The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-10-12 00:00:00

STANIVARY COURT.

TRURO. OCTOBER 5.
The only holiness or public implirtatice that
male berme the Court was the trial of the cause.

TIMOUNT FALMOUTH v. THOMAS STSPHSNS.
Ilia Lordship's Petition to the Vice-Warilen
stated, that on the 29th Septemlwr, 1810, the No-
ble Complainant had granted to the Ilefendant a
set or lease of Wheal Kock Mine. in the parish or
St. Agnes, fur 41 years. By the tern)* of the lease,
the Defendant eog.igril to sink n new shaft,
and to employ at least eight able millets in this
work ; to erect a %.teiniortignie within twelve months.
and to make drifts and edit% anal work the mine
effectually miles, prevented by unavoidable sees-
dents. The Defendant neglected to iimply with
these terms, by which the eitothwt was avoided,
wliii•li. and 1110.00 he had receiv-
ed warniug to the contrary. he entered Upon the
wine in ably, lBly, and began to work it. The

, .
,•.
petition therefore prayed that the indentured lease
might be produced in Court and cancelled, ou ac-
t-mint of breach of agreement.
Mr. JOSEPH EDWARDS, whn stated the rave for
the Complainant, inithitteil that when the tense
wink granted there were cotter persons in possession
of the vet. fhi. the Defendant mod have known
SO
well as the Complainant. It 110.9 not appear
that he ever •pplird to Lord Falmouth, or lint
agent■ to turn out those persona, nr that be had
taken any step whate•er to gin' possession of his
rights till May last, after a foileiture Of his enve-
pant tad been incurred. The persons in polars-
Pion when the Pet was granted. hove not complained
being turned tint, knowing that they have no
ground, •S MO having heen in lawful possei:Oon.
The Learned Gentleman therefore contended, that
unless it could he s'irown that another 'mils was iu
Irgel posprs.ion and could tint be misled by the De-
fendant, his 11'orship's decision must be given in
favour of the Petition.

Mr. Richard Curgenven. steward to Lord Fal-
mouth, the first witness called, 'was present at the
exectition of the Iroise by the Comp!Ninon' 501111 otter
the day on winch it is dated; but admitted that it
Was not executed by the Defendant till the 1-2 th of
October, 1818. The Defrod.iiit never made any
objection on account of the mine heiug in the pos.
session of others; several intimations were given to
the Distention' that the set was ready for him ; and
he (witness) was prepared to vitt hint in possession
immediately after the execution of the lone.
Thomas trestrail. toiler to the Complainant, Will
the next witness. He informed the Defendant se-
veral times that the set was ready, and coiled upon
him to proceed. Knows that the Defendant was
endeavouring to get a company of adventurers, in
which, as witness was told_by him, he found great
difficulty. Other persons were in ;tossession of the
mite till an injunction was granted in May lost. and
Lord Falmouth received does of them on account
of ores raised from the mine till then. Captain
Shesrman was in possession in the interval between
September, 1817, and October, 1818. and his ma-
terials remained on the mine. Wastes, was on the
mine with William Stephens, bristlier of the 1)e-
-lenthint, on the 19th of April last. and told him
he should not enter the new set unless lie made it
new covenant. Wheal Hock set expired • consider-
able time before the new lease was granted. Wit-
netts does not recollect having received dues from
the old adventurers after the expiration of the old
set till within the lost two or three months.

Mr. George Thomas, serf. was called. when the
advocate for the Defendant inquired whether he
had any interest in the question, and whether lie dill
not expect to have a share in the mine if the De-
fendant was turned out? Mr. T. acknowledged
that some cativersation had taken place between
himself and Lord Falmouth on the subject ; and
his evidence was in consequence deemed inadmis-
sible by the Court.
Captain Shearman stated, that he had been agent
of the old adventurers in Wheal Rock for twenty
years. The last duties paid by him on their account
to the agent of the Complainant was about two or
three months ago: it was a year or more between
that and the payment of the preceding dues. There
had been no working under ground since August.
1818. The Defendant, who lived very near him,
never demanded possession of the mine of witness,
whom he knew to be manager; neither did he ever
complain to him of not being put in possession.
The dues paid at the last payment hut one were
for ores hrokeu before September, 1817. On his
emus-examivation lie said, that two men and a boy
were working from September, 1817, to April,
1819. The last dues paid to Lord Falmouth were
trout 30/. to 41)1. being one tenth. The adven-
turers divided nothing in that lime. Witness ad.
mitted that dues hail been paid besides these in
April last, for ores raised since September, 1817;
those paid in April were for ores raised for about
twelve mouths previous.
The Vice-Warden was decidedly of opinion that
the petition was nut sustained by the evidence.
The Complainant, either by himself or his agents
certsioly ought to have put the Defendant in pos.
session of the mine, instead of which it had been
proved that the old adventurers had continued its
possession and raised ores, fur which the Com.
plainatit's agents hall by their own admission re.
ceived dues. On the other hand, it was now in.
cumbent ote the Defendant to work the mine with
vigour, according to the tenour of his engagement.
Flis Worship, therefore. decreed that the petition
be dismissed with coalman cot's.