The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DA Y .)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF ACHILLI V. NEW

MAN.---CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

It being understood that judgment would be moved
for in this case to-day, the court was crowded at an
early hour. Dr. Newman was present in court accom-
panied by the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, and Mr.
Monsell, M.P., and Mr. Bowyer, M.P.
The Earl of Carlisle, and Mr. Howard, M.P., were
seated on the bench. The galleries of the court were
also crowded.

The Attorney-General, the Solictor-General, and Mr,
Ellis appeared for the prosecution, Sir A. Cockburn, Mr,
Serjeant Wilkins, Mr. Baddely, and Mr. Addison ap.
peared for the defendant.

On the sitting of the court, the Attorney-Genera
moved that judgment be passed upon the defendant, Dr.
Newman.

Lord Campbell said, he thought the report of the trial
must be read, in order to put his learned brethren in pos-
session of the facts of the case.

The libel, the justification, and the notes of the tria'
were then read, and were not concluded when we wens

to press.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

The first sessions of the Central Criminal Court during
the present Mayoralty, were opened this morning by the
Lord Mayor, the Recorder, Aldermen Fairbrother and
Carden, Sheriffs Carter and Croll, and other civic func-
tionaries.

The grand jury having been sworn and selected their
foreman,

The Recorder proceeded to deliver his charge, ob-
serving that, though the calendar presented no unusual
number of cases, there were several charges of a very
grave description ; and while, on the one hand, there
was happily a diminution of offences of violence against
' the person—such as cutting and wounding, and the use
of dangerous implements, which too frequently came
before that court—he regretted to say that, on the other
hand, there was more than the ordinary number of cases
in which life had been destroyed. There were no less
than four serious charges of murder, and one very grave
case of manslaughter. With the exception of one of
these, none appeared to him to present ,any legal
difficulty, and therefore it would be unnecessary
to detain the grand jury by making any observations
upon them. That one case was a charge against a man
named Horler, for the murder of his wife, and if the evi-
dence brought before them was at all like that which
appeared in the depositions, he feared they would have
no doubt of the prisoner's guilt, and that they would
feel it their duty to find a bill against him. One of the
other three cases, was of that class which had lately be-
come very frequent, viz..:—the murder of a child by its
mother. Whether any encouragement had been given
to this description of crime, which he could not readily
believe, by the mercy which perhaps was too often shown
by judges and juries, he could not venture to say, but it
was lamentable to find that so many among the
female of the population of the country brought
themselves into a state of disgrace by a fiendish disposi-
tion to destroy their offspring. They would have to
deal with this case like any other charge of murder, and
if they were satisfied that the child was born alive, which
was the principal question, and that the prisoner caused
its death, it would also be their duty to return a true
bill. There was another case in which a woman was
accused with the destruction of her offspring, but it
would probably assume the charge of manslaughter—
that being the shape in which it was presented by the
verdict of the coroner's jury. It appeared that the ac-
cused party concealed her condition, and denied that
she was with child until the last moment, and
made no provision whatever for the birth. From the
appearance of a cupboard, where she was seen to go by
her fellow-servants, it was supposed she had been secretly
delivered, and a search being made, the infant was found,
with very little on it, in the yard of the house. If a
person so delivered, deliberately exposed the child in
some unfrequented place, where it was not likely to be
discovered for the purpose of causing death, she would'
be guilty of manslaughter and not murder ; but if the
circumstances merely showed gross neglect or careless-
ness, or that the mother placed the child in a spot where
it was likely to be seen, and to receive succour from other
hands, without any wish to destroy its life, then that
would not be murder, though it would unquestionably
amount to the crime of manslaughter. There was
another case of murder, in which a young woman was
committed for destroying a child which was not her own.
The charge was originallyfor administering corrosive fluid
with intent to do grievous bodily harm, but the child had
since died, and the case would now be brought before
them in the form of murder. The remaining case was
one in which a young man was charged with pouring
corrosive fluid on a young woman with whom he had

illicit connection. Under the statute, pouring vitriol,
or any other fluid of that kind, on the person of another,
with the intention either of disfiguring or doing grievous
bodily harm, constituted a felony, and was punishable
as such. The Recorder, before remitting the Grand
Jury to the discharge of their duties, said though he did
not go the length of saying that the Grand Jury should
be entirely abolished, he thought their services might be
dispensed with in many of those cases which had been
fully investigated before a magistrate.