The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-18 00:00:00

ettrb 9attion

CHANC.ERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat i❑ the Old Hall, Lincolns Inn
,o-day, and heard appeals and appeal motions.

thispUallplipAeal.
The further arguments motion occupied
ARIII I lT E
in
A Dv,
his Lordship the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.
His HONOUR, after disposing of the petition
of
" Goring v. Howard," proceeded to hear the further
arguments in the part-heard case of " Alvanley v. Kin-
neard," which occupied the Court the remainder of the
morning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour was occupied the whole morning with
hearing bankrupt petitions of no general interest.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
His Horrourt, after disposing of the case of " Luff v.
Cotton," proceeded to hear the further arguments in the
part-heard case of " Jones v. How," which occupied the
greater part of the day.

The Master of the Rolls sat at the Privy Council to-day,

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

(Sittings at Guildhall.)
BRETT V. THOMPSON.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for a breach of contract. It appeared that the son of the
plaintiff having received an appointment as cadet in the
service of the East India Company, his father was anxious
to obtain suitable accommodation for his conveyance to
India. A cabin was engaged in the starboard side of the
ship Brahmin, of which the defendant is the pro-
prietor, for which the sum of 801. was agreed to be
paid. The cabin was fitted up at an expense of from
151. to 201. At Gravesend the cabin was taken from the
youth, and one worth 401. was assigned to him, on
the ground that it had been previously engaged by an
officer of the 40th Hussars.;
The defence was that no distinct agreemeet was made
with respect to tbo cabin in question ; that it was alto-
gether unusual to make such agreements; that the plain-
tiff's son found the key in the door, and took possession
of it without sufficient authority. It was shown that the
furniture had been resold to the person who supplied it,
and that the cabin had been let, in accordance with a
Government contract, to an officer of the regiment in
question.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damagess 501.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
These sessions commenced to-day before the Lord
Mayor, the Recorder, Aldermen Pixie and Hunter, the
Sheriffs, &c.

Although it is only a fortnight since the termination
of the last session, the calendar contains no less than
138 prisoners for trial, of which London sends 21; Mid-
dlesex, 78; Essex, 2; the Admiralty, 3 (the gold dust
robbery); Kent, 8; and Surrey, 26.
The grand jury having been empanelled and sworn,
The RECORDER proceeded to deliver his charge to
them. It would not be necessary for him to occupy any
considerable portion of the time of the grand jury by any
remarks applicable to the calendar. The total number of
persons comprehended in it was 138, and that number
would probably receive some augmentation during the
course of the labours of the grand jury; but that number
would necessarily fall short of the number usually added,
in consequence of the lightness of the labours of the
grand jury consequent upon the short period that had
elapsed between the termination of the last and the com-
mencement of the present session. He was most happy
to perceive that, with the lightness of the calendar,
there was a corresponding diminution of offences of an
aggravated character. There was only one charge of
cutting and wounding with intent to do grievous bodily
harm, there was one charge of arson, and one of murder,
and other charges, in addition to a numerous class of
cases of larceny and offences against the person, and
there ware four cases of robbery with force. Of all the
cases, however, enumerated in the calendar, there were
but five to which he should think it necessary to call the
particular attention of the grand jury. The first was
the case of arson. With respect to that case it appeared
to him, looking at the depositions, that the grand jury
would find themselves called upon to put the case in a
state of further investigation. It was the case of a party
accusing himself of a crime which it was not impossible
for him to commit, and such being the case, he thought the
grand jury would hardly ignore the bill, and thus de-
-1 clare that the party did not do the act of which he ac
cased himself. There was a case of larceny committed
upon the high seas, in which three parties were charged
with abstracting a large quantity of gold dust of great
value. Now, it was his duty to tell the grand jury, that
though the offence was committed on the high seas, and
in a remote part of the world, that Court was now so
constructed as to entertain jurisdiction over it, though
formerly it did not. The facts of that case were ex-
tremely simple, and he thought the grand jury would
coincide with him, that it would be necessary to take
the opinion of a petty jury upon them. .There was then
a charge of rape and assault. On that case he invited
the attention of the grand jury to the evidence of the
medical man; and if, after hearing that evidence, they
thought there was not sufficient to warrant the charge,
they would of course ignore the bill, but if otherwise,
they would put the matter in a course of further i ives •
tigation. There was then a charge of manslaughter, and
the manner in which it was alleged to have occurred was
by gross negligence and the mismanagement of a railway
engine, detached from railway carriages at the time the ac-
e dent occurred, which ended in the death of the party. Now
it was right that he should tell the grand jury that in
such a case, to sustain the crime of manslaughter, gross
and criminal negligence must be proved. If a case of
gross and criminal negligence was proved upon the evi-
dence to the satisfaction of the grand jury, it would be
their duty to put the case in a course of further inquiry;
but if they felt convinced it was the result of accident,
they would probably withdraw the case from the atten-
tion of the potty jury. There was only one other case
to which he thought it necessary to call the
ou; nredaiipaltactei;e Itd death
of a helpless person by such means was, in
other, of
her recently born child, by the exposure of its
eahttoelnytioonneofhfthae
eghraanrgdejuhryf,
maunrddetrh,ath3,w:asa the melan-
rig
the e)e of
the law, as much murder as if violence had been used.
perhsotnthiant
It would, however, be for them to consider the evidence
in the case, and to form their opinion upon
thelie sehpoeunl d air,
t ha ne
ugrand q uj
it ; and in
order to aid and assist them in forming their opinion, the
Justice Coltman in a similar
of Mr. case,n which that
i
distinction
Learned Judge read to the grand jury part of the charge
Learned Judge laid down the between the
place, and
of the• ted upon the intention party doing the
common
act. After a few further observations, the Learned
Recorder remitted the grand jury to the discharge of
party being exposed in a private and public
their duties.
The Court then proceeded to swear in the petty jury.

MARLBRO'-STREET—(THIS DAY)
John Burk, David Mackay, and William Burn,
three sturdy young Irishmen, were brought before Mr.
Bingham, charged with having assaulted the police.
Police
set
constable
half-past 2 l 4 1 ,
one, said,in thiso x morningord tre he was on,
when he
duty, about
saw the three prisoners, and sever others, standing at
the corner of Orchard-street, comUcting themselves in
an extremely violent manner. Witness" went up to them
au t
and desired them to move away. The prisoners re-
fused, and told their companions to pitch into the 13--
police. They, however, did not ,r.tke this advice, but
went peaceably away. The prisomr Mackay then came
up to him and struck him a trenendous blow in the
lace, and knocked him down, Police constable