave the knife to Mr. Jarrett. NICHOLAS COOKE, a miner living at Mithian, on Sunday the 11th of July was going from Mithian towards Redruth, and about fifty yards from Kernick's house picked up a small bit of money which he afterwards gave to Mrs. Blight. (This was the Mexican coin, and it was identified by Mrs. Blight, by means of some marks on it.) PETER SEMMENS, policeman in the Truro district: I had charge of Aver when he was in custody; he was taken before the magistrates on the 14th of July; after we had been before the magistrates he said he kept the dog quiet, while the other went in - and he mentioned the other's name; he had before that said that the knife produced was the one used. ELIZA SOLOMON:- I am the wife of RICHARD SOLOMON, of St. Agnes; the prisoner Aver is my son, and used to live with my mother at Perranzabuloe, about half a mile from Mithian. On the 6th of July, the day after the robbery, I was at Mrs. Blight's; and afterwards Kernick came in; I had never seen him there before. Kernick and my boy went outside the house; and Kernick said he would give my boy a pair of boots and trousers, better than those he had on, because people would not talk so much about his (Kernick's) having new ones, as they would if my boy had new ones. I heard Kernick afterwards say to my boy, "What a d---d fool I was that I did not take away Mrs. Blight's pocket-book with the sovereigns, as well as the rest; I would have left this place and would not have been in it five hours." They then went away together, and said they were going to Penhale to seek for work. This witness was severely cross-examined with a view of discrediting her testimony; it appearing that although the conversation of which she spoke was alleged to have taken place on the 6th of July, she so delayed to give information, though living only at a short distance from Mrs. Blight, that she was not examined before any magistrate on the subject until the 27th of July; and her answers on cross-examination were not satisfactory either in substance or in manner of delivery. FRANCISCO AVER, grandfather of the prisoner Aver, and with whom he used to live, said: I remember the night of the 5th of July; I went to bed between nine and ten and slept; I afterwards heard the boy come hollowing to me to come down and let him in; he was timid of being out at night; when he came home, it was good light, it might have been morning - it might have been day-light. The following statements by the prisoners before the committing magistrates were then put in and read; the jury being repeatedly cautioned strictly that they were not to accept as evidence any statement made by one prisoner against another. Aver's statement:- On Saturday the 19th of June last, William Kernick and I were coming into Truro, and he asked me about the money which had been stolen from a person about Christmas, and he said, "I should like to get another such a lot;" and I said "you may if you mine to:" and he said, "I will if I can." We went into Truro together, when he was disappointed of his place; then he told me to go home and he would put me the nearest way, and he said "I shall be home to-morrow." On Sunday I went down to his house, but he was not there. On the Monday following, about two or three o'clock in the afternoon, I saw Kernick by his gate, and then he said, "Are you going to do that to-night? I then went away from him, driving two donkeys, and came back again and stood up with him, and he then went into the public-house; and after being there a long time he came out and I said to him, "Are you going home?" and he said, "No, damn it, I am going to get drunk first." There was a show at the next village; I asked him if he was going there; he said, "No, I shall get drunk first." It was then coming on tolerably late, and then we went down the lane, and Mrs. Blight was not then gone to bed, and he then went into Mr. Letcher's again; he did not stop there long, but I heard him say "Good night," and after a brave bit afterwards, I don't know what time it was, he came out and stopped a bit, and then went down the lane when she was gone to bed. We went the lower side of the pigs' house and looked over the hedge and took hold of a tree, and then went in. I stayed at the back door, and the dog was at the back door; he knew my voice, and then Kernick said, "Let me see your knife," and I stayed at the back door, and he went in through the window. There were three or four pitchers in the window; he took them out and put them down, and when he was going in he said, "I would as soon work a core as do this;" and then he was in there a brave bit, and I do not think he could find the door of the shop, I said, "Bill, I shall not stop here any longer," and he said "I shall be out in a minute; and then he came out of the shop door and came down and hollowed, "Robert, I am out; and I came up to him and asked him what he was going to do with the money, and he said "damn me, I'll find enough to do with it;" and he said "you must not have any before it is all gone quiet." Then he went towards his own house, and I went home. On Tuesday I asked him what he was going to do with it; he said, "you must not have any until it is all gone quiet for a fortnight or three weeks." The same day he went into the public-house, and I went in a little while after and sat down, and he asked whether I would have a glass of beer, and I said, "No, I