TRIAL OF PRISONERS - FANNY REYNALDS, 29, was charged with stealing a cheque for GBP3. 16s. 7d., two sovereigns and other money, from the person of RALPH STEPHENS. LOUISA BONDS, 30, was charged with receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. HOLDSWORTH conducted the prosecution. Ralph Stephens said he is a farmer in the parish of Perranarworthal. On the 28th of July he went to Truro to collect some rates. He received from Mr. GUNN, the steward of Lord Falmouth, a cheque for GBP3. 16s. 7d. for wayrates. He received the cheque between four and five o'clock, and put it in his canvas bag. He also received from the assistant clerk of the Truro Union two sovereigns, half-a-sovereign, four or five half-crowns, a fourpenny piece and a sixpence. He put that in the same bag, and had 8s. besides, making altogether GBP3. 5s. 10d. besides the cheque. In the evening he was at the King's Head, Lemon Street, and left there about half-past ten. His bag and money were then in the breast pocket of his coat. He was going up Lemon Street, when the woman Fanny Reynolds spoke to him, and asked him to go with her. He refused, and said "be off." She then caught him round the waist and put her hand in his pocket, and pulled out his bag and ran away. He went into the public-house and said he was robbed, and then went to the police station and told Mr. NASH, the police superintendent, of the robbery. JAMES BRYANT, a little boy, was going to the King's Head for some beer about eleven o'clock, and saw Fanny Reynalds in the street with her arm round a man's waist. He went into the King's Head, and a man came in and said he had been robbed. Police Sergeant WOOLCOCK, of the Truro police, said he received information of the robbery, and went between one and two o'clock in the morning to the house of Fanny Reynalds who keeps a brother. He called her and she came down stairs. He examined the fire-place, and saw what appeared to be the remains of a canvas bag on the top of the coals. He searched the house, but found only a sixpence, which was in Reynalds's pocket. He asked her some questions, and then went to Louisa Bonds's who keeps a house of the same king, and is a companion of Reynalds. Bonds said she left Reynalds about half-past eleven the previous night; she denied that Reynalds had given her any money; she said she might have a trifle in the house. Witness told her of the charge against Reynolds, and he must search the house, and he and police-constable NORTHEY proceeded to do so. They did not find any money downstairs, but found up-stairs a half-sovereign, two sixpences, and a fourpenny-piece on the table. Witness asked her if she had any more; she then produced a sixpence and two threepenny-pieces from her pocket. They then searched two or three of her boxes, and in one found a handkerchief containing two sovereigns, five half-crowns and a sixpence. He left her in custody of constable Northey, and then went back to Reynalds and asked her what money she had given "Frenchy," the name by which Bonds was know. She considered a moment, and said she gave her about GBP3. Police constable Northey gave corroborative evidence. The learned Judge having summed up, the jury found the prisoners Guilty. Sentence, each Six Months' Hard Labour. ANN O'SULLIVAN, 25, was charged with burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of JOSEPH TAMBLINSON, at Sheviock, and stealing two currant cakes. Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the prosecution; Mr. COX for the prisoner. About six in the evening of the 26th of May, prosecutor left his house, and returned at eleven o'clock, and he went round to the back door, which was left on the latch. As he was passing the back-kitchen window he saw a light, but it was put out when he entered. He called out "who is here," but there was no answer. It was a dusky light, and he saw the likeness of some person near the back-kitchen table. He found it was a female, partly undressed. He put out his hand, and it came down on her shoulder. He said, "who is this," and the answer was, "it's me, sir." He heard it was the voice of Mary, an Irish servant who had lived in his house about nine months previously. She had no cap, gown, or shoes on. She got out of the house and tried to escape; he pursued and brought her back; she said she had come into the house to have something to eat, and to lie down. She was taking things out of the cupboard when prosecutor passed the back-kitchen; he then thought it was one of the servants. It was found subsequently that she had taken two cakes. Mrs. MARIA TAMBLINSON stated that the back-kitchen window was fastened when she went to bed. About twenty minutes afterwards she heard a smash of glass, but thought it was her husband who had come home. After her husband had found the prisoner in the house, witness came down stairs, and found the back-kitchen casement open, and one of the panes broken, which would enable prisoner to open the window. Mr. Cox addressed the jury, submitting that there was no felonious intent on the part of the prisoner. Verdict, Guilty, but recommended to mercy. Sentence deferred. CROWN COURT, Tuesday August 3. (Before Mr. BARON WATSON.) - Three or four young prisoners who had been convicted on the previous day, were placed at the bar this morning to receive sentence. The learned Judge asked if there was a Reformatory in the county, and Mr. EVEREST, the governor of the county prison, said there was not. WILLIAM PHILIP AVER, 13 years of age, had been convicted of burglary in the dwelling-house of MARY ANN BLIGHT, at St. Agnes, and stealing GBP2. 10s. and some foreign coin. The learned Judge said: You have been imprisoned and kept to hard labour, and received a whipping on a former occasion, and that you are a very bad boy there can be no question, but I will give you another chance and not send you out of the country, though I am doubtful whether I shall not give you too slight a sentence. He then sentenced him to twelve months' hard labour, and to be twice whipped, once publicly and once privately. The learned Judge subsequently remitted the whipping, saying (as we understood) that there was some difficulty about carrying it out. RICHARD MAY, a lad who had been found guilty of stealing, and MICHAEL O'BRIAN, convicted of receiving pewter measures stolen at Calstock, were next sentenced. Addressing May, the learned Judge said: I am very sorry there is not a Reformatory in this county; if there was, I would have sent you there, and you might have corrected your bad associations. He then sentenced each prisoner to One Month's Hard Labour. MARK MINERS, 13, found Guilty yesterday of stealing money at St. Agnes, was sentenced to One Month's Hard Labour. MARY ANN FIELDING, 29, convicted on Monday of stealing a handkerchief at Antony, was sentenced to One Fortnight's Hard Labour. