| [ continued from previous page ] 29 MARCH 1850 ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.- The following gentlemen having undegoine the necessary examinations for the diploma were admitted members of the College, at the meeting of the Court of Examiners, on the 22nd inst. - Messers. WILLIAM MICHELL CLARK, and THOMAS MUDGE, of Bodmin. FALMOUTH VESTRY. - The annual vestry was held on Monday the 25th instant, Mr ELLIS in the chair. The party was large and the statements satisfactory, the rates being less than the year preceding. The waywardens' accounts passed were above the former year, the epidemic, &c. having caused an increase. The whole proceedings were conducted with great propriety and unanimity, and thanks were given to the officers, particularly to Mr SKINNER, the assistant overseer, who was recommended as perpetual. The decease of Mr CHARD, one of the waywardens, was referred to by the chairman with great feeling, and a minute was recorded of sympathy for his loss. The chairman moved the unanimous thanks of the board as proposed by Mr W. CARNE for his services not only as chairman but for his attendance as a guardian for about twelve consecutive years. FALMOUTH FISH MARKET.- The new fish market is proceeding as rapidly as possible, and will be a great improvement to the town. MINE ACCIDENT.- On Saturday last, as a man named Richard HAND, of Truthall, in the parish of Ludgvan, was in the act of being let down by a rope in the whim shaft at Wheal Margaret, in the parish of Lelant, his foot slipped from the loop in which it was placed, and he fell to the bottom of the shaft, a depth of six fathoms. Although not a bone was fractured yet the poor fellow received several cuts and bruises. The medical gentleman who attended him, however, has great hopes of his recovery. The following inquest has been held before Mr Gilbert HAMLEY, deputy coroner. On Saturday last, in the parish of Landrake, on the body of John SAMBELLS, a farmer, aged 71, who was found dead by his daughter, at the bottom of an orchard where he had been to cut some sticks. He had been seen about half an hour before pruning a hedge, and it was supposed that he had had a fit. There were no marks of violence on the body, or anything to lead the jury to suppose that he died from other than natural causes. Verdict, "died on the visitation of God." Third Court Wednesday March 27. - (Before Mr BULL, Crown's Counsel) John MELHUISH, 40 was charged with stealing two watch cases, the property of John EDE, shopkeeper at Camelford on the 9th of February. It appeared that between nine and ten o'clock in the evening, prosecutor's wife heard a noise, and thought her husband had returned; on looking out she saw a man - the prisoner not far from the shop, and on going into the shop saw that the window was broken, and two watch cases and a piece of chain gone. Mrs Ede hereupon got her sister to watch, and followed the prisoner, were produced by policeman FITZGERALD, and identified by the prosecutor, who also proved that he had seen the cases in his window on the morning of the 9th February. - Guilty - Twelve Month's Hard Labour. DAVID PASCOE, 26, was found guilty of stealing on the 6th of March, one fowl, the property of Theophilus James, innkeeper, at Budock.- Twelve Months ' Hard Labour. WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER, 24, was Acquitted of stealing three geese, and seven ducks, on the 11th of January, the property of Philippa PERRY, at Uny Lelant. FRANCIS GREET, 19, was found Guilty of stealing two years of tarpauling, the property of John EUSTICE, of St Gluvias, and was sentenced to Three Months' Hard Labour. JOHN WHITFORD, 44 was found Guilty of stealing on the 1st of March, at Redruth market, a quantity of beef and veal, the property of John COLLIVER, butcher of Perranarworthal. - Six Months' Hard Labour. JOSEPH COCKING, 41 was charged with stealing a piece of white batten deal timer, the property of Edward Stoneman, carpenter, at Pool, and was found Guilty. He was also convicted of stealing a yellow pine plank, the property of John ROUGH, a carpenter at Pool. The prisoner received a good character from the prosecutors. He was sentenced to Three Months' Hard Labour for each offence; the terms of imprisonment concurrent. THOMAS SMITH, 19 was found Guilty of stealing, on the 26th of February, seven dishes, eight basins, three bowls and other articles, the property of his master, Edward BURTON, of Bodmin, earthenware dealer. - Nine Months' Hard Labour. ANN GRIMES, 37, was found Guilty of stealing a pair of woman's shoes, the property of William MOORE, of Redruth, and was sentenced to Four Months' Hard Labour. ELIZABETH DOWRICK, 24, was charged with stealing from her master, Charles Emanuel PEARSE, of Bodmin, a flasket, wrapper, and various other articles, and was found Guilty. She was also charged, together with HONOR COUCH, 48 and ANN COUCH, 22, with felonies by receiving a variety of stolen articles. Sentences:- Dowrick and Honor Couch, Eighteen Months' Hard Labour each; and Ann Couch, Twelve Months' Hard Labour. ANN JEFFERY, 17, was found Guilty of Stealing from the person of Nicholas SYMONS, miner, at Liskeard, one sovereign, five shillings, and