The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-11 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—Jan. 10.

The sitting of the court for the January Quarter Ses-
sion were resumed yesterday morning at the Guildhall,
Westminster, by adjournment from Clerkenwell, before
Mr. Sergeant Adams, Assistant Judge, and a bench of
magistrates. The calendar gives the names of 72 pri-
soners for trial, 65 for felony, and 7 for misdemeanour.
The Assistant Judge, in his charge to the grand jury,
adverted to a provision in an act of Parliament with re-
ference to the summoning of jurors to these sessions.
He said the change, by which the sessions were held at
Westminster as well as at Clerkenwell, had been of great
convenience to the county generally, and as the busi-
ness of the county was divided between the two ses-
sions, it. was intended, when the change took place,
that the jurors on one side of the county should be
summoned to the one sessions, i.e., Clerkenwell, and
those on the other side to the other sessions at West-
minster, and had this been carried out, a very fair
proportion of jurors wou Jot' ebeen summoned from
each district, which woul a 1 ofbeenbut fair and reason-
able. But instead of this a amuse which the high bailiff
got inserted in an Act of Parliament gave him, the high
bailiff, the sole power of summoning jurors to the West-
minster Sessions, and as his jurisdiction was limited
to Westminster, the consequence was that Westminster
jurors only could be summoned, and as they had to do
the general business of the county, it was a hardship
upon them. The parish of St. Margaret interfered in
the matter, and it was singular that as yet no jurors had
been summoned from that parish, although there had
been from every other. It was probable that during
the present session of Parliament a bill would be intro-
duced for the purpose of doing away with grand juries
in the metropolitan district, and a clause might be
introduced into it giving the sheriffs of the county
the power to summon jurors to that court, and
taking it away from the high bailiff, which would
have the effect of relieving the inhabitants of West-
minster from being required to do more than their
fair share of work, and then instead of the duty falling
upon but between 3,000 and 4,000 persons, it would be
extended to about 15,000. After some observations on
the duty the grand jury had to discharge, the Assistant
Judge dismissed them to their room.

Daniel Fitzgerald and Henry Nichols, aged respectively
17 and 29, were indicted for stealing on the highway a
purse and 101. 2s. 6d., from the person of Emma Jago.
Mr. M. Prendergast prosecuted, Mr. O'Brien appeared
for the prisoners.
The prosecutrix was a widow lady residing at Ealing,
and on the 23rd of December she was hustled by a gang
of five or six, amongst them the prisoners, who were
taken. She was robbed of her purse by some one. They
gave false addresses, and in answer to questions put to them
in the absence of each other, when they were in custody,
by an inspector of the E division, they gave contradictory
accounts as to how they came in Tottenham-court-road
on the occasion in question. There was no evidence to
connect them directly with the robbery.
Mr. O'Brien, for the defence, contended that, inde-
pendent of the evidence of the police inspector, there
was nothing to show beyond doubt that the prisoners
were participators in the robbery ; and he hoped the
jury would be cautious in acting on that evidence, ex-
torted, a' it had been, improperly, and in violation of
his duty by a police officer, in a manner which magis-
trates and judges were not permitted to adopt.
The Assistant-Judge, in summing up, called the at-
tention of the jury to the evidence of the inspector, and
remarked that it would be much better if officers did not
put such questions to persons in custody and under
charge. It was a very dangerous practice, but in this
particular instance he did not wish to convey any cen-
sure on the inspector.
The jury acquitted the prisoners.
The Assistant-Judge said he was not dissatisfied with
the verdict, but he could tell them that the prisoners
were well known, and if they had been found guilty he
should have transported them.
Mr. Prendergast said in explanation with regard to
the inspector, that he had acted quite right in what he
had done, because as no property was found on the
prisoners, it would have been right for him to have dis-
charged them, if their answers had been satisfactory.
The Assistant-Judge thought no blame could be
attached to the inspector.