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER, AT CHACEWATER - EMMA RICHARDS, 30 described on the calendar as a needlewoman, was indicted for the wilful murder of her male child, at the parish of Kenwyn. She was also charged with the same offence on the coroner's inquisition. On being arraigned, the prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The following were the jury sworn to try the case: - THOMAS SHEPHERD, foreman, RICHARD JAMES, JOHN CARAH, THOMAS IVEY, RICHARD HARRIS, JOHN COLE SIMMONS, THOMAS HICKS, THOMAS THOMAS, CHARLES OSBORNE, JOHN MICHELL, JOHN BERRYMAN, and JOHN HEARLE. Mr. COLE was the counsel for the prosecution, and Mr. STOCK for the defence. Mr. Cole addressed the jury on the serious nature of the charge, and stated the facts of the case. He then called the following witnesses. ELIZABEH LEAN said:- The prisoner is my sister; we reside in the same courtlage at Chacewater; she has been a widow three years and three months. Before the 5th of April I knew she was in the family way. The was on Monday; in the morning I was at my sister's house, and my brother's little boy came with a message about half-past one. In consequence I went to my sister's directly; looked into her bedroom and saw her standing against the bed, leaning forward. I asked her what was the matter; she cried, and told me to go in and call Catherine. I thought she was in labour, and went for Catherine, and sent her to the prisoner; I went on to fetch HARRIET DABB, and returned with her. I then saw the baby lying on the foot of the bed wrapped up. I had not been absent more than ten minutes. My sister was standing against the bed when I returned. We helped her into the bed and attended to her. I did not examine the baby. I saw Harriet Dabb wash it and dress it and put it in bed with the mother. I was in the house all the time, from two o'clock till five; I went down to get some tea, but was in the room all the rest of the time; when I went down to get tea, no one was left in the room but my sister. About five o'clock I observed some yellow matter stuff come out of the baby's moth; it was upon the baby's robe. I saw nothing else about the child; did not look at its mouth. I saw Catherine Lean take the child up; did not see anything then more than upon the robe before. In consequent of that we sent for the doctor. I believe he came about six o'clock; I was not in the house when he came. I saw Harriet Dabb try to feed it the first time with sugar and water about half an hour after it was born; the child would not take anything; it was a very weakly child. On the next day (Tuesday) I was at the house; did not observe anything particular on that day. On Wednesday my sister called me upstairs about three o'clock in the afternoon; she asked me to take it out of bed; I said I should not, but should call Catherine, my sister-in-law. The mother said she did not know the reason it was so weak; she did not say anything about its throat. Catherine Lean came immediately and took out the child, she said she thought it was dying. I went to JANE WARNE's, and on returning found the baby in the bed. I went and looked at it, and found it greatly altered. I told her I thought it was greatly altered or dying, and I went in and called Catherine. After the baby was dead I again saw it; that was not more than a minute or two after I called Catherine. After the baby was dead I again saw it; that was not more than a minute or two after I called Catherine. Mr. MOYLE came and saw the child after it was dead. Cross-examined by Mr. Stock: My sister had two children by her marriage, and took care of a third child by another person. I know the person who was reputed to be the father of this child; he is a person in good circumstances. Harriet Dabb is a person who attends women in labour. I know that my sister when she was confined had a quantity of baby linen; it was washed and prepared for her confinement. I did not at any time try to feed the child. Harriet Dabb tried about half an hour after it was born, and several times attempts were made to feed it with sugar and water, but it never took anything. Harriet Dabb and Catherine Lean tried several times to fee the baby before I went down to get the tea. They tried to feed it with a spoon. By the Judge: It was about three o'clock that I went down to get tea. CATHERINE LEAN: I am sister-in-law of Emma Richards; remember Elizabeth Lean calling me to go to Emma Richards's house; she was then calling for help and leaning on the bed with her clothes on. I saw the baby in the chamber utensils, the head up. I took it up and placed it on some woollen on the bed. Harriet Dabb and Elizabeth Lean then came in, and we three women assisted her into bed. The child appeared very weak when I took it up. I was in the room when it was washed by Harriet Dabb. I fetched Mr. Moyle because I thought the baby was very weak, and it was proper Mr. Moyle should come. I saw a little matter about the baby's mouth. I saw Harriet Dabb offer the child water and sugar, after she had washed and dressed it; I saw her do that once. When I came from Mr. Moyle's, I went in and spoke to Emma Richards; she seemed very weak; the child was then in the bed. I never attempted to feed it. I saw the baby again on the Tuesday; it seemed very weak; I saw nothing particular about any part of it. On Wednesday about three in the afternoon, Elizabeth Lean said the baby was very weak, and she thought it was dying. I took up the child and placed it on my lap about ten minutes; did not do anything to it; placed it in bed by its mother. In about half-an-hour Elizabeth Lean called me again; the baby was then dead. Cross-examined: I was confined on the 18th March last; Harriet Dabb attended me; Emma Richards came to see me; I heard Mrs. Dabb say to Emma Richards, "I suppose you will be next." Emma Richards said, "if I sent for you, will you come to me." Mrs. Dabb said she would. I went for Mr. Moyle about five o'clock; before that, I went into my own house directly after Harriet Dabb had washed and dressed the child. By the Judge: I have had two children; given them sugar and water as the first thing after they are born; a healthy child will generally take it. Harriet Dabb: I am a married woman, and nursed the last witness. On the 5th of April I was fetched to attend Emma Richards about two o'clock. I helped the woman into bed, and then took the baby to wash and dress it; it was at the foot of the bed wrapped up in woollen. I saw it appeared very weak; it had a very weak low cry. I secured the cord before washing and dressing it. I offered it sugar and water after washing it; I put it inside its lips with a little spoon, but it did not appear to swallow; it appeared trying to swallow and could not. I did not put the spoon into the child's mouth, but just inside the lip. I then put the baby by the right side of the mother in bed; did not observe anything about the child's mouth or dress. I then left the house, and returned about eight o'clock the same evening, and took the baby out of bed; did not then observe anything; the child had a very weak cry, as in the morning. I attempted to fee it with the same spoon; the child would not then take the sugar and water. I did not put the spoon inside its mouth; it did not appear to swallow at all. I did not see the mother attempt to suckle the child. I saw it again next day in the forenoon; washed and dressed it and tried to give it sugar and water again, but it did not swallow any. I saw something of a stain with matter; I did not take much notice of it. I said either to Elizabeth or Catherine Lean, how came this here, and the answer was, "it came from its mouth." JOHN MOYLE: I am a surgeon at Chacewater, and have practised for 24 years. On Monday the 5th of April I was called on by Catherine Lean, and about six o'clock the same evening I went to the house of Emma Richards, and found both mother and child in bed. My attention was first directed to a spot of florid blood mixed with saliva on the left breast of the child's robe. I satisfied myself that it did not come from the umbilical cord being insecurely tied, as happens sometimes in the country. I asked the mother if the stain could have come accidentally from any portion of her dress, and she said no. On looking closely at the child's face, I observed blood mixed with saliva coming from its moth. I attempted to examine its moth with a broken metal teaspoon, but was unable to discover any abrasion or laceration. I could not see more than an inch into the child's mouth. I asked if the child had been fed, and was told (I think by Catherine Lean) that they had made several ineffectual attempts to give it sugar and water. I asked for sugar and water, and attempted to give it some myself; the child would not take it, but forced it out of its mouth tinged with blood. I then left the house, and saw no more of the child till after its death. On Wednesday evening, Elizabeth Lean came to me about six o'clock, and I saw the child the same evening. I made a superficial external examination that night, and observed nothing of a suspicious character. I attended the inquest next day, and by direction of the coroner