The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-18 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

The tenth sessions in the present mayoralty were opened
yesterday at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, be-
fore the Recorder, the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, and Al-
dermen Wilson, Challis, and Hughes.
The calendar on this occasion presents a heavy list, there
being in all 245 prisoners committed for trial on various
charges during the present sessions.
Among the prisoners waiting for trial there are—for ar-
son 1, burglary 5, bigamy 1, uttering counterfeit coin 17,
cutting and wounding 8, embezzlement and forgery 20,
horse-stealing 2, larceny of various descriptions 149, man.
slaughter 2, demanding money with menaces 1, misdemeanor
13, murder 2, administering poison 1, rape 1, receiving stolen
goods 9, robbery 10 ; 37 of the prisoners have been committed
in London, 164 in Middlesex, 3 in Essex, 6 in Kent, and 35
in Surrey.
The RECORDER, when the grand jury had been called
and sworn, addressed to them the following charge :—Gen-
tlemen of the grand jury, the number of prisoners whose
names appear on the calendar, standing charged with dif-
ferent offences, is 245, and there is some reason to expect
that in the course of the present week that number will be
augmented to somewhere about 300 or more, at least before
the termination of your labours. I am afraid, therefore,
that you must expect to be employed for some time with
that public business on which you are about to enter,
but it is a duty from which you will not shrink—
a duty ;devolved upon you by law in connexion
with this Court. The list presents a great num-
ber of offences, many of them of a very serious nature, and
of deep public importance. There are two for murder;
several, at least six, for cutting and maiming, with intent
to do some grievous bodily harm ; no less than three for
manslaughter, or that criminal act involving the taking
away of life, which only comes short of the crime of murder;
one for rape; three for assault, with intent to commit rob-
bery; seven for robbery, besides other important charges,
involving the use of violence in the commission of the
offences. It is lamentable to find that offences, crimes
implying violence in the commission of them, and
the crimes of cutting and wounding with intent to
do some bodily harm, appear to be on the increase—
certainly they are not diminishing. Within the last
few years, the use of the knife in cases of provocation
and quarrel, a practice at one time almost unknown in this
country—the use of dangerous weapons for offensive pur-
poses, instead of having recourse to mere bodily strength, is
become unhappily rife. Where the cases appear to you on
the evidence to be fully made out, you will feel it your duty to
put them in the course of further inquiry. On the charges
which will be presented to you of cutting and wounding with
intent to do some grievous bodily harm, I have but one re-
mark to make, and it is this, that if you shall find that a
person receiving provocation employs the knife or other in-
strument in such a way as leads you to put the con-
struction upon such conduct that the party intended
to do that which, according to the evidence, has taken
effect—if, for example, you find a person striking with
a drawn knife, and the, weapon taking effect on the body
of another, you will put the entire charge in the course of
further investigation. But if, on the other hand, in a charge
for cutting and wounding, the jury shall see that cir-
cumstances will warrant it, you will discharge the
prisoner of the violent intention, and commit him
to take his trial for the aggravated assault. Gen-
tlemen, your duty merely is to put the case in
the course of further inquiry, it is for the petty jury to try
whether or not the offence charged against the prisoner has
been committed by him, you have only to inquire as to the
fact of dangerous weapons having been used, and whether
they were used with the intention of doing bodily harm, and
to send the case tor further investigation accordingly.
Among the cases of murder, one, unhappily, is a charge of
child murder. There is nothing in that case which is peculiar;
handkerchiefs were found on the mouth or throat of the
child, then dead. These suspicious circumstances would na-
turally excite a doubt whether in case the child had been still
born the party would have resorted to that which, if the
child had been alive, would have the effect of putting it to
death. I have said that, not to prejudice you, but that you
should put the case in the way of fuller inquiry, and I
say no more, because they are circumstances which may
receive some answer when they come to be investigated. But
the fact of a child having been found dead under these cir-
cumstances is enough for you sending it before a petty jury.
There is another charge of murder—one which will require
some investigation on your part. The first question which
will occur in that case is, how the party met with
her death, whether it was by a fall, involving no other
person in the guilt, or whether it was by violence,
inflicted by another; whether it occurred through the vio-
lence of another throwing her down stairs, or from herself
falling down stairs. The next question, if you find that
the death has been occasioned by another party, will be,
