The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-03-05 00:00:00

)k
o'
ti:

IithTFURDSIIIRE ASSIZES,
THURSDAY, MARCH 4.

The assizes for this county commenced here to-day, before the
Lord Chief Baron Alexander and the Honourable Mr. Justice
Best. The calendar contains a list of twenty-six prisoners com-
mitted for various offences ; but the most prominent case is the
alleged murder of James 0 rainge by Mr. Patrick Connolly and
others, at Shenley Hill, on the 31st of December last.
Mr. Justice Best, who presided in the Crown Court, charged
the Grand Jurv, and called their attention principally to the case
above mentioned. His Lordship, after stating to them the sub-
stance of the depositions against the prisoners, as returned by the
committing magistrates, said he understood that there were two
distinct charges Intended to be preferred against the parties, name-
ly, one founded on Lord Ellenborough's Act, 43d Geo. 3, for stab-
bing the sheriff"s officer, Watson, with a pitchfork, with intent to
murder him ; and the other for murdering James Urainge with a
loaded gun. These charges he understood to be applicable to two
distinct transactions: first, that in which Watson attempted to ar-
rest Mr. Connolly, and the other, when the deceased was killed,
in an attempt to apprehend the prisoner on a peace warrant.
The first alleged offence must depend upon the question,
whether, in case death had ensued from the violence com-
mitted on Watson's person, the offence would have been mur-
der. In order to the decision of this question, it would be
necessary to attend to the evidence as to the manner in which the
officer attempted to make his caption. According to the deposi-
tions, the outer-door of the house was open, and in the attempt to
force an inner-door the wound was inflicted. If this fact was
clearly established the first offence would be made out. An officer
could not break an outer-door to execute evil process ; but finding
the outer door open he might enter, and break inner-doors to take
his prisoner. If the door, upon which the violence was committed
in this instance, was the outer entrance to the house, then the
officer would not be justified in breaking it, though the pri-
soner was only a visitor. The depositions of the different
witnesses varied in this point, and therefore it was incumbent
on the Grand Jury to pay particular attention to this part
of the case. Then, as to the second charge, there was no doubt
that if the deceased was &Constable, and duly authorised to execute
a warrant for the apprehension of Mr. Connolly for the breach of
the peace committed on Watson, the breaking open the house was
a lawful act, provided the prisoner had due notice of the contents
and object of the warrant ; and if the prisoner, in resisting the ex.
ecution of the wairant under such circumstances, killed the officer,
the offence would amount to murder. His Lordship observed that
there was a material difference in the depositions of the several wit.
nesses as to the notice given to the prisoner of the contents of the
warrant, and the authority of the deceased to execute it. Scene said
that the warrant was read to the prisoner, and others, that the sub.
stance of its contents was distinctly announced. It was the duty
of the Grand Jury to watch with great circumspection this
part of the evidence, because it was most Tramiel as ft respect-
ed the charge of wilful murder. It appeared from ate deptiai-
Cons, that Mrs. Brown, Moran, and the other prisoners,
were encouraging the conduct of Conolly throughout the whole
transaction, and therefore, in the eye of the law, they were all
principals. The Grand Jury, however, would attenl to all the
circumstances of the ease. as proved by rim yore evidence, and re-
turn such bills as were satisfactory to their consciences.
The Grand Jury, after being out about four Miura, returned a
bill for Alaorlaughter only against Mr. Conolly and Hugh Moran,
and ignored the bills against Mrs. Brown, Amelia Morgan, and
Edward Trayers.
There was nothing of public interest on the Civil side.

ADJOURANED SESSIONS CLERKENWELL,

Mu ReDAY. MAICU 4.

ESCAPE FROM THE PENITENTIARY.

James Stevenson was indicted for an escape from the Peniten.
tiarr, Milbank.
This prosecution was instituted by the Committee of Directors.
The prisoner had been sentenced to seven you' transportation
at the Old Bailey, which sentence was commuted to five years im.
prisonment in the Penitentiary. On the removal of the prisoners
of this establishment to the hulks, the prisoner made his escape
with two others. _ _

The prisoner pleaded Guilty, and Mr. ALLEY observed, that
in consequence of his now making the only amends in his power,
be had the instructions of the Committee to beg that the mercy
of the Court might be extended to him ; under the Act of bk
(leo. 111. three years additional imprisonment is awarded for an
escape from the Penitentiary, so that the prisoner's time would
have been eight years but for the interference of the Committee,
which, it was hoped, would be a warning to himself and his
usociates.

Mr. COYST, in consequence of the
miner of Directors, sentenced the prisoner to only twelve months
additional imprisonment in the Penitentiary.
Mary Osborne was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for
keeping a house of ill.fame.

of the Com.