sixpence, and was sentenced to Six Months' Hard Labour. MARY GRENFELL, was found Guilty of stealing a goose, the property of Joel JAMES, of Sancreed. - Three Months' Hard Labour. RICHARD HOOPER, 29 was charged with assaulting Mary Williams, on the highway from Callington to Tavistock, with intent to violate her person, and with stealing from her, three half-pence; he was acquitted of the robbery and found Guilty of assault. Sentence Six Month's Hard Labour. JAMES PHILLIPS, 22, was found Guilty of assaulting and putting in bodily fear and danger of life John KNUCKEY, at Gwennap, and stealing 10s. from his person. Sentence - Eight Months' Hard Labour. Thursday, March 28. Mr Justice ERLE sat in the Crown Court at nine o'clock. JOHN SHIRMAN, 29 was indicted for violently assaulting and ravishing Mary THOMAS, on the 10th of February, at the parish of St Kew. Mr Slade, for the prosecutors, stated the case. Mary Thomas of St Kew, is about fifty-five years of age, and has been a widow for about eighteen years, having been left with six children. Some time after her husband's death she went into service with Mrs BRADDON, of Skisdon, in St Kew, and remained till her death, after which Prosecutrix continued to live at the same place as housekeeper. On Sunday the 10th of February, she had ocasion to go to Wadebridge, which is about four miles from Skisdon. She was returning about six o'clock in the evening and had proceeded about two and a quarter miles from Wadebridge, between two farms named Kelley and Splatt, when she was met by the prisoner on the turnpike road. He seized her and carried her across the road to the ditch, where in spited of her resistance, her screaming and crying "murder," he effected his purpose. A man called Samuel TAYLOR came by, and prisoner having gone on the road, Mrs Thomas asked Taylor to go after him, which he did, and overtook him. He denied that he had attached the woman, but on coming up she said he was the man. She was much frightened and not knowing Taylor, she asked him if he was her friend or foe. He said he was her friend. A Man called OLDRIDGE came up on horseback, and assisted in taking the prisoner, who went with them about two hundred yards and refused to go further, saying he would be down. However, they got him on about a quarter of a mile, when he sat down on a bank and said as they had no authority he should not go with them. Oldridge was then about to go for a constable, but had only got a little way when prisoner threatened to draw his knife on Taylor. Oldridge hearing this, returned, and prisoner then tried to escape over the hedge, but was pulled back by Taylor, and eventually was placed in custody of Constable LANDERS. Evidence was given of the great distress of the woman after the offence was committed, also that screams of a female were heard by parties about the time of the occurrence and that her bonnet and apparel was disordered. Prisoner had a fresh scratch on his face when taken, and it appeared that when in custody, he asked policeman LOVELL whether it would not be better for him to make it up with Mrs Thomas, as he was a married man, and it would expose them both. Mr COLLIER, for the prisoner, addressed the jury, submitting that they could only find him guilty of an assault, and not of the more serious offence. The learned Judge having summed up, the jury found the prisoner Guilty of Rape. Sentence, Transportation For Life. STEPHEN ROGERS was acquitted of a charge of stealing, on the 13th March, a faggot of wood, the property of William JEWELL. JOHN JENKIN, 20, and THOMAS ELLICOTT, 30, were charged with the same offence, and were found guilty. Sentence - each to Three Calendar Months' Hard Labour. NANCY TONKIN pleaded guilty of stealing on the 16th of February, at the parish of St Austell, two pounds of candles, from the stores of Thomas HITCHENS, tallow- chandler. The prosecutor recommended the prisoner to mercy. Sentence deferred. MATTHEW JUFFS, 45, was convicted of stealing on the 6th of March, at the parish of Menheniot, a patch hook, belonging to William PENGELLY. Three Weeks' Imprisonment. Tuesday, March 25 ROBERT ROBERTS, 65, pleaded guilty of stealing at Penryn, on the 2nd of March, a cake, the property of George VIVIAN. Prisoner said he took the cake in consequence of hunger, he had not tasted anything for two days. Sentence, One Fortnight's Imprisonment. WILLIAM BARNETT, 13, pleaded guilty of a burglary at Redruth, by having removed a shutter, forced open a ten plate fence, and thrust his hand into the shop window of Richard RICHARDS, with intent to steal his property. The learned Judge, taking into consideration that the prisoner had been already six months in prison, sentenced him further to three months' imprisonment. He also cautioned him that if brought again and convicted of a similar offence, he would mot likely be transported. COULSON AND ANOTHER V. NICHOLLS. - Mr COLE for plaintiffs; attorney, Mr James PASCOE, Mr PAULL for defendant; attorney, Mr J.N. MILLETT. This action brought by Messrs. T and W Coulson, merchants of Penzance, against William S. Nicholls, an attorney, and who also had an interest in vessels. About the end of 1842, the defendant, having had dealings with plaintiff, was indebted to them about £100, and on the 25th of February, 1843, accepted two bills drawn by plaintiffs; one of these bills being for £50 payable in three months; the other being also for £50, but payable in six months. Besides two counts in respect of those two acceptances, there were counts for goods sold and delivered and on account stated. Defendant pleaded that he did not accept the bills, - that he was never indebted - and that the whole of the debt in the declaration was barred by the statute of limitations.