The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-30 00:00:00

itt noorns,

The insolvent was a wholesale atraW-Oait and I3onnet-
manufacturer, residing in Brighton. He applied on his
petition to be discharged, and was opposed by Mr.
Coolie for A.intsrs, Barford and Meakham,• for Tuscan
straw, and other articles connected with his trade, sup-
plied to the insolvent. The ground of the Learned
Counsel's opposition was the suppression of the books
containing his trade etitfitA,
Several witnesses having been called, who deposed to
the fact of having seen more books with the insolvent
than those he handed into Court,
Mr. Commissioner LAW said he considerki fact.?f
the insolvents wilfully suppressing his books to be rei.:
made out. The longest term of remand which the law
allowed for this serious offence was for three years. He
should, however, only remand him for twelve calendar
months froth the date of his testing ordcr,

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
This being the first Session of the Central Criminal
Court during the present Mayoralty, the Lord Mayor
came in State from the Mansion-house at ten o'clock.
On his Lordship's arrival the Court was opened
with the usual formalities, There were present
on the Bench the Right-Honourable the Lord Mayor, the
Recorder, the Common Sergeant, Mr. Sheriff Rogers,
Sir Peter Laurie
Lainson, the Under Sheriffs, ate.
Sir Chftpman Marshall, Mr. Alderman
The Grand Jury having been sworn,
The RECORDER proceeded to deliver his charge. The
calendar contained did flames of 10 pelsontes ; and
from his experience of the past, he was apprehensive
that they might expect that number to be aug-
mented hi three blinded, anti probably lb exceed it,
before the termination. of their labours. lle could not,
therefore, hold out to thorn any expectation that their
• labours would be either short or light. The calendar
contained a number of cases of a most anxious &scrip-
tion)-t6 tt ftiw Of v6lliciv Ile would briefly advget. i lie
would, first, call their attention to a class of cases OF
some dt,gree of novelty: •T,herc were two cases of indi
vithialS charged with rolonionAly Attempting to destroy
themselves. Now, in cases of attempts of that nature it
.rarely happened that persons who had been saved
from an untimely death, were afterwards made the sub-
jects of it Criminal peo.teetitldtl, The leniv of the pre-
siding Magistrate) before whom such peesotia were
brought) generally induced him to discharge them, but
•it was a qitestion whether sitelt IllfigiStfdt6 *Chi not act-
ing under a misguided judgment, and whether the impu-
nity with which persons had hitherto been suffered to
,escape, had hot op
to the commission of the' crime: It it An
erated it§ ati eikottragetnent
instructive fact, that olthotigh attempts of this
nature bad beefs Of feeqtietit Odetifr4tli;ie iii the
city of London, yet since the Magistrates had committed
these two persons for trial, nut a single attempt of the -
sort had been made. Now there could be no doubt but
that by law the commission of suicide amounted to a fe-
lony, and, therefore, any attempt to commit such felony
was in law a misdemeanour; and was punishable as such,
and that persons who, in A moment of extitttudnt, 'Bight
be induced to attempt suicide, might be restrained from
making such attempts by the dread of the disgrace attend •
ing a criminal prosecution, and the public exposure conse-
quent thereupon was abundantly proved by the fact, that
since these two persons had been committed for trial twat-
tempt of the sort had been made within the city of Lon-
don. There were three charges of manslaughter—one
against the driver of an omnibus, in which much con-
flicting evidence would be laid before them. If in that
case they were of opinion that the loss of life resulted from
any carelessness on the part of the prisoner, it would be
their duty to put the matter in the course of further inves-
tigation. Another charge of manslaughterwns against a
man for occasioning the death of a woman with whom he
cohabited through ill-usage, and there was a third case
of manslaughter, of a very peculiar character. Two
persons, one of whom was a surgeon, were charged with
having occasioned the death of a Sheriff's officer who
was in possession of the house of one of the defendants,
by inducing him to drink immense quantities of' spiritous
liquors, and when he was intoxicated to an extent bor-
dering on apoplexy, sending him out in a cab, and
driving him about the town. The man was subsequently
found dead in the bottom of the cab. If they should
be of opinion that this was merely an attempt
to make a man drunk for the purpose . of
getting him out of possession, then the case -would assume
a different character; but if they were of opinion that
the prisoners, one of whom, it was to be recollected, was
a medical man, were aware that the immense quantities
of liquor they were administering must necessarily en.•
danger the man's health, then it would be their duty to
send the case before a Petty Jury. There was one
person charged with the atrocious crime of murder,
alleged to have been committed by the prisoner
on the child of a woman with whom he
cohabited. The child had been found with its features
crushed, the accused stated that it was the result of ac-
cident—on the other side there was evidence that the
party in question had used violence towards the child,
and the instrument supposed to have been employed was
stated to have been a hammer. If they had reason to