made a post mortem examination. I was again unable to discover any external mark of violence; it was a fully developed child, and was born at the full period. I next proceeded to examine it internally, and first directed my attention to the mouth by dividing the lip, the flesh of the chin, and the lower jawbone. On depressing the portions of the lower jaw and the tongue, and looking into the mouth, far back on the left side of the roof of the mouth there was a small oval spot about one eighth of an inch in diameter. Its centre was of an ash-grey colour, with raised and inflamed edges, and from which the mucous membrane had been removed. Mr. Cole: How had that been removed? Witness: By some hard body coming in contact with it. I then cut through the fleshy attachments on the inside of the left portion of the lower jaw, pulled down the tongue, and saw on the right side at its root three oval wounds, the centre one of which was large enough for me to insert the tip of my little finger into. The other two wounds were one before and the other behind the middle one. I then divided the muscular attachments on that side of the jaw, and found that what appeared to be three wounds, when the parts were in their natural position was in reality one would having raised and ragged edges and surrounded by a broad patch of inflammation. The wound was about five-eighths of an inch long and three-eighths broad. Mr. Cole: What would be the distance of the wound from the gum of the child? Witness: I did not measure it, but should suppose it was from 2 to 2 1/4 inches. Mr. Cole: In your judgment could it have been produced by attempts to feed the child with a spoon? Witness: Certainly not; it must have been produced by some body being put into the mouth. Mr. Cole: Could you say whether it must have been a hard body; could a finger have done it? Witness: The impression I came to was that a finger had done it. The Judge: But could anything else have done it? Witness: It could, but from the nature and character of the wounds, and their shape, my impression was that they might have been caused by a finger. Mr. Cole: Is that your impression still? Witness: It is. Mr. Cole: Having made examinations on two days, to what do you attribute the death of the child? Witness: To suffocation, the result of inflammation caused by the injuries before described about the mouth, the one under the tongue especially. Cross-examined by Mr. Stock: I saw the prisoner's brother last March, when his wife was confined. On that occasion I had some conversation with him about the prisoner being with child. When I first saw blood and saliva issuing from the child's mouth, I did not consider those symptoms were of a serious nature. I did not make any inquiries as to the manner in which the child was delivered. The wounds could not have been inflicted in self-delivery by the woman, if the delivery was in the natural position; there are very many in a different position. Mr. Stock : Suppose an unnatural presentation, might not the mother in her struggles without assistance, get her finger into the infant's mouth? Witness: She might do so certainly, but it would not be so far back, and there would be corresponding external marks. Mr. Stock: As I understand you, the wound was only 2 inches to 2 1/2 inches back, and the length of the human finger is more than that? Witness: It is. Then it would be possible for a finger to reach so far? It would certainly. Then I collect that in your opinion it would not reach so far when the process of labour was going on? I think not. The witness was asked questions respecting the appearances of the lungs and liver of the child, and on the question of death by suffocation, said he did not observe any livid appearance about the head and face. From the appearance of the umbilical cord he thought there had been considerable loss of blood; that might cause the death of a weakly child. On re-examination by Mr. Cole, the witness said: In my judgment the state of the liver had nothing to do with the cause of death. Mr. Cole: Would you expect, in the case of a weakly child dying from suffocation, to see lividity of the face? Witness: Not so much as I should in a strong one. Would that appearance vary by reason of the time the child was dying by suffocation? Yes, it would vary through time and also the position of the child. According to your judgment, suffocation was produced in this case very slowly? Yes, gradually increasing until the glottis was closed and the air could not pass. At the close of his evidence Mr. Moyle said: May I be allowed to address the court in favour of the prisoner. I have known her from a child, and up to this period she has borne an irreproachable character; she has lived within a hundred yards of my house. The Judge: Her family seems to be respectable? Mr. Moyle: They are, my lord. EDWARD JOHN SPRY: I am a surgeon, and have been in practice at Truro about thirty years. On the 9th of April, at the request of the coroner, I examined this child. Witness said he had heard Mr. Moyle's evidence, and could confirm it as far as it went. He also described the would at the root of the tongue, and the changes produced. He said, these are changes which denote the existence of active inflammation for a considerable time, and my opinion is that the child died from suffocation, the result of inflammation set up by the injury done to the root of the tongue where it joins the windpipe. Mr. Cole: How might such a wound have been caused? Witness: By any instrument such as a finger, or any blunt instrument sufficiently hard to tear through the lining of the mouth; it was not done by any sharp instrument. The smaller wound in the roof of the mouth was evidently also occasioned by pressure of some hard substance, sufficiently hard to detach the lining membrane from the palate, and to set up inflammation around it as described. Mr. Stock said he should not ask the witness any questions. JOSEPH HIGMAN produced the robe of the child, which was identified by Elizabeth Lean. This was the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Stock, addressing the learned Judge said, I don't know whether your lordship thinks I ought in this case to address the jury. The learned Judge: I cannot say there is no evidence for the jury, though as regards any motive or suggestion why the woman should destroy the child, the evidence is all the other way. The question is on the surgeon's evidence. As far as the moral evidence on the subject is concerned, it entirely negatives any idea that the woman put an end to her child; but you must address the jury on the surgeon's evidence. Mr. Stock: I might perhaps ask the jury if they wish me to address them. Gentlemen, do you wish me to address you or not? The Foreman said they did not wish it. The learned Judge: Before you can convict the woman of this act, you must be satisfied that is she did it, she did it with the intention of murdering her child. But the first question is, did she do it all? That respectable gentleman, the surgeon, said children were often suffocated by the mothers overlying them in bed. If the prisoner had wanted to destroy her child, she need not have put her finger in its moth, she would lain it over. Sometimes when a woman was pregnant, she wanted to conceal the birth of her child, and that was a strong circumstance. But it was not so in this base. She had told her sister of it, the surgeon was made acquainted with it in March last, she told the nurse of it and asked her to come, and she prepared the baby linen for the child. The child was delivered as had been described in the room; they offered it soon afterwards sugar and water, it attempted to swallow and could not. When the surgeon came in the evening, he was not surprised at the marks he found; he tried to give the child sugar and water with the same result as the others. When the robe stained with blood was shown the mother, if she had done the act, she would have tried to make some excuse for it; but, instead