The Sun.
London, England, 1858-09-10 00:00:00

ExiTAO_RD.TIVARY CASE.

(From tZte West Briton of Aug. 27.)
MARY TRELEAVEg., WIDOW, V. SIR JOSEPH SAWLE
GRATES SAWLE, BART.
This .was
an action brought by the plaintiffs al
widow, at the St. Austell County Court, he on
the 19th August, before C. D. Bevan, Esq., afnd_sao
jury, against the defendant, for the recoveryt
damages for an illegal and excessive dis ole_vie.d
by the _defendant on the goods of. the plaintiff in
the month of May Bishop, of Fowey,
appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was
represented by Mr. -Stokes, of Truro. From the
statement 'made on behalf ofplaintiff it appeared
that her. late husband, Thomas
tTreleaven, in the
and. mills called
year 1852, occupied .
a hteonfeSt. Austell, under a lease
Molingey, in the
at the yearly renpt.nor:flBlll2—Sir Joseph being the
and Mrs. Trjcleaven still continues to
landlord Just before and at the gene-
occupy tile property.
ral election in the month of July: 1852, Sir Joseph
exerted himself very strongly m favour of Mr.
Robartes, the then candidate, and one of the pre-
sent members for the eastern division of the county.
Thomas Trelea-ven, and his father, Joseph Tre-
leaven,.were voters, and Sir Joseph was very de-
sirous of securing their votes for Mr. Robartes.
Thomas Treleaven was disposed to vote for Mr.
Kendall,' or stand aloof from the election, which
coming. to" Sir Joseph's knowledge, he sent sa farmer
named Wm. Thomas, who rented the estate of
Towan, under Sir Joseph, to obtain his vote. Thos.
Treleaven deeined to pledge himself, unless, as he
stated, Sir Joseph would agree to make the same
abatement of. £lO per cent. on his rental as Mr.
Robartes had made to his tenants in consequence
of the badness of the times, and Thomas Treleaven
also intimated that his father (Joseph) would
vote as he did. Thomas, the witness, tried the Tre-
leavens hard, but they would not give way ; Thos.
Treleaven stated that he should serve his
own interest. This determination was con-
veyed to Sir Joseph by the witness Thomas, and, as
Mr. Thomas stated, Sir Joseph on- the evening be-
fore the polling, authorised him to go to the Tre-
leavens, at Molingey, and tell them that the required
%abatement of £lO per cent. should be made. This
v 3 did, and on the following day the Treleavens
p, .filed for Mr. Robartes. Thomas Treleaven died
in the latter part of the year 1852, and at the first
rent -paying afterwards Mrs. Treleaven, through
her brother, kept back a portion of the rent, at the
same ,time telling''Mr. Martin, the cashier at Messrs.
Coode s, who received the money, that Sir Joseph
would know what the deduction was for. It ap-
pears tri,at matters went on in this state from the
year 18X.4 down to the month of January last, when
the plain tiff's brother,.having been summoned at
the instance of Sir Joseph for shooting without a
license on the tenement occupied by her, and which
is but a shoal:. distance from Penrice, she gave evi-
dence in his favour, at which. Sir Joseph was so
annoyed that lie instructed his solicitors to require
her to • give up possession of the tenement, and
threatened to bring an action of ejectment in case
of a refusal. Notwithstanding plaintiff's term
would not expire , till Michaelmas, 1859, she, to pre-
vent legal proceedings, agreed to give up at the
coming Michaelmas ; and it was arranged that an
agreement in writing should be drawn up and
signed, to carry the understanding into effect.
Upon the agreement being prepared, Mrs. Treleaven
found that she would be bound to pay up certain
so-called arrears of rent ; this she objected to, as
she said that Sir Joseph knew very well why the
£lO per year had been kept back, and the agree-
ment was not signed in consequence. No further
demand of rent was made till the latter end of
April, or beginning of May last, when the same
answer was given as before. On the 28th May Sir
Joseph summoned his tenant, Mr. W. Thomas, for
trespass for shooting rabbits on Mrs. Treleaven's
farm. Mrs. Treleaven appeared before the magi-
strates, and gave evidence in his favour that she had
invited him there, and the- case was dismissed.
The very next day Sir Joseph distrained Mrs.
Treleaven for £llB, being £56 for half-a-year's
rent due at Lady-day, and the sum of £62 for
arrears. Mrs. Treleaven had always- before paid
her rent yearly. On the distress being levied, a
tender was made of the amount which plaintiff eon-
csived she owed, which being refused, the full sum
of £llB was paid, with the costs of the distress.