whether the evidence points to any individual, and whether
there be sufficicient connexion between the party who did the
deed and the person charged in that evidence. The safer
course will be if the evidence is not sufficiently clear, to
throw out the bill until more evidence can be subsequently
got, for if you put the prisoner on his trial upon evidence
which will not bear a conviction, and the bill be thrown out,
it will be very inconvenient if other and clearer evidence should
afterwards arise. But if you see that there is sufficient evidence
of both, you will put it in the course of further inquiry. I
have said that because you ought not to inquire merely into
the cause of death, and, supposing that there was enough to
satisfy you on that point, so to send it before another jury;
you must be satisfied that the party died by violence, and
that that violence was inflicted by the prisoner. I have
read the depositions very carefully. Ido not presume to
form any definite opinion on the case, but I recommend you,
if you shall find that the cause of death is something beyond
the party dead, and that the evidence points out the person
who is charged as being that cause, then you will put it in
the course of further investigation. If you are not satisfied
fully on these points it will be better to leave it to the pos-
sibility of more evidence arising, than to send the case on
to meet with an acquittal on unsatisfactory evidence. There
are either three or four cases of manslaughter; two of them
of a less serious aspect. In the case where a blow hav-
ing been applied to a child resulted in the death of the
child, the question will be whether the violence is of such a
character, that the person is chargeable with an unlawful
act, and hat of such a kind, towards a child, as will involve
the crime of manslaughter. Another of these charges arose
out of very peculiar circumstances, and was of the utmost
public importance. The party is charged with negligence in
the conducting of an engine, so that he ran into another train,
to the great danger of life to many in that train. The inquiry
here was, whether the person appointed to conduct the en-
gine, seeing the usual signals, ought to have increased his
caution, and whether he neglected that caution and
conducted himself recklessly, and with such rash-
ness as would amount to criminal negligence, and, therefore,
involving the crime of manslaughter. I need not state to
you that where persons having the care of engines, with
the lives of individuals depending upon these engines,
and with the usual signals given for precaution, neglect these
signals when given, and by that criminal negligence are the
cause of death to one or more individuals—these persons so
acting are chargeable with manslaughter. I recommend
you to put this case in the course of further investigation;
it is enough for you if, when warnings have been given,
by signals with which the party is acquainted, these war -
ings have been neglected and the party has thereby become
the cause of death. On the charges for robbing there is no-
thing to require the construction of a point of law;
3aiwths nhloflas,acelusithdi hwrn°ieee,:ghidnpuhte.taasehtaelrhli tsYlbie3i ytirecsoihtooeunennil. the grfm\d—evfiaissi ttnetrl nn circumstantial btetdestruction
they are charges of great public moment, but
y
still the question is rather one of fact than
of law, and you will find no difficulty in the
application of the law. If, however, I am mistaken,
and anything does arise to perplex you, the Court, however
constituted, will be ready to afford you any aid, and there
is a most able and intelligent officer of the Court, who
will always be happy to lend his assistance to
the grand jury on questions of law or evidence.
I have only to remark on the case of arson, that the charge is
not for feloniously setting fire to a house in the possession of
another party, not for exposing the life of any party to immi-
nent dangdr, but for setting fire to a house in the occupation
withlf,
t
l
enhosfaurr‘ame_work and timbers being on fire--
r,
eant
coe the
inquireintention
company
w hwehtt defraudeohreort
htobeh propertyoanai
snooaetdfnethaNiwtdiNnihet.li
ayardiini
his
whether fire was set to it ; whether
ee s
ttrvui
cl wilful
ol actevidence,
of ot fh
ea n yt
property,he person,fae
blevfiollrepuat
ia'onitik I need
conduct on the occasion, be such as
saati
nnoi
dultoehsfattedhhtnhaa3l:\om,
eueabhvti to suspect the
evidence
majoritydi
un coaerw p seen,iof
ipterisnotnhcohaoor.ganciditeruofdsei
,orAsvaywhi
lolniariyftenothattf3odod,t
oyarhi
tffiutl ehlhocelae
wurcl
yourselvest
th.
investigation
particulars
s less
ceft
cyh oi
occur,
anndd this,b yI
trial
rh?
must make no presentment but by aedeilca.
spa3thu,hseaof
fiatrut tihryc
you
ronjelrutuaae
wcrpyi
reach
your number. It is necessary that 12 out of 23 make it,
it,
jury to find a bill against any prisoner committed for trial.
I am sure that you will not disnuss any case without making
on the other hand, gentlemen, if you are satisfied with the
evidence given by the first two or three witnesses, it will
not be necessary to press it further. I now dismiss you to
the discharge of your duties.
One of the gentlemen summoned to serve upon the grand
jury objected to serve, upon the ground that under the
present system of prison discipline he should object to be any
• party to carrying it 91st, as se disapproved of it altogether.