of doing so, she said it did not come from her person. The injury to the child might have taken place in the course of delivery, or afterwards in moving it, for immediately afterwards it would not swallow. I should feel excessively uncomfortable if the prisoner was convicted on such evidence as we have heard. If, however, you with it, the learned counsel will address you for the defence. The Clerk of Assize: What say you, gentlemen, is the prisoner guilty or not guilty. The Foreman: Not Guilty. The Judge: Let the prisoner be discharged. BURGLARY - RICHARD RASLEIGH was indicted (having before been convicted of felony), for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of FRANCIS HEARLE, at Mawnan, on the 9th of March, and stealing a quantity of plate and other articles. Mr. COX and Mr. POWELL appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. YONGE defended the prisoner. The prosecutor, Mr. Hearle, is an elderly gentleman, living with his wife at a place called Pedenpoll, or Penpoll, in the parish of Mawnan, near Falmouth. Two servants lived in the house, called ELIZABETH PASCOE and FANNY MARTIN. Mr. Hearle also employed some labourers, but they did not live in the house. On the 14th of February, Mr. and Mrs. Hearle went to London, leaving the two female servants in charge of the house. On the 8th of March it was Constantine revel at a village called Durgan three-quarters of a mile from Penpoll going the shortest way, and a mile and three-quarters another way. On Monday evening the 8th of March, Mr. Hearle's two servants went to the revel, leaving no person in the house, and on the following evening they went again. They reached the inn at Durgan at about half-past seven, and saw the prisoner there, but did not speak to him. They left the inn at about eleven o'clock, accompanied by JOHN JENKIN and his wife, and a young man called RUNNALLS, Elizabeth Pascoe said in her evidence when she arrived home the outside door was closed; she unlocked it, and perceiving a draught, saw that a pane was broken in the window, and that a candle and matches she had left on the table were gone. The lobby door was also open. She went into the parlour, and found her master's escritoire and all the drawers open and the drawers of the sideboard. She went to call John Jenkin, their workman, and his wife, and then found the closet at the top of the stairs open, all the boxes open, and the plate gone, the drawer of the wardrobe open, the locks broken, the dressing case open, and the jewels gone from the box. All the keys had been previously locked in the escritoire except two or three small ones. On the lobby table she found a candlestick with a rushlight, in which she had left a wick candle. There was no bottle of brandy in the cupboard after the robbery. John Jenkin, a workman in Mr. Hearle's employ, and living in a cottage close to the house, stated that he was at the revel at Durgan on both evenings, and there was dancing there. On the evening of the 9th, about half-past even, he saw prisoner in the inn at Durgan, and he asked witness if both the girls were coming down that night. He meant the servants to Mr. Hearle's. Witness said they were coming, and they came about half an hour afterwards. He did not see the prisoner there after half-past seven; witness left the inn about eleven o'clock with his wife and Mr. Hearle's two servants. WILLIAM JAMES TROON, carpenter, at Mawnan, was also at the revel on the 9th of March. Witness gave some evidence about some betting in the inn, in which prisoner was concerned, and that he produced a brass box. Witness went into the dancing room, and returned to the kitchen in about a quarter of an hour; prisoner had then left the kitchen, and came in again about eleven o'clock; he said he had been out sleeping on the quay. He seemed sleepy and a little tipsy; it was a hard frost that night. Cross examined: It was about nine o'clock when witness went into the dancing room. Police constable WILLIAM LOBB said he went to an old mine on the 15th March, little more than quarter of a mile from Penpoll, and found there a gold brooch and a brass box in a pit; found also a quantity of plate in chamois leather. (This was identified by Mrs. Hearle.) HENRY BRICE, police superintendent, examined the premises at Penpoll on the 10th March; found the kitchen window broken, and some blood on the wall inside. Two instruments appeared to have been used in breaking open the drawers and boxes, a chisel, and an instrument with a handle. On the 19th of March searched prisoner's house and found a pair of pincers; did not find any chisel; compared the pincers with various marks, which appeared to have been made by the pincers. (Pieces of wood marked had been cut out for the sake of comparison, and were here shown to the jury.) On the 25th of March, prisoner when in custody told witness he borrowed the pincers of CHARLES CHING, of Mawnan, Smith, twelve months ago. He said he did not know the brass box, but he lost one about a fortnight ago. On the 27th when taking prisoner to Helston, he asked were transports were sent to. Witness told him, to different parts. He said, "what do you think I shall be done in this case, do you thing they will transport me?" Witness said he did not know anything about it. Cross-examined: The pincers is a common sized shoemaker's pincers. CYRUS TIPET, police constable, apprehended prisoner on the 18th of March; observed like a scratch that had healed upon his left hand. Saw blood inside the window of the house upon the wall. Prisoner told witness he had lost a brass box in which he kept tinder to light his pipe; he said he lost it about a fortnight before. Mrs. Hearle, wife of prosecutor, said, when she went to London she put some brandy in the sideboard drawer, and locked it. On her return she missed the brandy. JOSIAH MORCOM, labourer, said he had seen the prisoner with a brass box similar to that now produced. The only other evidence in the case was that of THOMAS MARTIN, a county policeman, who, it appeared, in the evening of the 21st of March, when the prisoner was in custody, went into the cell in a working man's dress, with handcuffs on his wrist, and prisoner believing him to be another prisoner, told him that he had committed the robbery, and the way in which he had effected it, not only stating all the particulars which had come out in evidence, but adding other matters respecting the brandy, the candle, the jewels, the chisel, &c. This witness was all night in the cell. The Judge strongly condemned this mode of proceeding, and questioned the policeman, who said his superintendent did not know of his going to the cell until afterwards. It was WILLIAM HICHENS, a policeman of Helston, who suggested to him to go in this way into the cell. Witness said he went into the cell for the purpose of ascertaining whether somebody else was not connected with the prisoner in the robbery; he did not intend to give evidence; he refused to go before the magistrates; he told his story for the first time to Mr. PENDER, the attorney for the prosecution, when he was subpoenaed last Saturday. Mr. Yonge then addressed the jury for the defence, and contended that it was entirely a case of circumstantial evidence, and that the circumstances were insufficient to support the prosecution, apart from the evidence given by the policeman Martin, and he called upon the jury to wholly discredit that evidence. The learned Judge summed up, and pointed out that there was evidence for them to consider independent of that of the policeman who had acted the part of a spy. The other evidence related to the brass box, the pincers, and the scratch. The learned Judge commented on those points, and put it to the jury whether they thought them sufficient to find a verdict against the prisoner; he could not himself make out from those circumstances the guilt of the prisoner. He then made some strong observations on the conduct and evidence of the policeman, saying that in this country we have a detestation of spies or anything like them. He would have a jury to pause before they believed the story of such a man. On the 9th of March he went into the cell; on the 27th the magistrates committed the prisoner; and that man never went before the magistrates. He states that he told the superintendent on the 21st that the prisoner had confessed, though he did not tell the details. The police were at a loss for evidence at that time, and it seemed as if this man came forward to supply it. It was dealing improperly with the course of justice to bring such a man forward at the last moment, and when he had to recollect himself last Sunday, four months after he was in the cell. The case depended almost entirely upon the credit the jury gave to the policeman, and there was no one to contradict him. