The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-21 00:00:00

LAIDLAW V. SMITH.

The arguments on this part-heard appr al were re-
sumed and concluded to-day.
Their Lordships postponed giving judgment.
SIMPSON V. O'SULLIVAN.

In this appeal, which was from the decree of the Court
of Chancery in Ireland,
The LORD CHANCELLOR at the conclusion of the ar-
zuments gave judgment, affirming the decision of the
Court below.

GODSON V. HALL.
This appeal w. 15 dismissed with the costs of the day in
consequence of the absence of Counsel.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT-JCIIELMSFORD, Mo)--DA r.
Tne business of the Assizes for the county of Essex
commenced this day, Lord Ab:oger presiding. in the
Croxn Court, and Mr. Baron Gurney at Nisi Prius.
The calendar contains the names of nineteen prison-
ers, three females and sixteen males, and out of the
number only one can read and write. The charges
comprise one of murder, one of attempt to murder,
ono of manslaughter, several burglaries, and other
serious offences.

Lord ABINGER, in 1113 charge to the Grand Jury,
observed that there was only one charge in the calendar
that would require any observations from him to gentle-
men of their experience. The charge in question was
ono against a husband and wife of having murdered their
child by neglecting to give it the proper nourishment and
attention it required. He did not see in the depositions,
however, that any mention was made of the cir-
cumstances of the party, and in cases of this descrip-
tion that matter was very material, because it
might be that the alleged neglect of giving
proper nourishment to the child arose as much from
poverty and necessity as evil intention ; and if this were
the case, the parties would of course not be liable to
answer the charge preferred against them. To make
out the crime of murder, it was necessary that there
should be a motive and an Intention either to destroy
life or to do some mortal injury, and criminal negligence
alone was not sufficient to substantiate that charge. It
would be their duty to look very narrowly iato ail the
circumstances, because cases of this description always
involved very nice points of law.
George Crane, a lad aged 16, surrendered to take
his trial upon an indictment imputing to him wilful and
corrupt perjury. _ _

Mr. Sames: with Mr. Marsh, conducted the prose-
cution ; Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Chambers appeared for
the defendant.

It appeared from the evidence that the prosecutors
were respectable farmers named Piper, Stevens, and
Upton, who reside in the neighbourhood of Epping,
and the alleged perjury was committed upon the hear-
ing of an information laid against them under the Game
Act, for trespassing upon some land belonging to Mr.
Abdy, a magistrate for the county of Essex. The de-
fendant was examined in support of the information, and
he swore positively that he saw all the three defendants
in a wheat-stubble belonging to Mr. Abdy, in pursuit
of game, and upon his evidence the magistrates con-
victed the parties, awl fined them 20s. each. They did
not appeal against the conviction, but preferred the pre-
sent indictment for perjury against the lad. The three
parties who had been convicted were examined in sup-
port of the charge, and they all swore positively that
they had not trespassed upon the ground as stated by
the defendant upon the hearing of the information.
Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury, and remarked
upon the improbability that the lad should have com-
mitted so serious an offence without any assignable
motive, and he called a witness, who confirmed the
original testimony of the lad as to the prosecutors
being really the persons who were on the field at the
time in question.

LordABINGER, having summed up the evidence, the
Jury deliberated for a short time, and then returned a
verdict of Guilty.
James Crick, aged 17, was indicted for the man-
slaughter of Henry Ringer, a boy about his own age,
by inflicting a mortal wound with a stone upon his
temple.

The prisoner, who appeared very much distressed,
pleaded Guilty.

Lord ABINGER said that in this case there could be no
doubt that the prisoner had been the cause of the death
of a f,llow-creature ; but at the same time there
were many mitigating circumstances in his case. He had
been provoked and struck by the deceased, and there
was every reason to believe that when he threw the stone
he had not the least idea or intention of causing such
fatal injury as had taken place. He hoped, therefore,
that during the rest of his life it would be a warning to
him not to make use of any weaFon, or other thing cal-
culated to injure another towards any person. Under all
the circumstances the sentence was that he be impri-
soned in the Chelmsford gaol for one week and then_ be
discharged.