- it appeared that immediation after his acceptance of the bills, defendant went away, and was not seen again in the neighbourhood until August last,- as it happened a few days before the expiring of the six years after the 28th August, 1843, when the second bill became due. As to the bill which became due in May 1849, plaintiff's counsel at once admitted that that claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The claim as to the second bill was not so barred, inasmuch as the writ in this action was issued on the 10th of August, and served on the 14th of August 1849. - The only witness called was James Bevan Coulson, a clerk of the plaintiffs, who proved the defendant's hand-writing to the acceptance. - The Jury found a verdict for £68; and the Court ordered immediate execution. JOHN BORRIDGE, 15, was charged with a burglary in the house of Nicholas BROAD, in the parish of St Keyne. The door of the house was locked about half past ten on the night of the 10th of January, when the prosecutor, who is a farmer, was from home. He came home about half-past eleven, and in the interim, before his arrival, it appeared the house had been entered, there having been stolen a pasty, piece of bacon, loaf of bread, cake and a pair of boots. The prisoner had been in the Liskeard Union house from the 6th of December, but he went out on the morning of the day that the robbery was committed, and in the afternoon he was about the premises making inquiries of a boy. He returned to the Union on the day after the robbery, and was then wearing a pair of boots, though when he left the workhouse, he wore a pair of shoes. Prisoner had lived with the prosecutor as a servant before he went to the union; and when charged by constable DAWE of Liskeard, with the robbery, prisoner said he had nothing to do with anything but the boots, if anything else was gone, the other man, who was a tall man with a smock and cap on, took it. Verdict, Guilty. Twelve Months' Hard Labour. JANE GEORGE pleaded Guilty of stealing, on the 15th of March, at Wadesbridge, three candles, the property of Mr Thomas Martyn, merchant. - One Month's Hard Labour. NICHOLAS GEORGE was indicted for stealing two bed-sheets, the property of Mr Thos. Martyn, merchant of Wadebridge. In a second count he was charged with feloniously receiving the sheets. Mr COLE, prosecuted. The prisoner's wife was a charwoman at the prosecutor's and at the time she was in that employ, some sheets were missed by Mrs Martyn, and on search being made in the prisoner's house, one sheet was found there in his room, and a portion of another sheet was found there in prisoner's bed; the constable being shown to the room by prisoner's wife - the prisoner being absent. There were only two rooms in the house, and the prisoner's wife said this bed was theirs. There were two beds in the room; and it was stated that an old man occupied one of the beds and lived in the house. - Mrs Martyn identified the sheets by her work; the mark had been cut away and another piece of stuff put in place thereof. The Judge, in summing up, directed the jury that there was no proof against the prisoner as to the charge of stealing, and as to the charge of feloniously receiving, the proof that the prosecutor's mark had been removed was evidence against the presumption that the prisoner knew of the possession of any sheets that were not his own property. - Not Guilty. JOHN MOCK, 18, was found Guilty of stealing, on the 22nd of January, two bundles of straw, the property of Joseph KNEEBONE.- One Week to Hard Labour. RICHARD WEBB, 49, was charged with stealing on the 25th of January, at the parish of Mylor, a cock, the property of James DUNSTANT. - Guilty, One Month's Hard Labour. JOSEPH RAWLING, 23, was charged with stealing at St Columb, on the 7th of March, some potatoes, the property of John GRIGG, landlord of the King's Arms. Prosecutor had some Lancashire seed potatoes in a loft, and in an adjoining loft prisoner was found with the potatoes. The landlord was able to swear to them because they were of a peculiar description. Guilty. Six Weeks' Hard Labour. JACOB SINCOCK, 24, was found Guilty of stealing, at the parish of Wendron, a hat, the property of William WICKS. Both parties are miners; prosecutor left his underground hat in his chest at Wheal Ann, on the 24th of December; he missed it on thed 27th, his chest having been broken, and he afterwards saw prisoner wearing his hat at Wheal Lewis. Sentence, One Month's Hard Labour. MARY JANE FOWLER, 16, was charged with stealing, on the 6th of January, at Liskeard, a cotton umbrella, the property of Robert BARTLETT. Soon after being placed in the dock, prisoner was taken with a fit and obliged to be carried out of Court. The Under-Sheriff came in shortly afterwards to desire that if any surgeon were present, he would attend on her. After the Court had been kept waiting some time, she was again brought in, and the trial proceeded. Verdict, Guilty; and a former conviction was proved against her.