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the learned Judge said he hoped the magistrates would take notice of this case. The police were a respectable body of men, and he thought when a policeman acted as a spy in this way, it ought to be taken notice of. He then ordered the prisoner to be discharged. MARIA HICK was charged with stealing a purse and 17s. 6d., the property of WILLIAM DONEY, at Bodmin, on the 19th of June. Mr. OXENHAM appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. COLE for the defence. The witnesses called for the prosecution were Mrs. ELIZABETH DONEY, WILLIAM BURTON, a boy ten years of age, NICHOLAS MARSHALL, mason, at Bodmin, ELIZABETH VERRAN, assistant in the shop of Messrs. PASCOE and MARSHALL, drapers, and Mr. Doney the prosecutor. It was endeavoured to be set out, on the part of the prosecution, that Mrs. Doney had dropped her purse in Mr. Pascoe's shop, at Bodmin, and that Mrs. Hick had picked it up and kept it. The learned Judge, in the course of evidence being given, more than once expressed his opinion that there had been some mistake made in the case; and at the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the foreman of the jury intimated that they did not wish Mr. Cole to address them for the defence, and they then gave a verdict of acquittal. Mr. Cole said he was anxious to state, on the part of Mrs. Hick, that he had witnesses in court who could explain or rebut every circumstance that appeared to be suspicious. The learned Judge said there was discrepancy in the evidence, and the charge was evidently a mistake in some way; the parties were both respectable; the prisoner is acquitted and let her be discharged. WILLIAM GRIFFIN, 73, parchment maker, was charged with stealing certain brass, the property of the trustees of the Treffry estate, on the 26th of June. Mr. HOLDSWORTH for the prosecution, and Mr. COLE for the prisoner. THOMAS JEFFERY, a carpenter, employed on the Treffry estates, at granite works, between Luxulyan and Lanlivery, had some brasses delivered to him on the 22nd of June and missed them on the 26th. JOHN GILBERT, a fitter in the employ of Fowey Consols adventurers, cast the brasses which were delivered to the last witness. Some parts of brasses were here produced by a policeman, for the witness to identify; but he failed to identify them to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, who thereupon directed an acquittal. Verdict, Not Guilty. STABBING - WILLIAM JOHNSON, 23, seaman, was indicted for feloniously stabbing THOMAS TOLDEN, another seaman at Falmouth, on the 21st of July, with intent to do him grievous bodily hard. Mr. COX conducted the prosecution. It appeared that the prosecutor, prisoner, and some of prosecutor's shipmates, were in a public-house at Falmouth, and some quarrelling took place between prisoner and one of the other seamen. Prisoner wanted to fight one of the prosecutor's shipmates; he also wanted to fight prosecutor, who told him to come out into the street to fight, and not to make a disturbance in the house. Prosecutor went into the street first; prisoner followed him, and stabbed him in the right knee with a knife. It was a deep would; prosecutor bled very much, and his knee was not yet well. He did not see the knife; he admitted that he drew his own knife; but that was after he was stabbed. Another witness saw prisoner throw his knife over the quay, and it was afterwards found by a boy called Andrew. WILLIAM ROBERTS, a constable of Falmouth, also saw prisoner running away with the knife in his hand. The jury found the prisoner Guilty of the lesser offence of unlawfully wounding. The learned Judge thought the jury had come to a correct conclusion. He could not however, allow it to be understood in this country that the use of the knife was to be passed by without severe punishment. The sentence of the court was that the prisoner be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for Eight Calendar Months. CHARLES HOAL, 30, labourer, was indicted for a bestial offence, against the order of nature, in the parish of Tywardreath, on the 15th of April. Mr. COLE for the prosecution. The offence was proved by JOHN MATTHEWS and several little boys. WILLIAM OSBORNE, one of the principal warders of the county goal, in whose custody the prisoner had been since the 16th of April, was then called and stated that the prisoner was not in a sound state of mine, and was not accountable for his actions. JOHN MATTHEWS also stated that he was not in his right mind, an had been in the lunatic asylum; and the Rev. Mr. GLUBB, who was curate of Tywardreath, gave evidence that the prisoner was imbecile and deranged, and not responsible for his actions. After hearing the summing up of the learned Judge, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, on the ground of insanity. The Judge then ordered the prisoner to be removed and kept in safe custody, until the pleasure of the Crown was made known concerning him. NISI PRIUS COURT - Tuesday, August 3. Before Baron CHANNELL. - At the opening of this Court this morning, ANN SULLIVAN, who had been convicted yesterday, was brought up for judgment. The learned Judge said he had given the case his best consideration since last evening. That the prisoner broke into the house in question, admitted of no doubt; the only question was, whether she did so with intent to commit felony. The Jury, after careful consideration, found that she did. His lordship, however, was willing to believe that her main object was to get a night's lodging, and at the same time she took such provisions as she found in the larder, in order to satisfy the claims of hunger; and as he knew nothing else against her, her sentence would be only One Month's Hard Labour. A special jury was then empanelled, and the cause of IVIMEY and OTHERS v. PASCOE was called on. Mr. COLERIDGE and Mr. KINGDON were counsel for plaintiffs; Mr. M. SMITH, Q.C., and Mr. KARSLAKE for defendant. It had been expected that the case would occupy the Court a considerable time; but, after long consultation between the counsel and attornies, and the Judge, it appeared that an arrangement for an arbitration was agreed to. The jury were then sworn, and, by the direction of the Court, returned a verdict for plaintiff for GBP500, subject to a special case. We understand the case concerns a disputed watercourse for supplying water clayworks and mills, the property of Mr. HENRY LAMBE, of Truro, who is the real defendant; the plaintiffs being the trustees of the Trevanion property, adjoining Mr. Lambe's estates, in the parish of St. Austell, and near the Bugle Inn. The point in dispute has been referred to Mr. BULLER, barrister-at-law, who, we understand, will arbitrate in the case about September next. WEST BASSET and SOUTH FRANCES MINES - LYLE v. RICHARDS and OTHERS - Counsel for plaintiff: Mr. COLLIER, Q.C., Mr. COLERIDGE, and Mr. BULLER. Counsel for defendants: Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH, Q.C., and Mr. KARSLAKE. Attorney for plaintiff: Mr. SMITH, of MINET and SMITH, London, Attorneys for defendants, Messrs. SMITH and ROBERTS, and Messrs. HODGE and HOCKIN, of Truro. Mr. Buller opened the pleadings, stated that JOSEPH LYLE was