shall not drink any beer." He said it would not do to give me any silver, but offered me three halfpence to buy some tobacco. Kernick's Statement:- I have heard Aver's statement, it is all untrue. Mr. Stock addressed the jury for the defence of Kernick, submitting that as against him there was no evidence at all, except that of the woman Solomon, and that he insisted was unworthy of credit. The learned Judge summed up much to the same effect. At twenty minutes to five, the jury retired for consultation, and after absence of an hour, during which another jury was sworn and other cases proceeded with, they returned into Court, unable to agree on a verdict. The learned Judge again reminded them that they must wholly disregard the statement of one prisoner against another, and therefore, although Aver stood self-convicted, his evidence against Kernick was of no value; the case against Kernick rested wholly on the evidence of the woman Solomon; this evidence, accordingly, the Judge read over and commented on again, unfavourably to the woman's credit; and in conclusion he told the Jury that they must give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt they might have. Hereupon, the jury, after brief re-consideration found Aver Guilty, with recommendation to mercy on account of his youth, and Kernick Not Guilty. It was stated that Aver had been once summarily convicted under the Juvenile Offenders Act. Sentence was deferred. RICHARD MAY, a young boy, and MICHAEL O'BRIEN rag-gatherer, aged 45, were charged with stealing two quart pewter measures and four pint pewter measures, and some parts of brass cocks, the property of SAMUEL TRELIVING at Calstock, on or about the 26th of June. O'Brien was charged, in a second court, with feloniously receiving. May pleaded Guilty of stealing; and, after trial, O'Brien was found Guilty of feloniously receiving. Sentences were deferred. The property was stolen from the Steam Packet Inn, in Calstock, which, being unoccupied was in charge of Mr. JOEL DOWN, mason, of Calstock, as agent for the owner, Mr. Samuel Treliving. The stolen property was disposed of by O'Brien to JOHN ROAN, a store dealer in Plymouth; and the detection of the accused was effected by police serjeant PAPPIN, of the Callington district; while the identification of the property was made in court, by Mrs. PHILIPS, wife of Mr. JOSEPH HENRY PHILIPS, now of Plymouth, but formerly occupying the Steam Packet Inn at Calstock. MARY ANN FIELDING, 29, pleaded Guilty of stealing a handkerchief, the property of JOSEPH KITTO, at Antony. Sentence deferred. MARK MINERS, 13, pleaded Guilty of stealing the sum of GBP1. 9s. and a leather purse, at St. Agnes on the 30th of June. NISI PRIUS COURT - COLLINS v. SYMONS - Mr. COLLIER, Q.C., and Mr. COLERIDGE having opened the pleadings, Mr. Collier stated the case. The plaintiff was a carpenter and joiner at Wadebridge, and the defendant was formerly a servant of the late Sir WILLIAM MOLSEWORTH. In the year 1850, defendant applied to plaintiff to take his son as an apprentice. Plaintiff was at first reluctant, but afterwards agreed to do so, and defendant's son entered into his service in 1851. An indenture of apprenticeship was executed; defendant's son was bound for seven years from the 3rd of March, 1851, and the term expired on the 3rd of March, 1858. He remained with plaintiff 4 1/2 years; plaintiff had taught him his business, he was an intelligent youth, and was become of much use to his master. In August 1855, he absconded, and his master had never seen him since. He was worth at that time 13s. a week to his master, who had then some heavy contracts. Plaintiff applied to the lad's father, and got nothing but evasive answers. He told his father he was answerable for the boy's remaining, and that if the boy stayed away, he (the father) would have to pay for it. The father said he would not pay a farthing. Since then the plaintiff had learnt that the lad had been in London earning good wages, and had afterwards gone to America. Plaintiff believed the father knew of his son's going away, and he now claimed from the defendant for the loss of his son's time and labour, the sum of GBP94. 5s. There had been certain sums agreed to be paid annually by plaintiff to the lad's parents, and deducting those sums the amount claimed would be GBP71.5s. JOHN COLLINS, the plaintiff, was then called, and said the terms upon which he agreed with AARON SYMONS to take his son John were set down in the deed of indenture. He was here asked by Mr. COLE (for the defendant) whether he would swear that the words "and to be answerable for the presence of the aforesaid apprentice during the said term" were in the indenture when it was signed by the parties. Plaintiff said he would swear those words were there then. Defendant's son was with him from February 1851 to August 1855. He had not seen him since. He made inquiry of defendant, who spoke to him in an improper manner, such as led plaintiff to think defendant knew where his boy was gone. Plaintiff said, "well, remember you are responsible for his presence, and if you don't get him, I shall make you pay for it." Defendant said he should not try to get him, and he should never pay a farthing. Plaintiff heard after some months where he was, and tried to get him back, but failed, and the lad went to America. Defendant applied to buy the boy's time out just before the 12th of August, 1855, when the boy left. The boy was worth 13s. a week when he absconded; he was a week when he absconded; he was a clever boy, and very useful. Plaintiff's claim was made up as follows:- from August, 12th, 1855 to March 3rd, 1856, 29 weeks at 13s. GBP18.7s.; to March 3rd, 1856, to March 3rd, 1857, 52 weeks at 14s.; GBP36. 