- Sentence, Four Months' Hard Labour. CHARLES EVANS, 11, HENRY EVANS, 13, AND JOHN WATERS, 12, were found Guilty of stealing a quantity of copper and brass, the property of Mrs Elizabeth POST, of Kenwyn Street, Truro.- They were sentenced each to One Fortnight's Hard Labour, and to be Once Privately Whipped. SUSAN SCOBLE, 24, charged with stealing, on the 13th March, a pair of cloth trowsers, the property of Nicholas BRAY, of Baldhu, in the parish of Kea. The trowsers were missed about one o'clock in the day from a garden where they had been placed to air; and, in the same afternoon, prisoner offered to pledge them at Mr. JAMES'S, the pawnbroker at Truro; but Mr EDWIN JAMES, having received an account of the robbery, gave information to the police, which led to the apprehending of the prisoner, and to the identifying of the trowsers by Bray. The prisoner was found Guilty, and sentenced to One Month 's Hard Labour. - Mr James, the pawnbroker, was commended by the Judge for his conduct. HARRIET PENROSE, 34, charged with stealing on the 14th of January, at Truro, four sovereigns, the property of William TOMS, a travelling razor grinder. The prosecutor stated, that on Sunday afternoon, the 13th of January, he entered Truro, and about seven in the evening, he met with the prisoner who asked him for something to drink. He went with her to her house, and paid for some beer. When he went into the house, he had four sovereigns, a half-sovereign, and some silver. After some time, he went and lay down on a bed, in his day-clothes; and about two or three o'clock in the morning, he woke and heard a little boy saying "Mother, you shall not take away the man' s money." He then felt the woman's hand in his pocket, and catching hold of her, took two sovereigns out of her hand. He told her that if she did not give up the other sovereigns at once, he would send for a policeman. He did send for a policeman, on whose coming she put one sovereign in her mouth.- In answer to questions from the court, the prosecutor stated distinctly that he had never had any intercourse with the prisoner nor with any other person in her house; he admitted that he was tipsy when he went to lie down, but was quite sober when he woke in the morning. - In reply to other questions, suggested by statements of the prisoner, he positively denied that he owed her anything, or that he had given her the sovereigns, as she asserted, on the Sunday evening.- The policeman STAPLE proved that on his taking prisoner to the prison, she said, if he thought it best, she would go back and give up the money. The jury found the prisoner Not Guilty. CAUTION. I hereby give notice, that I will not pay any Debts which my wife ELIZABETH HONEY may contract after this notice. As witness my hand this third day of April 1850. Signed, WILLIAM HONEY, Witness, John QUIN. Penryn April 3, 1850. [Can't make head nor tail of this one, but have included it just incase it relates to some ones ancestor... ih] NISI PRIUS Tuesday March 26 - CHARGE OF LIBEL. - VAWDREY v. MILLETT. - A special jury case.- Counsel for plaintiff, Mr CROWDER and Mr M. SMITH; attorneys, Messrs. HODGE and HOCKIN.- Counsel for Defendant, Mr COCKBURN, Mr ROWE, and Mr KARSLAKE; attorneys, Messrs. JOHN, RODD and DARKE.- The plaintiff in this case was Mr George VAWDREY, a surgeon, carrying on business at Hayle; and the defendant was Mr. Richard Oke MILLETT, also a surgeon at Hayle. - Mr M. Smith having opened the pleadings. Mr Crowder proceeded to state the case to the jury. He said the plaintiff complained of a very serious injury which he had sustained from the defendant's publication of a scandalous libel upon him. Mr George Vawdrey had been in the medical profession as general practitioner, surgeon, and apothecary, for about twenty years. He was born in the parish of Phillack, his father being a clergyman living in that neighbourhood. After having entered the profession, he went for a short time to India, and, in consequence of ill health, returned to Hayle, where he had been in practice for the last twelve years, and had conducted himself so as to acquire the respect of the respectable persons residing in that neighbourhood. In 1843 he was selected by the Guardians of the Redruth Union, a medical officer of that union; and that engagement still subsisted. At the time of the breaking out of the cholera last year a sanitary board was appointed in the parish of Phillack, under the General Board of Health. That local board, consisting of twenty-six respectable persons unanimously elected Mr. Vawdrey one of the medical attendants to aid in checking the progress of cholera. This election took place on the 6th of August, 1849; and Mr Vawdrey undertook and performed the duties of the office to which he had been elected. The cholera raged throughout August and through September; towards the middle of October