the plaintiff; and JOHN RICHARDS and others defendants. The action was for breaking and entering a mine known as West Basset Mine, and removing copper ore from it; and there was a second count, charging the defendants with converting copper ore to their own use. The defendants had paid into court GBP525, saying that that was enough to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. The defendants denied this, and this was the issue the jury had to try. Mr. Collier then opened the case on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Lyle, is I believe a gentleman well-known in this county as extensively connected with the mining interest. He is the lessee of the sett called West Basset Mine. The defendants are shareholders in an adjoining mine called South Wheal Frances. Mr. Lyle brings this action against defendants for having gone beyond their boundary and taken a large quantity of ore which belonged to him as lessee of the sett of West Basset. I believe in any view of this case, the plaintiff will be entitled to your verdict; for whatever be the boundary between the two mines, it is beyond all question that the South Frances adventurers have trespassed beyond it, and have taken a large quantity of ore from Mr. Lyle's sett. The defendants, admitting that, have paid a sum of GBP525 into court; but we say that we have sustained damage far beyond that amount. But that is not the only question in the case. There is another question which will be determined by the amount of damages for which your verdict shall be given, viz:- What is the boundary between the two mines? In 1852, Mr. Lyle obtained from Lady BASSET a sett of West Wheal Basset, which in former times had been called Wheal Haste; and the description in that sett I will now read to you. Mr. Collier then read the following description of boundaries, remarking to the jury that the material part for their consideration was the southern boundary. "To be bounded on the north and west by the estate of Bosleake, the property of EDWARD WILLIAM WYNNE PENDARVES, Esq., and the estate of Treskillard, the property of Lord GRENVILLE; on the south by a straight line of about 355 fathoms from JOHN VINCENT's house at the south-west extremity of the sett, to a boundstone at the north-west extremity of South Wheal Basset sett; and from thence eastward by the north side of the road leading to Carnkie, to a boundstone fixed at the south-west corner of North Wh. Basset sett; and from thence due north by the magnet about 170 fathoms to a boundstone fixed at the south-east corner of Bosleake estate; and which said premises are particularly delineated by the map on the back of this sett, and are situate in the parish of Illogan." The south boundary is the only material one in this case; the issue between the parties being, whether the line from the boundstone is to be drawn to the north or to the south of John Vincent's house? We contend that that boundary is on the north. You would hardly suppose that such a question could be very material; no person could have imagined that any great amount of property would depend on the drawing of two lines at so little distance from each other. But it so happens that one of the richest parts of the lode lies between these disputed boundaries. Before I proceed further in my statement of the plaintiff's case, I may say a few words in anticipation of my learned friend's defence. My learned friend may say that this case was tried at the last assizes, and that we ought not to be trying it again. I answer that it is quite clear we have a right to try this action, because wherever the boundary line is, the defendants have transgressed it, as they admit by payment into the court of upwards of GBP500. The determining this boundary line is a matter of difficulty; whether it be a question of fact or of law, of more one than the other, may not be settled here. It was the view of my clients that it was a question of law, and it was arranged that a special case should be stated for the court; but at the very last possible day the other side gave us notice of trial; this took my clients in great measure by surprise, and at the last trial we were not prepared with some material and important evidence that we shall now lay before you. My clients are in great difficulties in reference to this case; our evidence lies for the most part in the muniments of our opponents - of Lady Basset; we had to obtain our evidence as we best could from the muniments of our adversaries and the Tehidy office; the solicitors on the other side, Messrs. SMITH and ROBERTS, being also agents for Lady Basset. We therefore laboured under difficulty; and my learned friend Mr. LUSH, who conducted this case at the last assizes, still deeming it a question of law and not of fact, did not then present evidence. I now come before you with evidence on the part of West Basset Adventures that has not yet been submitted to any Cornish jury; I do not ask you to set aside the verdict of a former jury; but I shall submit new evidence on which I trust I shall satisfy you that the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict on this question, aye or no - is the line to be drawn to the north or to the south of John Vincent's house? The parties appear to be very hot for litigation; but I am not sure whether, in the end, you may not be disposed to split the difference between them. We say however, that the boundary is to the south of John Vincent's house; and I apprehend if the case had rested on the description in the sett to Mr. Lyle, his lordship would direct you that Mr. Lyle was entitled to draw this boundary line to the south of the cottage; -on this principle - that every grant is to be construed most strongly against the grantor; and when it is said the southern boundary is to be a straight line from John Vincent's house, I should say that we are entitled to take that part of Vincent's house which is most favourable to us; and that part is the front of the house, at the south. On that construction of the deed, we are entitled to draw the boundary line to the south of the house, including the house in the sett. It is not necessary, however, to decide that question. But I contend that we are entitled to draw the line from the south. After exhibiting and explaining a plan to the jury, Mr. Collier proceeded:- I should state the Mr. Lyle, when he took this sett made inquiries of the Captain at South Frances, and there found working and other plans, in all which the boundary was described as south of Vincent's house; it is [im]material to consider what the parties thought about the boundaries before any litigation arose between them; and at that time, the maps shown to Mr. Lyle on his taking his sett, fixed the boundary south of Vincent's house. For the sett so described and three other setts, Mr. Lyle paid GBP2,500; and for years afterwards there was no question about the boundary. But subsequently it transpired that this boundary line was more valuable than had previously been supposed; and then the South Frances adventurers seemed to have a tendency northwards. At first they proceeded northwards as far as half-way up the house; and they got a Mr. LANYON, toller to Lady Basset, to make out a boundary from a stone placed at that spot; and they made a proposition to that effect. Perhaps it might have been as well if that proposition had been accepted. But I may put it to you, whether any Cornish miners knowing they had a right to go north of Vincent's house, would be content to go only half-way. In connection with this part of the case, Mr. Collier read a letter dated Jan. 21, 1854, from Mr. BROAD on behalf of the South Frances adventurers, to Captain ROBERTS of West Basset, on the subject of the position; and stated that Captain Roberts sent the letter on to Mr. THOMAS, a leading shareholder in West Basset, who was out of the country at the time, and consequently no reply to the letter was sent. But, continued the learned gentleman, they had the working plan (handing a copy to the jury) which was used in their mine for years, and by this working plan, the boundary is south of John Vincent's house. I believe that working plan was made soon after they had obtained their sett in 1843; they had other similar plans, all showing the line south of Vincent's house; and there were also other plans in the Tehidy Office, showing the line south, at the same spot. It was not until 1854 that the South Frances adventurers thought of going so far as to the centre of the house; and since that, they had gone to the north of the house; the line to the centre of the house being erased. You may say, what pretence can they have for saying the boundary was at the north of Vincent's house? I will tell you what I understand my learned friend's case to be. It seems the South Frances adventurers discovered that there had been a former lease of Wheal Haste sett, (which may be taken to be the same as West Basset,) which had been granted in 1835, to Captain Richards, and was afterwards surrendered to Mr. Lyle; and in the small map attached to that lease of Wheal Haste, the line was drawn to the north of Vincent's house. My answer to that is, that in that small map Vincent's house is wrongly placed;- that it is placed much too far to the west, and also too far to the south. If Vincent's house were in its right place, the boundary line would pass to the south of it. In an enlarged plan which shows the true position of the premises, you will see that Vincent's house is north of the boundary line. I shall prove by a surveyor that this larger plan is correct and that is my answer to the observation grounded on the small map on the lease of 1835. To show how inaccurately these small plans were drawn, the map on the counterpart of the same lease shows the line drawn to the middle of Vincent's house. We have recently employed a surveyor of skill and eminence to examine this property, and he will put in another map made by himself, which will satisfy you that what we contend for is the true position of the line. But as far as it is a question of fact, you will have to determine it; and I think you will say that Mr. Lyle having purchased this property on the understanding that the line was to be south, it is not for the defendants, in 1854, to avail themselves of an error in the lease of 1835 as to the position of Vincent's cottage, and so place the boundary further north, because the sett had become more valuable. I think the status of affairs before 1852, when Mr. Lyle took the lease, is the status that parties must abide by. If the boundary line is, as we contend, to the south, we shall be entitled to about GBP1,500. If it be to the north, as they contend, we shall still be entitled to GBP200 or GBP300 above what they had paid into the court. The following witnesses were then examined in support of the plaintiff's case:- Mr. JOSEPH LYLE, the plaintiff, part holder of West Basset mine; Mr. FRANCIS TREVITHICK, steward of the Tehidy property; Mr. ROBERT SYMONS, land surveyor, of Truro; Mr. JAMES WEBB, dialler, now residing at Callington; and Mr. JAMES HENDERSON, civil engineer, of Truro. The general scope of this sett, the learned Counsel observed, was to give to the South Frances adventurers the whole of the Filtrick estate, except so far as nay part of it might be included in the Wheal Haste sett; and it therefore now became necessary to see what was included in the Wheal Hast sett. The learned Counsel, explaining and commenting on the descriptions of boundaries in this sett, argued that they clearly showed that the line of southern boundary must be taken north of John Vincent's house; and on the map this boundary line was so drawn. His learned friend had opened that this house was placed, in the map, considerably west of its true position. The reason of this was, that the person who made the map was told to get 355 fathoms from Vincent's house to the bound-stone mentioned; but he measured the 355 fathoms to the nearest bound-stone, and then put back the house to suit this measurement; and this fact had been admitted from the commencement of these proceedings. Wednesday, August 3 - The case for the defendant was resumed, and after the leases of GRYLLS and FILTRICK had been put in, oral testimony was taken from the following witnesses:- THOMAS PRISK, tenant of Lanyon estate, and brother of the tenant of Filtrick; ELIZABETH RICHARDS, daughter of JAMES VINCENT, who built the house so frequently mention in the case as John Vincent's; Mr. MARRIOTT, Lady Basset's steward and agent from 1845 to 1857; Mr. JAMES LANYON, toller to Lady Basset; Mr. SILVANUS JENKIN, surveyor, &c., resident at Liskeard; and Mr. RICHARD CARVETH, surveyor, at St. Austell. Mr. Montague Smith then addressed the jury at considerable length, on the evidence adduced, and generally in support of the defendants' case. Mr. Collier addressed the jury in reply. He contended that the plaintiff had a right to ask the present jury to differ from the former jury in the decision, because he alleged the case was different on both sides. The learned Judge proceeded to sum up. The Foreman of the Jury (Mr. BORLASE, of Castle Horneck), said he was desired to ask a question. The jury might possibly fined for the north or south line, and yet think there might be hardship on one party or the other; would it be competent to the jury to recommend an arrangement? The Judge:- You may recommend. Mr. Borlase:- I don't go further than that. The Judge:- You may recommend, certainly; and I don't know that it would not be a wise thing even at this time of the day; but your verdict must be a verdict. The fact is that neither your recommendation nor mine would carry much weight; but I am quite sure that your recommendation would carry much more weight than mine. The jury retired for consultation at twenty-five minutes past four. Shortly afterwards, the learned Judge stated to the counsel in the cause, that he had ruled that if it was a matter of law, the plaintiff had not made out his case. The learned Judge soon afterwards retired to his lodgings whether, about six o'clock, the jury sent a note to his lordship, who at first penned a reply, but then preferred sending for the jury. On their arrival, his lordship said:- I have this note from you; I am requested to give you in writing the point to be decided, and I have written it out, but I wish to see you that you may understand what I have written. The plaintiff's right to recover may depend on the boundary of his mine. You are aware that his mine is taken under the lease of 1852 and that it is called the West Basset mine. You are not to decide the whole case. A Juror:- We have not gone into anything like the whole case. The Judge:- You are only to decide by agreement between the parties that question, which I shall take a note and the arbitrator will adopt it. You are to decide and determine the southern boundary of the plaintiff's or the West Basset mine, whether it is bounded on the southward by a line to be drawn from the south-east corner of John Vincent's house, or any intermediate point between the south-east corner of the buildings as they stood before the lease of 1852. Here is the south-east, and that (describing on the plan) is the north approach to any of the buildings; that take us to the house; there is the dairy built behind, and the stable with it. Mr. Collier contends if he is not entitled to the line from the south, he is entitled to the line from some intermediate point, and you will have to say whether it is an intermediate point in the middle or centre of the buildings as they stand, or the original house. If you say it is from the north-east corner of the buildings as they now stand, you have said enough; if it is the south-east, you have said enough then; but if you think it is not from the south or north-east, but from some intermediate part, you will say whether it is the centre or any intermediate part of the house as it originally stood, or of the buildings as they stood in 1852, or