Previously to bringing the action, the plaintiff's
attorney proposed to leave the matter to the deci-
sion of two magistrates ; which, with other over-
tures, being rejected, the action was brought to
recover £5O, being the utmost limit of the County
Court jurisdiction, although the plaintiff considered
she had overpaid £6B 18s., with the costs. It
should also be stated that she claimed an allowance
of £4 per annum for some meadows, which had
been destroyed by sand. In support of plaintiff's
case,Nt's. Treleaven, the plaintiff, was called, who
gave evidence to the effect before stated, and de-
posed to her being present on the evening before
the election, when Mr. Thomas made her husband
the promise of the abatement of £lO per cent.,
which he said he was authorised to do by Sir
Joseph.
Mr. William Thomas, of Towan, farmer, was
next called. He stated that he had been a tenant
of Sir Joseph's for 28 years. He gave evidence at
great length, and with much clearness, as to his
interviews with Sir Joseph previous to the elec•
tion. He related the conversation which he had
on the evening before, when the promise was made,
and stated that on his hinting to Sir Joseph that
he had better have the Treleavens up to Penrice,
and make the arrangements himself—Sir Joseph
said, " Oh, I can't do that, I shall be brought up
for bribery ;" and that witness then remarked,
"You will stick me into it, Sir Joseph ;" upon
which Sir Joseph said, " You can do it ; but few
will know it, and the amount can be allowed when
the rent is paid at the office."
This witness was very severely cross-examined
by Mr. Stokes as to his having quarrelled with
Sir Joseph Sawle, whether he had made any
notes of what had occurred, and whether he had
told any one besides the story for the past six.
years ; he adhered, however, to his previous state-
ments, and in answer to Mr. Stokes's question,
whether that was the only case in which he had
bribed, he said " that it was the only case in which
he had gone so far at Sir Joseph's request, although
he had made some other promises. Mr. Stokes
pressed him to name any other ease, but this he
declined to do, and the judge ruled that he was net
bound to disclose any more.
Mrs. Treleaven was recalled. She corroborated
the evidence of the last witness as to the promise
made by him to her husband.
James Chapman, the brother of the plaintiff, was
next called. He deposed to having paid the year
rent first after the election, and that he kept back
a portion ; at the same time telling Mr. Martyn,
to whom it (the rent) was paid, that Sir Joseph
would know what it was for. He also proved hav-
ing on another occasion paid rent when he kept
back as before ; and that he paid the rent for the
year ending Michaelmas last, when, on Mr. Mar-
tyn's calling his attention to the arrears, he said
there were none ; the £lO a-year was to be allowed,
as Sir Joseph knew all about it ; and the £4 a-year
for the fields, which would make it right ; that
Mr. Martyn's figures and his corresponded ; but
that Mr. Martyn said he himself could not make
the allowance, it must rest with Sir Joseph.
Richard Chapman, another brother of the plain-
tiff, proved the tender of the rent admitted to be
due, and the subsequent payment of the ,XllB and
costs. He also proved that the meadows were in-
jured
to the extent of £4 per annum by the sand.
Several letters were here put in—one from Messrs.
Coode and Co., requiring possession in January
last, and threatening an action ofejectmentti in case
of refusal. Another from them in
comeolith of
May (mis-dated), requesting plaintiffietom
some understanding, as to th amount of the to
owing, and also a letter from plaintiff's attorney,rent
dated Ist June, making claim for damages sustained
through the distress, and proposing to refer the
matter to two magistrates.
Mr. Stokes then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant in a very forcible speech. On behalf of
Sir
Joseph, he totally denied that any such
had been made, as‘ promise
William Thomas. sworn to by the witness, Mr.
He severely criticised Mr. Tho-
mas's evidence, and denounced the action.as a con
spiracy. He endeavoured to impress upon the
minds of the jury the impossibility of agentl eman,
in Sir Joseph such a
. 's position, doingthing as was
charged against him, and contrasted Sir Joseph's
t
position with that of the man Thomas, who, he con
tended, was-
not to be believed
the fact thatilc
also called the attention of the jury onto his
the plaintiff did not procure an attorney from St.
Austell, but went to Foweto get one. The
should prove that
learned advocate stated that he
the abatement of Tent was made in the year 1851,
and not after the election of 1852, as sworn to by
plaintiff and her witnesses. He co
urncluded a most
.tthe 'y that he
powerful address by reminding
should call Sir. Joseph, and that would be a case
of direct perjury on the one side or the other.
Mr. Stokes then called witnesses for the defence.
Mr. Nicholas Martin, who stated that he was a
clerk at Messrs. Coode and Co.'s, and kept Sir Jos.
Sawle's rental account for them. He produced the
rent ledger, showing the payment of the several
rents on account of Molingey, from the year 1852
down to the month of May last ; by these accounts
it appeared that more thari £lOB, at times, was
paid yearly during those years. He showed that
the deficiency was carried on as " arrears." He-
stated that he had called Sir Joseph's attention to'
an abatement claimed-for a depression in the times,
and that X2O was deluctedlor:allowed in conse-