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

quence. In cross-examination witness stated that
the depression in the times was in the year 1849 and
1850, but on referring to the rental it appeared no
allowance was made until the year 1853, after the
election. He would not undertake to swear
whether it was before or after the election, that Sir
Joseph authorised the abatement. He admitted that
plaintiff's brothers had made statements to him from
time to. time that Sir Joseph had promised to give
up £lO a year, and Sir Joseph had access to the
books, and saw how the accounts stood ; that plain-
tiff had never been furnished with a statement of
the account, and that when he told her, in January,

of there being arrears, she said she did not owe any,
as the £lO per year promised by Sir Joseph, and
the allowance for the meadow would make it up ;

that the rent was usually paid yearly.
Sir Joseph Sawle, defendant, was then called.
In answer to questions put by Mr. Stokes, he stated
that all that Mr. Thomas had sworn to is falSe—it
is wholly false. I never made any such promise, to
allow £lO per year, or authorised Mr. Thomas to
make such a promise for me. Thomas never referred
to the bargain or promise after the year 1852, nor
did the Treleavens. I never heard of their claims
for the allowance on such account until just before
the distress was put in ; that was the first time—l
put in the distress in consequence of that, and not
on account of the dispute about the rabbits. I did
allow on account of the times a deduction, before
the election of 1852, I think—l think I agreed to
give up two years—that was the only allowance I
ever agreed to. I think so."
Cross-examined by Mr. Bishop—What Thomas
has sworn to is all false—it is wholly false. It may
be true that he was at Penrice the evening before
the election. I did see him about a week before the
election, as he has sworn, and I did send him to
canvas the two Treleavens as well as others. I swear
I never received a letter from Thomas Treleaven
about his rent. I will not swear that I did not have a
conversation with Thomas in this very room about
the vote. I will swear that Thomas, the witness,
did not make any report to me about the Tre-
leavens' Notes. I did desire Thomas to invite the
Treleavens with the other voters to breakfast at
Penrice, the morning of the election. It was before
the election I told Mr. Martyn to deduct the rent,
but can't say whether it was made after or not.
The first time I had a dispute about the rabbits
was more than 12 months ago. I did take steps
to turn Mrs. Treleaven out •of the farm. I gave
directions for the letters (produced) to be written
(these, were the letters referred to in Mrs. Tre-
leavenh; evidence). I have never spoken to Mrs.
Treleaven except about a summons—she did not
apply to me about the £lO a-year promised, nor.
her brothers—very likely I refused to see them,
when they called at Penrice. They may have
called there and I may have refused to see them.
The second rabbit dispute. .was in May.. I sum-
moned Mr. Thomas—the charge broke down—the
summons might have been heard on the 28th, and
the distress might' have been on the 29th. I do
not know when the distress was made ; I cannot
recollect. Sir Joseph was here asked how he re-
collected so well what took took place six years ago
at the election and did. not know the particulars of
the distress which took place only three months
since ; but he was not further pressed.
Mr. Bishop then replied, and in the first place
called the attention of the jury to the attack made
on the plaintiff and himself by the learned advocate
for the defendant, whose zeal for his client's cause
had led him to do that which the circumstances
would .not warrant. Mr. Bishop directed the jury
to the fact that the defendant not being content, or
feeling secure, notwithstanding the powerful aid
of his own St. Austell attorneys, had thought it
necessary. to take a journey to Truro (a distance of
some 16 miles) to secure also the services of the
"leviathan of the law," Mr. Stokes. (The parties
in the. Hall' here made a strong demonstration of
applause, which the judge instantly ordered to be
suppreSsed, and threatened to commit any
one who should. similarly offend again.) Ms.
Bishop then proceeded to remark on the
utter failure of defendant's proofs, as stated .by
Mr.- Stokes,- who had in his opening said that
he should prove the allowance to have been made
in 1851, whereas it was shown by the testimony of
Mr. Martyn, his own witness, that no abatement
was made until the year .1853, . being. for the year
succeeding the election, and which strongly corro-
borated the evidence of Mr. Thomas, the " man" so
denounced by Mr. Stokes. He pointed out the dif-
ference of the manner in which Sir Joseph had
given his evidence to that of Mr. Thomas—the
latter having gone into the most minute particulars,
in respect of which his evidence had been altoge-
ther unshaken, whilst Sir Joseph, after making a
wholesale denial of Mr. Thothas's statements, after-
wards-admitted, in six particulars out of seven, that
Mr. Thomas's evidence was correct. The advocate
contended that Sir Joseph's evidence and that of
Mr. Martyn completely substantiated. plaintiff's
case, for though they both admitted that the agri-
cultural depression was in the years 1849 and.lBso
no abatement or •allowance was made from the rent
till the year 1853, the next rental after the elec-
tion, when plaintiff stated that the promise
was made. He also called attention to the
manner in which Sir Joseph had tried to
evict • the widow, though she held under a
good and valid lease, and asked them to say
which was the most likely to be true—that Sir
Joseph had levied the distress in consequence of her
claim for the allowance of the £lO per year as she
believed was promised, or in consequence of her
giving the evidence on the rabbit dispute, seeing
that she was distrained the very following day,
when, as Sir Joseph stated, he had broken down in
his prosecution, and through her evidence. Mr.
Bishop expressed his surprise that the advocate for
the defendant had paraded his long and. high-
sounding name, and. his title, as a guarantee that
his evidence was to be more valued than that of the
witness, Mr. Thomas, a highly respectable farmer,
whom Mr. Stokes had. styled throughout " that
man," and reminded. the jury that persons who
might have the-prefix of a " Sir," and the addition
of " Bart." to their names, were not to be credited.
more than others whose antecedents were equally
good —that birth and title alone would not
ensure respect unless it was accompanied by in-
tegrity of principle and conduct. Mr. Bishop
concluded. by calling on the jury, not for an
expression of their sympathy for the widow, but
that they would do her plain justice, and award
her a verdict for the amount claimed.
The Judge summed up the case to the jury, and
at the same time expressed his doubts as to the
probability of a gentleman in Sir Joseph's position,
a Baronet, mid. an enlightened, magistrate of the
county, making such a promise as had been alleged,
or of his putting himself in the power of his tenant
omas,however,.it.eomnalrteed,stlilicaht
idit
s.,,coalssamqv. The
usestio Judge,
nforileln
to decide, as to the comparative credit due to the
evidence of Sir Joseph and that of Mr. Thomas ;
and that possibly, as they lived in the neighbour-
hood, they knew Sir Joseph better than he did ;
that Mr. Thomas had certainly given his evidence
more_ clearly than Sir Joseph had done. He was
glad to find. it . admitted. on all sides that Mr..
Robartes knew nothing of the transaction in ques-
tion. .He then read over the whole of the evidence,
and left the case to the jury, who retired. about
half-an-hour, and then returned with this verdict :
" Verdict for plaintiff, damages £5O, and desiring
to add their belief that Sir Joseph had made the
promise, but that his memory had failed him."
The verdict was received with considerable ap-
plause by an audience of many hundreds of
persons.