it ceased in most places. He believed that by the end of October, the cholera had in Hayle no longer existence. Certainly, on the 29th of October, the date of the alleged libel, the cholera no longer existed there; although it had been very fatal in its effects in the neighbourhood. Mr Crowder then, previous to mentioning the libel more particularly, described the defendant as a medical gentleman, who had obtained a German diploma, and about six or seven years ago, having served his time in London, came down to Hayle and commenced practice. Mr Vawdrey was at that time already in extensive practice, and therefore a considerable obstacle to the defendant's success as a medical practitioner. There was also at Hayle, as was often the case in country places, a party feeling; and an angry feeling had been excited against Mr. Vawdrey. From this state of things the learned counsel deduced a motive in the defendant to the publication of the alleged libel, which was done in the following way. On the 29th of October, the defendant wrote a letter to the secretary of the Board of Health London, under pretence of making an important and necessary communication to a public board on a matter important to the public weal. That letter was as follows:- Hayle, Cornwall, October 29, 1849. The Secretary, Board of Health, London. Sirs,- By this mail I send you the Cornwall Gazette, and beg to call your attention, and that of the Board, to a letter written by Mr Webber, and headed "The late epidemic at Hayle". One half of the facts are not stated. The Rector grassed his horses and sheep up to last Saturday, or very lately in the churchyard, and heaps of human excrement lie around the vestry, church, &c. The bodies met with in digging the graves, were crushed up and doubled, and placed in the bottom of the graves. Hair in profusion was on their heads, and they were wrapped in flannel. The medical men are the scorn of the neighbourhood. Unreduced dislocated shoulders and crooked limbs are the beacons of the pubile judgment, and yet these very men were appointed by the Board to fill such responsible offices. The board is father, two sons, and nephews, and underlings-butchers and shopkeepers, farmers and clerks, merchants, who supply flour, and clothes and brandy to the dying. I know not, nor care not, what steps may be taken in the matter, but this I know that such acts as have just been enacted here, are disgraceful even to savages. Should inquiry be instituted, it must be carefully done; however, enough is visible to be condemnatory. I am, your obedient servant, (signed) H. E. EDWARDS. The signature, "H.E. Edwards," turned out to be an assumed name. There was no such person as H.E. Edwards, - the letter was evidently in the defendant's handwriting, and there was no question that the letter was penned by the defendant, and by him sent to the Board of Health, in London. In fact, Mr Millett, had acknowledged that he wrote and sent the letter. The London Board of Health afterwards inclosed the letter to the Guardians of the Redruth Union, for the purpose of investigation, and an investigation was conducted by a committee of the Redruth Union Guardians, consisting of two clergymen and another gentleman of the neighbourhood. That investigation took place on the 17th of November. On the 15th of December, Messrs. Hodge and Hockin, wrote the following letter to the defendant: - Truro. Dec. 15th, 1849 - Sir,- Above we send a copy of a letter dated the 29th of October, and signed "H. E. Edwards," a fac simile of which forwarded by the General Board of Heal, in London, is now before us. We are informed that you have openly acknowledged yourself to be the author of this letter - both on the 17th of November, before the Rev. J.W. HAWKSLEY, the Rev. W. GILBEE, and Mr James PAULL, the committee appointed by the General Board of Health, to investigate the charges therein named, and also on a subsequent occasion before many other persons. The letter indeed evidently appears from the fac similie, to be in your handwriting. That letter, written by you under a fictitious name, contained a very serious libel on the professional character of the two respectable medical gentlemen employed by the board, and that libel, from the mode of its publication, and the necessary publicity occasioned by the inquiry instituted in consequence, obtained very extensive circulation. On behalf of these medical gentlemen, Messrs. Bawdrey and Lye, and now that ample time has been allowed for reflection, we are instructed to apply to you for an apology, and to require you to disclaim the charge imputing to them that their mismanagement of surgical cases had been such as to excite horror in the minds of the public. It is not a light thing to say that any man is "the scorn of the neighbourhood," and to make public a charge of that kind in the way this has been made public is calculated not only to inflict the severest annoyance and distress, but to do the most serious injury. We are, Sir, Your obedient servants, HODGE AND HOCKIN. R.O. Millett, Esq., M.D., Penpoll, Hayle. On the 18th of December, Messrs Hodge and Hockin received the following reply from defendant: - Penpoll, Hayle, Dec. 17, 