The RECORDER asked if he was to unde:stand that the
gentleman had a conscientious objection to perform the duty
which the law required from him ?
The party summoned said he conscientiously oljectea to
be a party to carrying out the present system of punishing
offenders.

The RECORDER, after consulting with his colleagues upon
the bench, said that it appeared to him that the real ground
upon which the person ought to be excused was that he was
really unfit to undertake the office. The same obliquity of
mind which induced them to entertain such opinions as he
had conceived might induce him to say that an innocent
pei son was guilty.
The COURT eventually excused the person from serving
on the grand jury, the Recorder remarking that the ground
for excusing him was, that he was unfit to perform the duties
of a grand juror. _ _

John Weehes surrendered to answer an indictment charging
him with embezzling three several sums of 45., 65., and 65.,
the moneys of Nathaniel Pegg, his master.
Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Charnock prosecuted, and Mr.
Clarkson and Mr. Parry defended the prisoner.
From the evidence adduced, it appeared that the prisoner
had been in the service of Mr. Pegg, who is a coal merchant
carrying on business at Phcenix-wharf, Southwark, for twelve
years, as ccllecting clerk, and his duty was to receive moneys
due to the prosecutor, and to account for thesums he received
at the end of each week; and it was alleged that he had re-
ceived three payments from a person named Watts, and that
on those occasions he had embezzled the sums mentioned in
the indictment. Upon the cross-examination of Mr. Pegg,
however, he admitted that he allowed one of his clerks the
privilege of selling coals to his friends or private customers,
at an advance of five shillings per ton upon the price of the
coals in the pool, and although he denied ever having ac-
corded such a privilege to the prisoner, it appeared that the
sum he was charged with embezzling made up exactly the
amount that he would have been entitled to receive for him-
self, supposing such an arrangement to have existed, and
which on the part of the prisoner was alleged actually to
have been the case. It likewise appeared that the charge
had not been made by the prosecutor until after the prisoner
had left his service, and gone into that of another coal-mer-
chant, named Wright, who had set up in the coal trade near
Mr. Pegg's wharf, and he admitted that the prisoner had
taken a great many of his customers away.
Mr. CLARKSON made a very able address to the jury on
behalf of the prisoner, and called a number of highly re-
spectable witnesses, all of whom gave him an excellent
character.

