The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-29 00:00:00

IN EE SALMON.

Mr. Sargood opposeatherelease. d this bankrupt. The
circumstances of the ease were peculiarly painfuL The
beekrupt was blind, and was a teacher is • blind
scbooL The opposing creditor was his sister, from whom be
had obtained 2001. op the promise of ievesting it, which be
Pretended to have dope in India hoods. Being sued, be
impudently admitted that he bad invested the money in his
furniture, which had since been made away with.
The Oenuniuioner—A re the enigma's chosen
Mr. Sergood said they wen not.
The Commisaioner—Thee I shall not entertain the appli-
cation until after the choice.

This wee another appliciaioniirreisase, and his Hower
decided it in the same way as the IS there beim a chugs
spinet the bankrapt of forging an esdaresnasat to a bal.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(TRIS DAY.)

The February session of the Grand Criminal Court was
opened this morning before the Right Hon. the Lad Mayor,
the Reemder, Alderman lialomous. X.P., Alderman Rose,
BLP., Alderman DAM, tad Alderman Leff, the sheriffs.
tuider-abeelfi's, Lc.
The first edition of the calendar contains the names of 69
prisousre-54 males sad 15 fentelea There is only one
charts of murder to be disposed of.
The Recorder, is charging the gland jury. congratulated
them on the unusually small number of cases contained in
the ealeridar, and which were not generally of &serious cha-
racter. There wee one charge of wilful murder which was one
of those melancholy caeca of which there had been so many
of late. The prisoner was charged with the wilful murder
of her illegitimate child. It appeared the body of the child
was foetid, life being quit* *stied. The medical evidence
was to the effect that death bad been mused by stran-
gulation, a tight ligature having been toned round
the neck. There was no doubt that the child
was the prisoner's, and that she was the person
who inflicted the injury, but the question which
would arise was whether it had been done intentiveally.
There were two or three charges of manslaughter, is one
of which • man named Patrick Hayes, who wee ooefised is
geed was charged with musing the death of ass of hie
fellow prisoners. It appeared that the deceased made some
munmaniestion to one of the warders of the prison, Is
eonsequence of which the primmer'■ cell was searched,
which aroused his anger, and he struck the deceased
• blow with his fist, which it was said mused his
death, although no particular injury beyond a bleed-
ing at the nose was naiad at the time. There
was elm • cam in which the prisoner was charged
with attempting to kill his wife by throwing her out of the
window. The evidence was sot very conclusive, no one
having apparently seen the prisoner commit the act. Some
witnesses saw the body of the woman come out of the
window, but her own statement sou that abe wasfrightected
and she jumped out, and it would be for the grand jury to
my bow far the charge was borne out by the evidence.
The Recorder then alluded to a case of larceny, which he
said was sot of an ordinary description, in which the pri-
mmer one charged with assisting the prceecutor's wife to
rub him. His lordship explained to the grand jury that by
a legal technicality a wife could not rob her husband, so
that unless the were living is adultery with the
Cte4tor's wife, as he could not be mid to have rented
rob her husband ; and that would be the question
for them to decide. His loedship thee drew the
attention of the grand jury to an indictment under an act
of parliament which had beau recently paned, in which
the person indicted was charged with having forged cer-
tain trade marks. Until recently there bad been mule doubt
as to whether it was forgery to imitate • trade mark, but
those doubts were entirely removed by the paring of the
act to which he alluded, which took place is 1362, and which
makes it a forgery for any perms to imitate a trade mark
with intact to defraud, or to enable others to defraud. It
appeared that application was made to the prisoner
by apsiteirsoat, no doubt employed for the purpose,
to en y him with the trade mark of a person named Rolfe,
which did, and afterwards mode arrangemeota to supply
him with a farther quantity. Two questions would arise
from this—firstly, as to the latent to defraud, and then as
to enabling another to defraud. As regarded the intent, if
the person sold the trade marks to one who was is no way
Interested in them, it meat be to *table him to defraud, and
the prisoner creed that Rolfe bad hem some time out of
business, sad he was sot aware that the trade was still carried