8s.; and from that time to March 3rd, 1858, 52 weeks at 15s., GBP39. Plaintiff said the boy was worth a great deal more than that to him. The deductions for what plaintiff had to pay to the parents during that time, amounted to GBP13. On cross-examination, plaintiff said he never struck the boy but once; he then gave him a "clout" in the head; he believed that was before he was bound. He never struck him with a hammer, or threw a hammer at him. He kept him up half the night sometimes, making coffins, and paid 2 1/2. Per hour for overtime. Sometimes that was set against holiday time which he had. In the 4 1/2 years he had lost 52 1/2 days. At one time he cut off the top of his thumb, or pulled it off; he then lost three weeks; he did not do it in plaintiff's work; he had that time to make up. He gave him a holiday twice a year, on Christmas-day and Good Friday. Plaintiff found defendant was going to America, and arrested him under a Judge's order, for a claim of GBP94. Defendant had been in prison about three months. Re-examined: The apprentices would ask for holidays, and sometimes plaintiff would grant them, on condition that they worked the time up again. He had made no claim for the 52 days. The making of coffins was of great urgency, and required working extra hours; he had paid the boy for extra hours. ROBERT LEWIS MARSHALL, a coach-builder and carpenter, at Lanivet thought plaintiff's estimate at 13s. a week for a useful apprentice in his fifth year was reasonable. In the sixth and seventh years such an apprentice would be worth 2s. 9d. and 3s. a day. Mr. Cole addressed the jury for the defence, stating that the defendant was a respectable man who had been in the service of the late Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH for a long period. It was a very hard case. The boy had been ill-treated and had absconded. The father knew nothing about it, yet by the terms of the indenture he was liable. Plaintiff had sworn he owed him GBP94, had obtained a Judge's order, got him arrested when he was going in a van from Bodmin to Plymouth to emigrate to America, and defendant had been in gaol three months. The action might have been brought in the County Court, instead of incurring the expense of the superior court. The boy had a hard taskmaster; he had to work up the three weeks he was idle from chopping his thumb: he should call tradesmen to show that 7s. a week was quite enough for such a boy. He then called AARON SYMONS, the defendant, who said he knew nothing of his boy's intention to leave; he did not know where he was till nine months afterwards. He endeavoured to get him back, but the goy gave him reasons for not coming back. He went to America; defendant did not give him money to go. No claim was made upon defendant before he was arrested. He had been in jail up to that morning, and was In custody now. He had lost his freight for passage to America in consequence of being arrested; he was a married man, had sold his furniture, and had no place to go to. Cross-examined: Plaintiff did not tell him he would have to pay for his boy going away. He did not apply to buy out the rest of his time: what passed was between his son and plaintiff; his son used to come home and spit blood. JOHN BRAY, master carpenter and builder at Bodmin, thought GBP20 would be a fair compensation for the apprentice's absence. He never found an apprentice to do so well as a journeyman; they were not so interested in the work; a master had to provide tools for the apprentice. RICHARD MARKS, cabinet maker, Bodmin, could get many a young man for 7s. a week after serving the whole of his time. They were not generally competent when they were out of their time, without further work and instruction. Mr. Cole replied, admitting that the verdict must be for the plaintiff, but saying that the hardship of the case was such that the damages should be reduced to a very small amount. Mr. Collier addressed the jury, denying that there was any foundation for saying that the lad was ill-treated. None of the other apprentices had been called to show that. It suited the father that his son should go away, because the father had no longer to pay for his board and lodging. No doubt the son was making good wages in America, and the father was going out there to join him. The case could not be taken into the county court, because the claim was beyond the amount. If Symons had not been arrested, plaintiff would have got nothing. The learned Judge then summed up stating that the verdict must be for plaintiff, and that the question was simply one of damages. After some consideration the jury gave a verdict for plaintiff for GBP40, clear of deductions. PHILLIPS v. BALL and OTHERS - Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH, Q.C., and Mr. KARSLAKE; attorney, Mr. GILL. Counsel for the defendants, Mr. SERJEANT KINSLAKE and Mr. KINGDON; attorneys, Messrs. COMMINS and SON. Mr. Karslake opened the pleadings. JOSEPH PHILLIPS was the plaintiff; and AGNES BALL, LAVINIA VIAN, RICHARD WILLIAMS, JOSEPH ROBINS, and WILLIAM BENNALLACK were the defendants. The action was one of ejectment, brought to recover possession of certain premises at St. Austell, and the defendants occupy different parts of those premises. Mr. Montague Smith stated the case to the jury. The plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Phillips, had brought this action of ejectment to recover possession of property at St. Austell, consisting of the Red Lion public-house, other houses, and some fields. The case, he believed, was defended by the landlord, or some persons who claimed under the title of Mr. FLAMANK, deceased. The property is a copyhold of the manor of Treverbyn Courtenay, which was part of the possessions of the Duke of Cornwall; and the plaintiff claimed under a copy of court roll dated 15th April, 1797. By the custom of the manor, it appeared that grants were made by the Duke of Cornwall for lives, to certain persons to hold successively one after the other; and the widow of any tenant who died in possession, was also entitled to hold the copyhold during her widowhood, and to protect the morals of the manor it was to be, "during her chaste widowhood." The copyhold tenement in question was formerly held by a family called Williams, and he would explain how it came into the hands of Phillips. The question of title, however, would be more for his lordship than for the jury, inasmuch as it was connected with the copies of court rolls, and there would be the question as to the custom of the manor, and the power of any tenant to surrender his copyhold. It appeared that Richard Williams became possessed of this copyhold tenement in 1762. ANN WALLIS and Richard Williams the younger were granted for their lives and the longest liver of them successively, in reversion of JOHN WALLIS, on the 11th of November, 1762, "and thereon Ann Wallis and Richard Williams the younger were admitted tenants in reversion according to the custom of the said manor, and their fealties were respited until their particular estates happen." There were courts held within the manor from time to time, and presentments were made by the juries of those courts of the deaths of the tenants and the persons entitled in succession. After this grant in 1762, there was a presentment of the jury of a court held on the 19th June 1778, when they presented the deaths of Ann Wallis and John Wallis, "and that on the death of the survivor, the said tenements or cottages descended to Richard Williams, of St. Austell, now the only life on the premises." Then on the 6th of August, 1769, Richard Williams, of St. Austell, took of the lord of the manor, by delivery of the steward, the tenement in question, for the lives of Richard, son of Richard Williams, aged about nine months, and Mary his daughter, aged about three years, by nomination of Richard Williams the father, to hold for their lives and the life of the longest liver of them successively, in reversion of the said Richard Williams, according to the custom of the manor, under the old yearly rent of 8s. 6d. That was a grant made to Richard and Mary, the son and daughter of Richard Williams, and in reversion of the estate which Richard the father held. Now in 1784, Richard the father died, and left a widow, Elizabeth, who by the custom of the manor became entitled to the tenement during her widowhood. So far the title was plain. Then it appeared that on the 19th of January, 1786, Elizabeth, the widow, surrendered the tenement and took a fresh grant. If she had married she would have forfeited it, and this surrender seems to have been made to avoid the forfeiture. The lord allowed her to make the surrender, and then there was a grant by the lord for the lives of Joseph Phillips, late of Redruth, tinner, aged 30 years, and Richard Williams aged about 7 years, and Mary aged about 10 years, the son and daughter of Richard Williams, deceased (entitled under the former grant), and it went on to say, "and thereupon the said Elizabeth Williams is admitted tenant, and the said Richard Williams and Mary Williams are admitted tenants, for their lives successively, according to the custom of the said manor, and their fealties are respited until their particular estates shall respectively happen." Shortly after this grant, Elizabeth Williams, the widow, married Joseph Phillips, of Redruth, one of the persons mentioned in the grant of 1786, and she had children by that marriage, one of whom was the plaintiff, Joseph Phillips. Then, on the 27th of September, 1792, the jury at a court presented the death of Elizabeth Phillips, wife of Joseph Phillips, "who died tenant for her own life of the premises, and that her husband Joseph Phillips (late of Redruth), was entitled to the same for his own life, being the next life named in the court roll of this manor, and that he is admitted and taken tenant of the same." Then, in 1797, April 15th, Joseph Phillips made three surrenders, one of which related to this property, and Joseph Phillips again took the same premises "for the lives of the said Joseph Phillips, aged about 43 years, Joseph Phillips, his son (the present plaintiff), aged about 9 years, and ELIZA PHILLIPS, his daughter, aged about 4 years, the lord of the manor of such estate and entry to have GBP80, "and thereupon the said Joseph Phillips was admitted tenant and did his fealty, and the said Joseph Phillips, his son, and Eliza Phillips, his daughter, were admitted tenants for their lives