The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-05 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

The third session during the present mayoralty was
commenced this morning before the Lord Mayor, the
Recorder, Sir John Pirie, Sir Chapman Marshall, and
Sheriffs Challis and Kennard. The Judges on the rota
are the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Justice Maule, and Air.
Justice Erie.
The grand jury having been sworn,
The RECORDER proceeded to deliver his usual charge.
He said the' calendar contained a list of 91 prisoners
only; since it had been printed he had been given to un-
derstand that fifteen additional commitments had taken
place, and that number would, no doubt, be further aug-
mented during the progress of their labours; still, even
with these additional numbers, the calendar would con
tain a limited number of prisoners, and would fall short
of the number of cases submitted for trial during each
session. This paucity of number might be attri-
buted to the short interval between the last
and the present session. Although the number
was not so considerable as they were usually
called upon to deal with, still there were
several serious cases which would come before them, a
few of which would require some observations from the
Court. In geberal the cases which they were called
upon to consider were simple, and therefore easily dis-
posed of. being matters rather of fact to which the law
was easily applicable than containing any points of dif
ficulty with respect to which the advice and assistance of
the Court was necessary for their guidance. He re-
ferred to a few cases the depositions in which had been
submitted to him for consideration. The first case that
presented itself was a charge of counterfeiting the coin
of the realm, but it appeared that the process was in-
complete, and that they were therefore not in a fit state
to be uttered. This, however, was met by an express
provision, namely, the 2 Will. IV. sec. 3, c. 34, which
set forth that.any one attempting to counterfeit a re-
semblance to any coin of the realm, although
such counterfeits might not be in a fit state
for uttering, rendered himself liable to the
punishment inflicted on those convicted of per-
fecting a counterfeit resemblance to the coin of the
realm. Being unfinished was no answer to the charge.-
There was a case of rather unusual occurrence, for
which, however, provision was made. The offence was
not only rendered illegal, but resolved itself into a mis-
demeanour, punishable by fine and imprisonment—he
meant the charge of enlisting and inducing others to en-
list in the service of a foreign country, without the per-
mission of the Crown. The offence, which was a very
serious one, inasmuch as it might endanger the safety of
their country, was expressly prohibited by the 59th of
Geo. 111., c. 09, and was punishable by fine or imprison-
ment. They would have to inquire, first, whether there
was sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge of in-
ducing others so to enlist, and if the person charged acted
without the license of the Crown. There was a charge
against a person of cutting and wounding, with the in-
tention of resisting his lawful detention by a constable,
which was equivalent to cutting and. wounding
with the intention of doing some grievous
bodily harm. The party was charged with
theft, and the officer in his efforts to detain him, was
cut by some sharp instrument, which it was reasonable
to suppose was in the hand of the accused, although no
instrument of the kind was found in his possession.
There was, also, a charge of shooting at a person with
the intention of doing similar injury. It appeared that
the pistol was only loaded with wadding and powder, as
there was nothing to show that it was charged with ball.
It was discharged near the person of the prosecutor, hut
in what direction, under what circumstances, whether
for the purpose of doing him some serious bodily harm,
or only for the purpose of alarming him, were matters
which called for their most serious consideration. If
the more serious part of the charge was not proved to
their satisfaction, then it would resolve itself into an
assault. He recommended them to put these cases into a
further train of inquiry, in order that the parties accused
might have an opportunity of bringing forward testi-
mony to show their intentions. There was a charge of
assaulting and wounding a constable; his wounds were
not very apparent, but a person might be seriously
beaten and injured with a shoe, as in this case, without
exhibiting any serious external injuries. There was
also a charge of robbing a person with violence, in
which it was suggested that three parties were engaged.
The circumstances were involved in considerable ob-
scurity. The prosecutor was severely wounded. A
short time after, an instrument, with which the injuries
might have been inflicted, was found on one of the ac-
cused, whilst some of the stolen property was found also
a short time after on the person of another. The last
case to which he would refer was a very sad one, and he
would but briefly refer to it—namely, the charge against
a person of the carnal knowledge of a girl under ten
years of age. From the surgeon's evidence, it was
painful to find that the offence had been committed by
some one on this unhappy child. So late as the 9th of
George IV. the crime was punishable by death, but the
extreme penalty was removed by the 3d and 4th of
Victoria, the utmost punishment now being trans-
portation for life, or a lesser punishment, according to
the discretion of the court. After a few general re-
marks respecting the course they should pursue in their
investigations, and the assistance Which would be ren-
dered to them by an officer from the Crown-office, he
remitted them to their duties.
John Satchell, one of the officers of the palace-court,
surrendered to take his trial for wilful and corrupt
perjury.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Charnock prosecuted, and Mr.
Ballantine appeared for the defendant.
The prosecutor of this indictment was a person named
Thomas Foulkes, and it appeared that some time in last
year an action had been brought against him in one of
the superior Courts of Westminster, and in due course,
judgment obtained for the amount of the debt and costs.
In pursuance of the provisions of a recent Act of Parlia-
ment, an application was subsequently made to the
palace court for a summons against Foulkes, to show
cause why the amount should not be paid, and this Act
requires that this summons should be served upon the
party personally, and in default of his appearing or pay-
ing the amount of the debt and costs, the palace. court is
empowered to commit the party for forty days to
gaol. The summons having been granted on the usual
form, it was intrusted to the defendant to serve upon
Foulkes, and he afterwards made an affidavit that he
served it upon him personally, on the 4th August. No
notice was taken of the summons, and the Court granted
an order for the committal of Foulkes, and he w as taken
to Horsemonger-lane gaol, where he was kept for four
days, when he paid the debt and costs, and was dis-
charged from custody. The present indictment was
founded upon the affidavit of the service of the summons
upon Foulkes by the defendant, and the case for the
prosecution was that no such service was made on the day
in question, and that the affidavit had been corruptly
made by the defendant. The evidence for the prose-
' cution went to show that, on the 4th of August, the
evening of which day the defendant swore in his affi-
davit that he had served the summons personally upon
Foulkes while he was riding upon an omnibus at Ken-
nington-cross. Foulkes had gone down to the as-izes at
Guildlerd, where an action was pending in which he
was a party, and that he remained in that town the
whole day, and did not get back to the terminus at Nine
Elms until nearly nine o'clock ; and that after this hour
he was engaged with some of his witnesses in taking re-
freshment at two public-houses, and did not get to his
own house until over eleven o'clock at night, and the
prosecutor swore positively that the summons was not
served on him. In confirmation of this statement seve-
ral witnesses were examined, among whom were Mr.
Bickley, his attorney, his clerk, and another attorney
named Burns ; and they swore positively that they
were with him the whole day, and Mr. Rick-
ley, in addition, said that he accompanied him
to his own house, and they all declared that no process
was served upon him. In addition to these facts, a
witness named Bridges was called, who stated that he was
riding in the omnibus belonging to the defendant's bro-
ther at the time named in the affidavit, and that the de-
fendant served him with the summons, mistaking him
for Mr. Foulkes. Upon the cross-examination of the
witnesses, the prosecutor admitted that he had been en-
gaged in a- great deal of litigation, and that upon a
former occasion, when a similar proceeding took place
in the palace-court with regard to a judgment that had
been obtained against him, he then represented that he
had never received any summons, but, upon inquiry, no
effect was given to that representation, and he was com-
pelled to pay the debt and costs.
Mr. BALLANTINE, on the part of the defendant, made
some severe remarks upon the casuistry of the witnesses
for the prosecution, and he called a witness who deposed,
that at the time mentioned by the defendant, he saw
Foulkes riding in the omnibus, and that he really was
the party upon whom the process was served. It ap-
peared, however, that it was dusk at the time, and that
the witness had a very imperfect opportunity of observ-
ing the person who was in the omnibus, whom he sup-
posed to be the prosecutor. A number of respectable
witnesses gave the defendant a good character.

