The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-04 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (THIS DAY.)

The April sessions of the Central Criminal Court were
opened this morning before the Lord Mayor, the Re-
corder, Aldermen Carden and Cubitt, the Sheriffs, under
Sheriffs, and other civic functionaries.

The RECORDER, in his charge to the grand jury, said
he regretted he could not congratulate them on the
lightness of the calendar, for though it was not more
than ordinarily heavy in regard to the character of the
offences, there was about the average number of cases
to be tried. There were only five cases which he thought
it necessary to allude to as presenting anything of a
peculiar nature. The calendar contained no less than
three charges for murder. Two of these had been post•
poned from the last sessions, and they would not, there-
fore, come before the grand jury. The other was an in-
dictment against a young woman for the murder of her
child, and if the evidence adduced before them was the
same as that which appeared on the depositions, there
could be no doubt that she inflicted certain injuries upon
the child ; but, as it lived some time afterwards, they
would have to consider whether there was sufficient
evidence to show that the injuries inflicted by the
wretched mother •were the cause of death. There was
also another case in which another wretched woman was
indicted for assaulting her child with the intention of
murdering it ; and when she was prevented doing more
than she actually did, she stated that it was her intention
to take the life of herself as well as that of her child.
If that was proved to the satisfaction of the jury, it
would be their duty to find a true bill for the full charge.
The next case was that of a young man, who was in-
dicted for wounding his aunt, with the intention of mur-
dering her ; and if the circumstances detailed in the
depositions were proved before them, they would be
justified in this case also in returning a true bill. There
was a case of more difficulty—a charge of manslaghter
committed on the high seas. A Lascar sailor, and
another sailor named Harrison were indicted for
murdering a Lascar on board a ship. It appeared that
some personal violence was inflicted on the deceased by
way of correction ; aid he might here mention that the
commanding authority on board a vessel was perfectly
justified in adMinistering correction to any of the crew,
when that was necessary for the preservation of order
and the prevention of mutiny; but still no man, either
on the high seas or elsewhere, was permitted to use
more violence than was absolutely necessary. If they
should be of opinion that unnecessary violence was
used, as undoubtedlyappeared from the depositions, and
that death ensued in consequence of it, they would, in
that event, return a bill for manslaughter. It seemed
that the alleged violence was committed on two separate
occasions—on the first by the Lascar, in the absence of
Harrison ;. and on the second by Harrison, in the pre-
sence of the Lascar. Now, according to the law, in a
case of manslaughter, there could be no accessory before
or after the fact ; therefore, unless both were present at
the time when the offence was committed, they could
not be jointly indicted for manslaughter. The deceased
Survived both assaults, but he died on the subsequent
day. The question for the decision of the jury was,
whether he died from the injuries he received, and, if so,
which of the accused parties it was who caused his death.
The magistrate before whom the matter was investigated
seemed to be of opinion that both could be indicted on a
joint case of manslaughter ; but he (the Recorder)
thought that was not sustained by the facts which had
been adduced. As Harrison did not witness the first
assault, he could not be held responsible for that ; and,
on the other hand, if the death of the man was to be
attributed to the violence employed on the subsequent
occasion the Lascar could not be indicted for manslaugh-
ter. The evidence was extremely conflicting, but as the
grand jury had not to try the case, they had better send
it for further inquiry, if they considered there were some
grounds for the charge. The next case was also one of
considerable difficulty. It was a charge against a young
woman for concealing the birth of her child. By the
act of Parliament, in order to constitute the offence,
there must be concealment, and the body of the child
must be dead. The facts of that case were somewhat
curious. It appeared that some persons labouring on a
canal saw a woman plunging in the water as if she were
drunk. Two of them rescued her, and as she was being
dragged from the water, the body of a child was seen to
fall from her person, but from what part it was not dis-
tinctly stated. There were, however, other circum-
stances, which left little doubt that she was delivered of
the child a very short time previously, at a house in the
neighbourhood, e
neighbourhood, that house presenting unmistakeable
signs of a birth having taken place. The next squestion
f
was, whether the child was alive or dead.
alive, the offence would amount to
cone could
ce th n
murder
tbeut
hif
they were of opinior that it was dead, s e
indicted for the leer chargoe
birth. There wa4 onlyoneof a
young woman who, in
---thethr ecacsoenwhailcmhehne felto ti
st
necessary to nsentios—tht
rbite thde. person
fonou of
found
a
a fit of jealousy, threw somea vitrioloo
man with whom she had formerly cohabited.
him in the company of another woman, and in a moment
and jealousy threw the vitriol at him.
o desperationof Pa rliament made it an offence of felony to
Thethrow act
corrosive fluid of any description on another per-
son ith intent to do him some grievous bodily harm,
or to disfigure him. It appeared not improbable that
her intention was to injure, not the woman, but the
man in whose company she was; and if that were so, she
could not, according to recent decisions, be indicted for
committing the offence with intent to do grievous bodily
harm. This, however, involved a point of law which had
been frequently discussed, but it might be advantageously
discussed again ; and under the circumstances it wouldY
perhaps be better to send the case for futher investiga-
tion by the petty jury. The learned Recorder then re-
mitted the grand jury to the discharge of their duties.

THE SHIP ADELAIDE.—The Mauritius papers contain
an account of the arrival of the sailing ship Adelaide,
from South Australia for London, with a valuable cargo
of gold, wool, copper ore, &c., after having narrowly
escaped being destroyed by fire. The conduct of Capt.
Tremaine and the crew is mentioned in terms of great
praise. The greater part of the cargo had been dis-
charged, including the gold (40,660 ounces) and the
wool, the latter considerably damaged.