1849. Gentlemen, - I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, and regret that so much time should be wasted on the subject. I am, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant. R.O. MILLETT. These being the circumstances of the libel, the defendant pleaded first, that he was not guilty of its publication. That plea might be dealt with in two ways; either that he did not write the letter, of which fact, however, there could be no question; or, that it was a privileged communication, and was written under circumstances which rebutted the charge of malice. In order however to make it a privileged communication, it must be shown to have been written under a strong sense of public duty. But although it was written to a public Board of Health, there was no pretence for saying that it was written for the purpose of giving information with reference to the cholera; the letter was not written till after the cholera was at an end in Hayle. Besides, a person who believed that he was called on by public duty to make a communication in writing, did not usually sign a fictitious name. Mr Crowder also observed that the defendant, at the time when he asserted that Mr. Vawdrey was the scorn of the neighbourhood, was himself living in that neighbourhood, and must have known whether what he said was true or false; and he (Mr Crowder) would call numerous witnesses of respectability and judgment, and who also knew the opinions of the neighbourhood, who would prove that Mr Vawdrey was well known, and was employed in their families because of his considered a man of repute and character as a professional man in the same neighbourhood as that in which the defendant was living. And no man could claim the benefit of privileged communication for a writing in which he stated what was false knowing it to be false. Another plea of the defendant was that of justification under which was set out some ten cases of patients treated professionally by Mr Vawdrey and which cases, it was alleged, proved that he was unfit to occupy the situation he held under the Phillack Board of Health. That plea, it would, of course, be for the defendant to seek to establish by evidence if he though proper. The learned Council then briefly referred to the evidence he proposed to adduce, in support of the plaintiff's professional character; and then proceeded to call witnesses. John Luke PETER, solicitor, and Clerk to the Redruth Board of Guardians, remembered receiving from the Secretary of the General Board of Health a fac simile copy of a letter. (This was admitted to be the letter written by the defendant, on the 20th October, under the signature of H.E. Edwards). After receipt of that letter, the Redruth Board of Guardians appointed a committee, consisting of the Rev. J.W. HAWKSLEY, Rev. W. GILBEE, and Mr James PAULL, to inquire into it. They did inquire, and reported to the Board of Guardians, Mr Vawdrey was appointed a surgeon of the Redruth Union in 1843, and still continued to hold that office. Cross Examined. On the 25th of June, the Red Ruth Board of Guardians appointed a committee, consisting of the three guardians of Phillack Parish, to act with the local board of health, Messrs Hawksley, Gilbee, and Paull were members of the Redruth Board of Guardians. Was present at the investigation conducted by them on the 17th of November. They founded their inquiry partly on Mr Webber's and partly on Dr Millett's letters. The inquiry was limited to the manner in which the medical men had performed their duties during the cholera. It was not an open inquire: no one was allowed to be present besides the person under examination, and witness himself as clerk. Reporters attended for the public press; but the committee did not feel at liberty to admit them. On the 16th of November, witness received a letter from the defendant, dated the 15th, and wrote the answer now produced. Witness laid the letter of the 15th before the board. Mr Millett attended the committee's investigation. The committee drew up a report in writing, Mr Crowder required the production of the report in evidence; but after argument, the court held it to be inadmissible. By the Court - Believed that on the 29th of October, the cholera had almost ceased in Hayle. It was known the day before the committee's inquiry, that Mr Millett was the writer of the letter signed H.E. Edwards. JOHN ROSEWARNE, a farmer living at Nanpuska, in the parish of Phillack. I was one of the Guardians of Phillack, and was appointed one of three as a committee by the Redruth Union. We appointed twenty-six persons to act as a Board of Health at Phillack. Those twenty-six persons were influential persons in the neighbourhood. They were appointed, I think on the 27th of June. At that time there was no cholera there. The first intimation of approach of cholera was in the early part of August. As soon as there was decided cholera we met to appoint medical officers; Mr Vawdrey and Mr Lye were unanimously appointed. That was the 6th August, I have known Mr Vawdrey as long as I can recollect anyone in the neighbourhood. He has been a practioner at Hayle twelve or fourteen years. The cholera raged very badly and continued throughout August