The RECORDER, on summing up, said that if the only
question the jury had to consider was upon which side
the evidence preponderated, he apprehended they would
not feel any d►fliculty in coming to the conclusion that
the case for the prosecution was supported by very
strong and positive evidence, while there was every
reason to suppose that the principal witness for the de-
fenee might be mistaken. If the issue also was whether
the witnesses for the prosecution were perjured, he must
say that he did not think they would be justified in com-
ing to that conclusion upon the facts as they appeared,
but if, on the other hand, they believed that the de-
fendant had made a mistake as to the identy of the pro-
secutor, he would not have committed the offence of

,
wilful and corrupt perjury, and upon that ground they
would be justified in acquitting him.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
of Not Guilty, the foreman stating that they were of
opinion the defendant did not wilfully swear what was
false, but that he was mistaken in the person of the man
upon whom he served the process.
The RECORDER said he thought this was very likely
to have been the case.
Mr. CLARKSON then applied for the expenses of the
prosecution, which the Court ordered to be allowed, the
Recorder observing that it was a very proper case fur in-
quiry.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Inspector Whall informed the Magistrate that eine of
the persons charged on the police-sheet with drunken-
neis had died in the cell. He said the man had been
brought into the Vine-street station, about seven o'clock
•n Saturday evening, exceedingly drunk. He was then
very dirty, his clothes miserably ragged, and he seemed
very cold, and so drunk that he could not give his name.
He (the inspector) had him properly washed, and put
into a warm cell, in which there were three other
persons. Th. se persons said that the man walked
about, and %main conversation, and gave his name to them
as Tom Distin, when he immediately dropped down dead
on the bottom of the cell. They knew nothing about
him.
Tho inspector handed over to the reporter the follow-