successively, according to the custom of the manor, and their fealties were respited until their respective estates should respectively happen." That being the copy of court roll under which the plaintiff claimed, he (Mr. M. Smith) would now call the attention of the jury to the subsequent transactions. It appeared that in 1799, Mr. Flamank purchased of the Duke of Cornwall the freehold and reversion of these copyhold tenements, and by the covenant under which he purchased, the purchase was made expressly subject to the last grant to Joseph Phillips, of April 15th, 1797. The purchase was carried out by the Surveyor-General of the duchy under an act of Parliament. Mr. Flamank having the reversion, Joseph Phillips, the father, sold his interest in this copyhold tenement to Mr. Flamank, and by deed dated December 13th, 1803, he conveyed to Mr. Flamank the copyhold as far as he could convey it. Now, on the part of plaintiff, it is said that Joseph Phillips, plaintiff's father, could not be that sale, or surrender, or conveyance, affect the plaintiff's interest; but that his interest survived by the copy of court roll of 1797. It became, then, necessary to consider when the right of the plaintiff accrued as a right in possession. It did not accrue till the death of a person called CATHRINE WILLIAMS, who was the wife of Richard Williams, the son, who was entitled under the grant of 1786, and the former grant of 1775. In the subsequent grant to Elizabeth Williams, the interests of the children she had by her previous marriage, were disregarded, but it appeared those were to good outstanding estates, and that the grant to Joseph Phillips, in 1797, could only be possessed after the lives of those two children, Richard and Mary Williams, were disposed of. Accordingly, in 1817, Richard Williams claimed under the former grant, and filed a bill against Mr. Flamank to establish his right to the tenements. Mr. Flamank had no defence, and there was a deed of arrangement entered into on the 5th of September, 1817, by which some conveyance was made to Mr. Flamank, and by which, in lieu of their copyhold interest during their lifetime, Richard Williams was to receive an annuity of GBP90 a-years, and his wife, Catherine, who would be entitled during widowhood, was to received GBP60 a-year. Richard Williams's sister, Mary, was out of the case, because she died in 1809. So that during a very considerable period, the estate which intervened between Joseph Phillips, the present claimant, and his right to immediate possession was that of Richard Williams and Catherine, his wife, who became a widow, and did not die till March, 1857. He (Mr. M. Smith) should prove these facts, and the custom of the manor by the court rolls. He believed his friend, on behalf of the defence, would endeavour to set up some custom, to the effect that when there was a grant to three persons in succession, the first life might surrender the whole copyhold, so as to deprive the lives in succession of the life estates after him. He believed, however, that the court rolls of this manor, from the earliest times for which they could be found, entirely negative the existence of any such custom, but showed that each tenant was to hold one after the other in succession and that one could not interfere with the rights of another. A considerable amount of documentary evidence was then put in, consisting of court tolls and deeds. Some conversation took place between the learned Judge and the counsel, and various admissions were made in order that the case might go before the Court of Common Pleas. It was admitted that Mr. William Flamank, the purchaser, and Mr. Joseph Phillips were both of the homage of the courts mentioned in the admissions. It was admitted that Mr. Flamank died on the 16th October, 1810; that the defendants are tenants of the devisees named in the will of Mr. Flamank; and that the devisees had received the rents since the time of his death. It was stated that there was no court roll of the manor extant previous to 1628. The cost of Mr. Flamank's purchase was GBP1000. Mr. Commins, sen., solicitor, was called by Serjeant Kinglake in reference to the execution of the deed of arrangement referred to by Mr. M. Smith, and which was amongst the documents put in. Witness was one of the parties to the deed, and was called with the view of showing that Mr. JOSEPH EDYVEAN FLAMANK, another of the parties to the deed, was not in a state of mind to know what he was doing when he signed it, and that a commission of lunacy was issued against him directly afterwards. On Cross-examination, Mr. Commins was asked if he would swear that Mr J. E. Flamank was a lunatic when he signed the deed? He replied that he would not say if he was or not, he thought he was in a state of imbecility. The learned Judge, addressing the jury, then said - Gentlemen: you will be so good as to return your verdict, as a matter of form, for the plaintiff. The case involves several points of law of some nicety and delicacy, and it is agreed that the case be taken to the court from which the record is issued. A verdict was then given for the plaintiff, with leave to the defendant to move to enter a verdict for the defendant; the court to draw such inferences as a jury would have drawn, and if then the verdict stands for the plaintiff, the verdict to be entered for mesne profits at the rate of GBP105 per annum, from February, 1857.