CORNISH-L Archives

Archiver > CORNISH > 2007-07 > 1185170658


From: "Tony Mooney" <>
Subject: Re: [CORNISH] Weekly Newspaper, News, 10th November, 1843.
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:04:18 +0100
In-Reply-To: <000101c7cc68$2288bc40$c7f34ed5@Study>


-----Original Message-----
From: [ <mailto:>
mailto:] On Behalf Of harris
Sent: 22 July 2007 13:57
To:
Subject: [CORNISH] Weekly Newspaper, News, 10th November, 1843.


West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser - Friday, November 10th, 1843.


THE STANNARIES COURT - MOTIONS -


TREGILGAS v. DUNGEY - Mr. HOCKIN showed cause against a rule nisi,
obtained by Mr. BENNALLACK, for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict
was against the weight of evidence as to the plaintiff being a miner at the
time the debt was contracted. Mr. HOCKIN contended that by the convocation
act, 16 Ch. I., c. 15, it was only necessary that the plaintiff should be a
miner at the time of the commencement of the suit. Mr. Bennallack said the
plaintiff was not a working miner for just before the account was brought he
bought a small share in a trumpery mine. The learned advocate said he
remembered that when he was Steward there were numerous cases decided in
which the principle was laid down that it was necessary the parties should
be miners at the time of the contraction of the debt, such cases would be
found in the steward's book if that could be obtained. That book he (Mr.
B.) had handed over to the late Mr. BORLASE of Helston, when he ceased to
act as steward. His Honour said that that book had never found its way into
the office, although it ought to have been delivered up with the other
documents connected with the proceedings of the old Stannaries Courts. His
Honour expressed a wish to see the book, to ascertain the practice, and
postponed his decision in order that a search might be made for it.





This thread: