The elder brother died, wben a will was produced giving all the freehold property to his widow, whose maiden name was Millett. Henry Rogers averred, and possibly believed, that the will was spurious, and would be invalid at all events. Under that impression, and despising legal remedies, he waited for an opportunity when his sister-in-law was from home; he then turned some female servants out of the house, and took forcible possession. The widow of course appealed to the law, with the voice of the whole country, however, against her; and it is universally reported that Sir John St. Aubyn, the principal gentleman of the parish, would have supported Rogers in a legal proceeding. However that may be, he prepared for violence, and refused to yield up possession when judgment was given against him; so that the Sheriff was at last directed to eject him by force. But Rogers got several persons, ignorant and lawless as himself, to remain with him in the house, which had been barricaded and adapted for defence, and great numbers of people, partly from curiosity, but in part also to countenance his resistance, having assembled on the spot, the civil power was completely resisted, and two men killed by shots from the house; the Under Sheriff himself having narrowly escaped,—as he states in his evidence, rather ludicrously, that the discharge of a gun from the house burnt his wig and singed his face.
This happened on the 18th of June, 1734.
On the following day the Under Sheriff came back, assisted by some soldiers, who were fired on and one killed. They returned the fire, but without effect. And then, which would appear almost incredible, Rogers was allowed to remain in quiet possession, after these murders, till March of the following year, when he was again blockaded by soldiers; and the siege, I apprehend, continued for several days, with the loss of two more men, when at last cannon were brought from Pendennis Castle. On the night following their arrival, Rogers