and part of September. During that time Mr. Vawdrey was active. The committee had opportunities of witnessing the conduct of the medical men, and were quite satisfied with the conduct of Mr Vawdrey and Mr Lye. The cholera had ceased before the 29th of October. During the whole of that time, I never heard that Mr Vawdrey was the scorn of the neighbourhood. He was a person of whom I always entertained a high opinion as a professional man: and I heard the same from other parties. Cross Examined by Mr Rowe. There are large factories at Hayles, and the population is principally a labouring population. The local Board of Health had not met before the appointment of the sub-committee of Guardians, of which I was a member. The witness here named some respectable tradesmen and farmers who were not on the Board. Mr POOL, the manager of Copper-house factory and his two sons and his nephew were on the board. After the cholera had ceased, I heard Mr Edwards, one of the Board of Health express regret that more medical men had not been .......... [SORRY, but here it ends. Although it says (continued in our second page), it just isn't there. But at least it gives a taste of what happened then.... ih] Benjamin LEDDICOAT, 23, was found Guilty of stealing at Truro, on the 31st of December, a fowl, the property of Richard CREWES.- Four Months' Hard Labour. Charles HARRIS, was charged with stealing a piece of beef, the property of Richard Hoskin, in another count, prisoner was charged with receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen. Prosecutor is a butcher at Wadebridge, and had killed a bullock, which he left hanging up in his slaughter house on Thursday night, the 28th of February. In the morning prosecutor's son found that the slaughter house had been entered, and a piece of the bullock had been cut off, a sheep there was also thrown on the ground. Samuel HILL, constable of St Breock, went with another constable called BLAKE, to search prisoner's house. Prisoner's wife was there and on the constable taking out the warrant to read, she left the house. The constable proceeded to search first in a drawer, and under some bread he found paper, beneath which were rags, and in a corner some pieces of young pork. In the coal-house the constable found a bundle, in which was a paper full of ducks' heads, fowls' wings and entrails, from a gallon to three pottles in quantity. From a cupboard, he took down a dish in which there was a piece of a neck of mutton, and in the same cupboard was found a small piece of beef, which the constable said, on comparison with the bullock in Prosecutor's slaughter- house, showed, "as nice a fit as could be" with the place whence it had been cut off. Mr Collier addressed the jury in prisoner's defence, and called as a witness prisoner's brother, who stated that he left prisoner's house about nine o'clock on the night of the 28th February; prisoner then locked the door, and seemed to be going to bed; in the morning about half-past six, he and prisoner went to work together. In the evening there was no beef in the cupboard; on two shelves of it there was only some earthenware, and on the third there was some tobacco and a mousetrap. Mary TRUSCOTT, who lives at Wadebridge, was also called in behalf of the prisoner. She said her window looks out on the house of the prisoner, and that on the morning of the 1st of March, about seven o'clock, she saw William HOOPER (who lives in the same court with Harris) go into prisoner's house, having in his hand a boiler; and that he stayed in the house two or three minutes. William Hooper is brother to a man who is also indicted for stealing from prosecutor's slaughterhouse; and the defence by Mr. Collier was that the piece of beef had been carried into prisoner's house to screen another party. Mr Collier also called Mr. Henry STEHENS, captain of the mine where prisoner worked, who gave him a good character. Mr Slade for the prosecution, replied, inquiring why it was that Hooper, who was supposed to have put the meat away was not called to give evidence. The learned Judge having summed up, the jury found the prisoner Guilty on the first count of stealing;- Sentence deferred. RICHARD STEPHENS COCK, 58, was found Guilty of stealing, on the 17th of January, at the parish of St Blazey, some potatoes, pilchards, pair of boots, and other articles, the property of Charles MERRETT (?Merratt). A former conviction for felony was also proved against the prisoner. He was sentenced to Twelve Months' Imprisonment, and cautioned not to appear at the bar again, or a more severe sentence would be inflicted on him. STEPHEN ROGERS was Acquitted of a charge of stealing, on the 13th of March, a faggot of wood, the property of William JEWELL. TRIALS OF PRISONERS.