The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-02 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)

The House sat to-day for the purpose of hearing Scotch
appeals. The Lords present were the Lord Chancellor, the
Earl of Malmesbury, and the Earl of Fingal.

FARLONG V. HOSSACK.

The arguments in this case, which were commenced on
Thursday last, were resumed to-day. The case came before
their Lordships upon appeal from the Court of Session upon
the following facts :—The appellant is the widow of
Lieutenant Colonel John Taylor, of the East India
Company's service, and the respondents are his representatives.
By the contract entered into upon the marriage of Colonel
Taylor with the appellant, the former bound himself and his
heirs to do all that might be necessary as a subscriber to the
Bombay Military Fund, to secure to his proposed wife, in the
event of his dying before her, the benefit of the pension or an-
nuity payable from that fund to the widow of a sub-
scriber, according to the rank he should hold in the Com-
pany's service at the time of his death. Colonel
Taylor died in September, 1828, and from that time
to April 1831, the appellant received a pension of 3651.,
which she was entitled to according to the regulations of the
Bombay Fund. In the latter year, however, that Fund be-
coming inadequate to the payment of pensions on so extended
a scale, the appellant's income was reduced from 363/. to
2501. The appellant conceiving that, under her marriage
contract, the representatives of her late husband were
bound to make good the deficiency to her, instituted
proceedings in the Courts in Scotland for that purpose ;
but upon the case coming before the Court of Session they
decided that in consequence of the appellant having married
again she was not entitled to the benefits she asked, and from
that decision the preset appeal was brought.
Sir W. Follett and Mr. Macnoil were counsel for the ap-

pellant, and Mr. Serjeant Spankie and Mr. Andrews appeared
for the respondent.
Sir WlLLiam FORLETT having replied.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would give judgment to-
morrow morning.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.

A summary statement descriptive of the various offences with which
the prisoners committed for trial at the present Session of Oyer and
Terminer and gaol delivery of Newgate, and the other prisons within
the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, severally stand charged,
viz. :—Murder 1, burglary 3, forgery 8, arson 1, embezzlement 2,
felony I, bigamy 4, larceny 113, rape 1, misdemeanor 7, perjury 2,
ebop.breaking 3, uttering and unlawfully possessing base coin 10,
stealing goods and moneys in dwelling houses 6, stealing goods from
the person 28, stealing goods by servants 18, obtaining the like by false
pretences 1, highway robbery and assault 1, receiving stolen property
10, assault with intent to commit, &c., 1, maliciously wounding per-
sons 2, horsestealing 1, sheepstealing 1, housebreaking I.—Total 231.
The Sessions re-opened this morning before the Right Hon. the Lord
Mayor, the Recorder, Aldermen Fairbrother, Marshall, and Wilson,
the Sheriffs Montefiore and Carroll, with other civic authorities.
The RECORDER, in addressing the Grand Jury, said the number of
prisoners for trial now on the Calendar was 213, which would probably
be increased to 300 before long. Considering the period that had
elapsed since the last Sessions that was not a very extraordinary num-
ber. But there were several serious cases ; one, of cutting and wounding
with intent, on the first count, to murder, on the second, to do some
grievous bodily harm. There was also a case of rape, of which both
parties were persons moving in a humble sphere, especially the female.
He (the Recorder) only remarked this to observe that the law watched
with the greatest anxiety over persons of the very lowest condition in life.
There was a case of murder, attended with circumstances of an exceed-
ingly peculiar nature. It appeared that the two parties—the one (a man)
the prisoner, the other (a female) the deceased, were living together in a
distressed condition, and a depressed state of mind ; that they had agreed to
rid themselves together of life, by taking large doses of laudanum ; that the
prisoner had collected a sufficient quantity of laudanum for this purpose,
of which they both partook; that the effect upon the prisoner was (as
it would be suggested for the defence) to cause extreme nausea, and
he threw up so much of the laudanum, that his life was not af-
fccted ; but the deceased, after the poison had acted upon her as a
strong narcotic, expired. The Learned Recorder laid down the
law respecting cases of this nature, in the following manner :—That
where a person persuaded another to kill himself, and the party
did kill himself, if the person advising was not present at
the time of the death, he was accessory before the fact, to the
crime of murder ; if, however, present at the time of the killing,
the crime was that of murder, as a principal. After citing a case to
support this view of the law, and adverting to certain circumstances
connected with the case, the Learned Recorder said it would be for the
Grand Jury to inquire first, from what cause the deceased met her
death ; then, whether she were encouraged to the killing of herself by
the prisoner; and if so, whether the prisoner were present at the time
she took the poison ? There was a case of firging a will, or other
testamentary documents, in which case both nsrties—prosecutor and
prisoner—were professional men, attoreies, and both were inte-
rested parties, the prosecutor having married hie daughter to the son
of the testator, and taking the benefit of one will, the prisoner having
married the daughter of the testator, and taking benefit under the other
will. The Recorder observed, his opinion of the duty of a Grand Jury
was, that in cases where circumstances proved if unexplained and un-
answered, made out an er party case, to gen.i the case for trial to the
superior Court; but if the case were of such a slender and imperfect
description, as would not warrant a Petty Jury in convicting a prisoner—
s Grand Jury would give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt, and that
protection, which in such cases they were intended to afford. With some
further observations, the Recorder then dismissed the Grand Jury to the
discharge of their duties.