I may say from 1835, including the whole. The Foreman:- It appeared to me as laid down on that plan there, that the front wall of the house is nearly East and West; but in this country it is very usual to call the South, East, and the North, West. The Jury then returned to their consulting room, at the county hall. At half-past eight o'clock, the jurors concluded their consultation and went again to the judges' lodgings; counsel, attornies, and other persons interested being in attendance. The names of the jurors were called as follow:- WILLIAM ALLEN, WILLIAM BELL, PHILIP BLAMEY, SAMUEL BORLASE, EDWARD BOWHAY, WILLIAM CONN, JOHN FREEMAN, junior, ROBERT GLASSON MICHELL, WILLIAM MICHELL, EDWARD PETHYBRIDGE, JEREMIAH REYNALDS, RICHARD WISE. The Associate:- Gentlemen, are you agreed? Do you find for plaintiff or defendant? Mr. Borlase (foreman):- For the plaintiff; and that the south extremity should be a line to be drawn from the south-east corner of Vincent's house to a bound-stone at the north-west extremity of South Wheal Basset sett. The Judge:- I understand you are so good as to return this answer in reference to your own written question and my written answer to you. Will you be good enough to return that to me? Mr. Borlase handed a paper to the Judge; who, after reading it said: that will be a verdict for plaintiff; I will take a note of that. It is the second bound stone? Mr. Borlase: The proper bound stone: I believe the further bound stone; we understand there was no doubt about that. The Jury then returned to their place in the Nisi Prius Court, and, after receiving their fees, were discharged. (article abridged). UNRERESERVED SALE OF VALUABLE HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, RESIDUARY ESTATE, AND EFFECTS - Of the late Mr. HENRY RUNNALLS, deceased. Messrs. NICHOLL and MILLS have been favoured with instructions from the representatives of the late Mr. Henry Runnalls, of Redruth, deceased, to offer for positive sale on Monday the 9th day of August next, and following days, by Eleven o'clock in the forenoon of each day, at the late residence of the deceased Fore Street, Redruth, the whole of the excellent Household Furniture and other effects therein, comprising, - In the Bedrooms - Mahogany four-post, French, elliptic birch, and other bedsteads, with damask, moreen, chintz, and dimity furniture, feather beds, bolsters and pillows, mattresses, bedding in great variety, mahogany chest of drawers, mahogany and other washstands, chamber services, toilet glasses, towel horses, dressing tables, mahogany commodes, cane-seat and other bedroom chairs, bedroom carpetings and druggetings, and various chamber requisites. The Parlours and Sitting Rooms contain - Set of mahogany dining tables, mahogany, Pembroke, pillar and claw and ladies' work tables, mahogany, hair-seat and other sofas, chimney glasses, morocco-covered and other easy seat, and other chairs, fenders and fire sets, ottomans' stools, Brussels and Kidderminster carpets, chimney ornaments, case of stuffed birds, case of mineral specimens, window curtains, pole and rings, zinc window blinds, and sundry valuable framed prints, a good piano forte by Tomkinson, of Soho Square, London. In addition to which, there will be sold a quantity of silver plate and plated articles, in tea and coffee services, spoons, prongs, ewers, salvers, &c., an excellent eight-day clock in mahogany case, a guitar, about 200 vols. of books, amongst which will be found an edition of "Shakespeare," an excellent "Cyclopaedia," "Syria and the Holy Land," illustrated, "History of the Revolution in France" "Life of Wellington," and the works of some of the best authors, all in good condition. The Kitchen, Lobbies, Pantries, and Stairs contain a well selected variety of culinary and kitchen requisites of every description - china tea service, earthenware dinner sets, glass and cutlery of the best quality, a very good linen press, stair carpeting, brass rods and eyes, and numerous household appendages. After the foregoing, there will also be sold a very good four-wheeled gig, with lamps and gig harness complete, market cart and cart harness, hand cart, wheelbarrow, ladders, a rick of hay, and sundry other effects. The Auctioneers, in calling the attention of the Public to the sale of the above-name Property, would beg to observe, that the whole will be found in the very best condition, and for persons furnishing, offers an opportunity rarely to be met with, as the whole will be positively sold. The household furniture generally will be sold on Monday, and the books, plate, and plated articles, china, glass &c., on Tuesday. Open for inspection on the Saturday previous to the day of sale. Dated July 24th, 1858. MAWGAN WRESTLING - In consequence of the very wet weather on Tuesday week, this wrestling did not take place until the following day. The men were well matched by the committee, fair play was shown, and not a murmur was heard throughout the day, each man playing as if to win. The play throughout was exceedingly good, and was generally acknowledged to be the best seen her for twenty years. The prizes were eventually won as follows - First prize, THOMAS H. OWL, St. Ervan; second, WILLIAM RODLIFF, St. Columb; third, FRANCIS OWL, St. Evan; THOMAS CUNDY, of St. Stephens, played (though thrown by Rodliff) in such a style as gained him much applause and a good subscription. From the faggotting of some of the best men in the county in this ring last year, they were expelled this year, and consequently the committee were at some difficulty to get competitors of weight equal to play WILLIAM TREGLOWN, and after his having made himself a double standard, the committee suggested to him the propriety of his leaving the play to the lighter weights, and be it said to his honour and credit that he readily assented, nor did the committee fail to show their just appreciation of his manly conduct in the present they made him. Mr. and Mrs. GILBERT, of the Gardener's Arms, well sustained their long and well-earned reputation for kindness evinced towards strangers visiting Mawgan. The Newquay Band performed, and there was a numerous attendance of spectators. APOTHECARIES HALL - Mr. JAMES SAMER, St. Cleather in this county, passed his examination in the science and practice of medicine and received a certificate to practise, last week. LONDON UNIVERSITY - Mr. EDWARD PARSON, (son of Mr. R. PARSON, Cutcure, Menheniot), medical student of King's College, passed his examination on the 19th ult., in the first division, as undergraduate of the London University, and has since been awarded honours. FALMOUTH DOCKS - Mr. ABERNETHY, C.E., who has been successfully engaged about the Holyhead Docks and other works of magnitude, is names to take a survey of Falmouth harbour. NEWQUAY - We have received the following:- Parties anxious to visit Newquay have been in many instances prevented from doing so by reports respecting the unhealthy state of the village. I beg as resident surgeon, to say that I have never known it more healthy than at present. GEORGE JEWEL. Dated, August 3rd, 1858. CHARGE OF ASSAULT - At the Penzance County Court on Monday last, the following case was tried by jury - GILBERT v. E. H. BOYNS. This was an action to recover compensation for an assault, and the damages were laid at GBP20[?]. Mr. DOWNING, of Redruth, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. R. A. G. DAVIES, of Penzance for the defendant. The plaintiff is an assayer, and keeps the Commercial Hotel, at Marazion, and the defendant is a solicitor's clerk, articled to Messrs. ROSCORLA and DAVIES, of Penzance. Plaintiff's statement was, that about two years ago Mr. Boyns had a horse of him to go to Helston, and when he brought the house back it looked as if it had been on a long journey. He asked Mr. Boyns where he had driven the horse from, and he said "from Penzance and from Hayle." Defendant asked if he was the owner of the horse; he said yes. Defendant asked his charge, and he said 10s. He did n