- Joseph NEAL, 24, was indicted for maliciously cutting and wounding John ROBINS, with intent to maim and disable him; and another count charged the prisoner with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. Mr HUGHES prosecuted, and Mr COLLIER defended the prisoner. John Robins said he lived at Pyworthy, in Devonshire, and was employed about the boats in the Bude Canal. On the 21st of November, he was engaged in towing a string of six empty boats, and was walking on the towing path driving his horse. Prisoner is a driver in the same way, and was coming smartly after prosecutor also with six empty boats. This was near a bridge situated in Bridgerule parish. Prisoner came up to the boats prosecutor was towing, and held on to one of them with his boat-hook. He then got into one of the prosecutor's boats, in which was a lad called PENWARDEN. Prisoner was struggling with Penwarden, and prosecutor therefore went back to the boat to take the part of the lad. He ordered prisoner to go out, and gave him a "shove," in doing which prosecutor's heels slipped out, and he gave prisoner, as he said, a slight touch by accident with a whip which he had in his hand doubled up. On that, prisoner jumped out of the boat, and caught up his boat-hook, which had iron at the end of a pole from seven to eight feet long. With this he struck prosecutor violently on the top of his head; the blow cut through his hat, broke his skull and knocked him down. Prosecutor said he bled very much, and when he was recovering from the effect of the blow, and was getting up, prisoner struck him again with the boat-hook and broke his shoulder; and as he was bleeding he struck him the third time across the small of the back. Prosecutor was strictly cross-examined by Mr Collier. It appeared that prisoner was endeavouring to get ahead with his boats, and the effect of his holding by prosecutor's boats, was that the horses of the latter had to pull an additional load. The occurrence took place at a bridge which they had to pass and there was another set of boats coming laden the opposite way at the same time. Prosecutor said he did not know that there was a penalty for not letting a boat pass; he said the other boats could not have passed him at the place where they came up to him. John Penwarden's evidence showed that the occurrence took place between seven and eight in the morning at a place called Grace ? Turn. He said that when prisoner came into the boat he tried to lift witness out over the off side of the canal. Robins then came back and said "you shall not serve my mate like that," and there was then a scuffle between them. Before that witness had set up a pole to prevent prisoner from passing. William HAMLEY, who was driving the boats which met those of prosecutor and prisoner, also gave evidence in part corroboration of what has been already stated. Mr PEARSE, surgeon, Holsworthy, was called to attend Robins on the 21st November, about ten in the forenoon; he was in bed at his own house, and witness examined him. There was a lacerated wound on the right side of the head; the right parietal? bone was injured, witness had no doubt it was broken. He had also sustained a fracture of the right shoulder blade, and had bruises on the arm, but no further bruises that witness noticed. Should think the bruises might be produced by such a pole as the bargemen use. The man was about three weeks or a month under witness 's care; he at first thought the wound on the skull was dangerous, but after a few days, the symptoms of danger disappeared. He was now recovered from the injuries, but still complained of a good deal of pain in his arm; witness believed he would have the use of his are ultimately. Cross-examined.- The other plate of the skull was broken in, but there was no concussion of the brain, and not a great deal of blood; the blow might not have deprived him of his senses; the wound on the skull healed in about a week or ten days, that on the shoulder blade (which was broken,) in about three weeks.- Mr Collier addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending that there were some discrepancies in the evidence. He also submitted that Penwarden was doing wrong in setting up the pole to prevent prisoner from passing with his boats. There was no evidence of previous malice, and when a man was struck, as prisoner was in the first place by prosecutor, he would be likely to become so angry as not to think at the moment what instrument he might strike with in return. He submitted that though the jury might find the prisoner guilty of a common assault, they were not warranted in finding him guilty of the more heinous offence named in the indictment. He then called William BICKLE, a farmer who have the prisoner a good character.- The learned Judge summed up, observing that the question was whether the prisoner intended to do some grievous bodily harm. The first blow might have been given suddenly, and not with that intention; but with regard to the second and third blows, they must consider whether these blows would warrant the finding a verdict on the first count in the indictment, - otherwise they should say whether the prisoner was guilty of a common assault;- Verdict, Guilty of a common assault. The learned Judge said the jury had taken a merciful view of the case; he cautioned the prisoner to beware how he again indulged angry feelings in such a reckless manner, and sentenced him to Twelve Calendar Months' Imprisonment with hard Labour. BENJAMIN LEDDICOAT, 23, was found Guilty of stealing, at Truro, on the 31st December, a fowl, the property of Richard CREWES.- Four Months' Hard Labour. {end} |