The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1840.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
THE ISLINGTON MURDER.
When Mr. Baron ALDERSON took his seat upon the
bench, he directed that Gould should be placed at the bar.
Mr. CIII.I',IBERS then addressed the Court, and said he
had to renew his application for the postponement of the
trial of the prisoner until next Session, and be asked for
the postponement upon several grounds. An affidavit
bad been prepared in accordance with the request of the
Court, but the application was not so much founded

, .
upon that as upon. the general circumstances of the case.
The charge against the prisoner was one of a most
serious character, and imputed to him the crime of wil-
ful murder. The first deposition was taken so far

back as the 18th of March, and the last was only
taken on Tuesday last. Up to that time the prisoner
had no communication with any legal adviser. No
friend had come forward to assist him in his difficulty,

and no opportunity had been afforded him of explaining
the circumstances which affected him. When the prisoner
was committed, the Under-Sheriffs, as was their humane
custom, conferred with him, and having ascertained that
he had no counsel, they made preparations for his defence ;
and Mr. Under- Sheriff Jackson had now made an affidavit
to the effect that he had not vet had time to look into the
depositions, and he had only obtained some of them on Fri-
day morning. The affidavit also stated that a material
witness for the prisoner was absent, but that his presence
could be obtained by the next Session.
Baron ALDERSON—What is the name of the witness ?
Mr. CHAMBERS—We do not know his name, but we
expect to be able to find him by the next Session. They
did not, however, rely so much upon the affidavit as upon
the general circumstances of the case, in support of the
application for the postponement.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said that he would railer rely
upon the affidavit, which was the regular course, than upon
any other circumstances. It would be a very bad prece-
dent to allow a prisoner to have his trial postponed without
proper grounds being alleged for it. The affidavit should
state that a material witness was absent, and the nature of
his evidence should be given, in order that the prosecutor
might be made aware of the case that was to be set up.
Mr. CHAMBERS said it would prejudice the prisoner's
case to make such a disclosure in public.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said that truth could not prejudice
any one. Their only object was to ascertain the truth, and
to do justice to all parties. He could not consent to post-
pone the case, unless what he proposed was done. The
Court was bound to look at the interest of the prosecutor,
as well as that of the prisoner. If these facts were
disclosed, the prosecutors would have an opportunity of
making inquiries between this time and the next session,
and the truth might thus be fully ascertained.
Mr. JONES (for the prosecution) said that the affidavit
did not disclose whether the witness was a man or a woman,
or whether the evidence would be to fact or to character.
Mr. CHAMBERS—The witness is a man, and the evi-
dence will be to fact.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON asked what objection there could
be to disclose in public the nature of the evidence that was
to be adduced? It had been stated to him in private, but
he thought it ought to be mentioned in public.
Mr. CHAMBERS then said he might state that the evi.
dence would go to account for the prisoner's time on the
night of the murder.
Baron ALDERSON—In fact, you mean to prove an alibi ;
that is the best defence a man can make ; but you ought
to state the circumstances and the nature of the evidence
you intend to bring forward.
Mr. CHAMBERS said he could not do that consistently
with the prisoner's safety. The evidence might implicate
other parties, and it would be unsafe to make it public.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said, their only object was to
discover the truth. The prisoner, if innocent, should
show that he was so, without reference to the conse-
quences to other parties. He could not consent to the
postponement of the trial unless those circumstances were
stated in the affidavit. He thought this was the fairest
course that could be adopted. The truth could never do
any harm by being let out.
Mr. CH &mimes having intimated that he could not con-
form with the proposition of the Court, Baron ALDER-
SON then said the trial must go on.
Mr. CHAMBERS said he was quite unprepared to go on
with the defence at that time.
Baron ALDERSON—Very well, then let the trial stand
over until to-morrow.—( Tuesday. )

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Alderman Pram.)
James Hazel and William Gasper were indicted for
feloniously stealing a pair of trowsers, a handkerchief, and
other articles, the property of Thomas Bell. The prosecu-
tor was a sailor, and the articles were stolen from him
while lodging in the same house with the prisoner. They
were both found guilty, and sentenced to seven years'
transportation.