suppose that any such instrument had been used, it
would be their duty to. put the case in the course of
further inquiry. There were three cases of forgery,
one of them, an ordinary case, of the forgery of a bill of
exchange. The other two cases were those of persons
charged with forging and uttering Exchequer bills. The
Act of Parliament under which Exchequer bills were is-
sued was the 4th and sth, William IV., cap. 15. By the
26th section of that Act it was enacted that all Exche-
quer bills should be made, prepared, and issued, by the
Comptroller-General of the Exchequer acting under the
direction of the Commissioners of the Treasury, and that
such bills should be made out and prepared in the office
of the said Comptroller, in such manner as the Com.
missioners of the Treasury may from time to time di-
rect. The Act then went to confirm the regulations
relating to the issue of Exchequer bills, enacted by
the 48th of George the Third, cap. 1, except so
far as the same should be altered by that Act. It was
enacted that all such bills should be signed by the
Comptroller-General, or by his assistant in his name.
The 28th section provided for the, punishment of per-
sons convicted of perjury,
,or uttering any warrant or
document for the payment of money on any Exchequer
It would be necessary to go at some length into
theuP4rbVisions of 48th George 111. By the 2d section
the bills were directed to be made out and signed by the
auditor. The 3d section directed that they should be
numbered arithmetically : the 4th section directed the
course to be pursued in the payment of the bills, and
that the party paying them in should write his name
on the back of them. By the 7th section the bilis
were to be prepared with checks, indents; and coun-
terfoils, under the direction of the Commissioners
of the Treasury. Such books of checks, indents, and
counterfoils to be in the custody of the auditor for e
convenience of reference, and for the purpose of check-
ing such bills when they should be presented for pay-
ment: By the 9th section the forgery of Exchequer bills
was declared to be felony without benefit of clergy. The
capital punishment had, by a subsequent statute, been
reinoved, and that of transportation for life, or for a
shorter period of imprisonment for a term not exceed-
ing a time specified in the Act, substituted in its
place. So that the forging Exchequer bills, or uttering
them knowing them to be forged, was now a felony
punishable with transportation. The Act had provided
certain checks to prevent an improper issue of Exchequer
bills. In the present instance, one of the parties charged
was represented as being a clerk actually employed in
part of the process of making Exchequer bills previous
to their issue, and the other party was represented as
cognisant of the character filled by him, and yet
receiving the bills from his hand, so that the alleged
forgeries were represented as -.passing directly
from the hands of a person employed m the Exchequer-
office into the hands of the other party, who, it appeared
was made out as admitting that he had received these
Exchequer bills from an officer of the Exchequer, with-
out any consideration. That the one had issued them
was not denied, and with regard to the other party, they
would have to consider what were the circumstances
which could induce -a stranger, without the pay-
ment of any consideration, to --receive from a clerk
in the Exchequer Bill-office a large amount of Ex-
chequer bills ; whether it was posSible he could
consider such bills had been issued in due course,
when he found himself receiving from a clerk in
the Exchequer, of limited salary, Exchequer bills
amounting to several thousand pounds. lle perhaps had
entered too fully into the circumstances of the case, but
he had done so because the base was altogether one of
an extraordinary character, • and • the fact of being
found in possession of the forged instruments, which,
under ordinary circumstances would not, perhaps, be of
much Weight, might, when it was known that these bills
had been issued by a clerk in the Exchequer Bill-office,
had been received from him without the payment of any
consideration by the person in whose possession they
were found, lead to a strong inference that such person
must, when uttering them, have been aware that such
bills could not have been fairly come by. If such should
he their opinion, it would be their duty to send the case
before the Petty Jury, in order •that it might have the
fullest investigation.
The Learned RECORDER having finished his charge,
the Grand Jury retired to their rooni.

(13' RECORDER.)
the Ecoannu.)
Ann Parsley was indicted for stealing twelve yards of
mouseline de laine, and:a quantity of lace, amounting
in value to 4/. '35. ad., the property of John Redburn,
under false pretences.
The prisoner went into the shop of the prosecutor and
.represented herselfas the servant of one of his customers,
and obtained the articles named in the indictment. It
appeared that the prisoner had formerly been in the
service of the person she represented, but had left that
service some time ago.
The prisoner, who was a good-looking young woman,
apparently about twenty-two years of age, and who held
an infant in her arms, said in her defence that she was
driven to the commission of the offence by distrese.
The Jury at once found the prisoner Guilty, and she
was sentenced to one month's imprisonment and hard
labour.

The prisoner had been indicted and found guilty for
a similar offence at the last Session, but owing to the