The RECORDER summed up the case, and the jury imme-
diately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The prisoner was then arraigned upon another indictment,
preferred by the same prosecutor, charging him with larceny ;
but, afi er one or two witnesses had been examined, Mr. Bal-
lantine expressed an opinion that he did not expect the jury
would convict the prisoner upon the evidence that he was in
a position to offer, and he therefore withdrew from the
prosecution.
A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly recorded.
James Augustus Seymour, 40, was indicted for a mis le-
meanour, in having unlawfully caused the registry of a false
entry of a birth.
Air. Doane conducted the prosecution.
Mr. Hamblin, the registrar of births, deaths, and mar-
riages for St. Luke's, deposed that on the 12th of May de-
fendant came to his office and said he wished to register the
birth of a child, and witness, at his dictation, filled up the
register. He described himself as the father, and described
the mother as Amy Seymour, formerly Amy Wallen. The
witness said that the prisoner did not say that they wire
married, but he inferred that they were so from the descrip-
tion the prisoner gave of the mother of the child.
The prisoner cross-examined the witness at some length,
as to his identity, but he persevered in declaring that he was
the man who had come to his office and had caused him to
make the entry.
Amy Wrallen deposed that she had been living with the
prisoner as his wife, but they were not married. She was
delivered of a child, of which the prisoner was the father, in
the beginning of May, and she remembered the prisoner go.
ing away on the 12th, saying that he should get the birth
registered. She identified the signature to the register as the
prisoner's handwriting.
The prisoner cross-examined the witness at, great length,

but upon matters totally irrelevent, and the only object ap

parenily being to defame her character and that of her fa-
mily. The Recorder repeatedly interposed, and told him
that he could not do himself any good by such a course of
examination, and-that he ought to confine himself to the real
question at issue, viz. whether or not he had caused the false
entry to be made.
In anwer to a question from the Court, this witness said
that for the last nine months she was living with the pri-

soner, she went by the name of Amy Seymour, and was
looked upon by their landlord, and every one who knew
them, as the prisoner's wife.
The prisoner, who had conducted himself with great
effrontery during the trial, declared that the whole pro-
ceeding was a conspiracy by the girl's relations to get him
transported.
The RECORDER, at the close of the case for the prosecution,

said there appeared to him to be this difficulty, that although
the prisoner had made a statement that the parties were
married, and that the child was legitimate, yet, in point of
fact, he had not made any actual false statement.
Mr. DOANE admitted this was so, but he said the effect of
such a proceeding was entirely to defeat the intention of this
Act of Parliament.

The RECORDER said that the mischief which it was the in.

tention of the Act to prevent, was certainly effected, but
under the circumstances he should like to take the opinion of
the judges upon the point.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict of Guilty, but under
the direction of his Lordship, they appended to their verdict
the statement that the woman was known by the name
described on the reg!ster, and:that in point of fact no actual
false representation had been made by the prisoner.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

Fitzgerald was charged with creating a disturbance at
the Boar's Head public-house, Clare-street, Clare- market.
The whole case arose out of a question of right. The com-
plainant, a Mr. Davis, said that he had purchased the house
of the former landlord, a Mr. Hawker, and produced an
agreement and some receipts in proof of the sale.
On the other hand, the 410endant produced a lease, an
agreement, and a license (which had been transferred to him),
in proof of a prior sale.
Mr. Davis stated that the prisoner and his wife came to
the house on Saturday—he being then in possession—and
brought with them " half a dozen Irishmen." They said
that the house was theirs, and the goods and fixtures also,
they having bought them of Mr. Hawker; and they were
determined to take and maintain possession. They remained
until a policeman came up and took the prisoner and his wife
into custody. (They were both taken to the station-house,
and were got out on bail, but Mrs. Fitzgerald being ill and
unable to attend, it was agreed that the case should proceed
in her absence.)
A long, and by no means orderly discussion, here took
place between the complainant and defendant, and their re-
spective solicitors, in the course of which it appeared that
there were three boxes on the premises which were admitted
to be the prisoner's property, and it was agreed that they
should be sent by tie complainant to his (prisoner s) address.
Mr. HENRY said that this was a case of trespass on a claim
of right. The prisoner had clearly no right to force an entry,
whether he was or was not the true owner of the house.
He should have taken legal means to eject the complainant
and gain possession ; but as it was a case of trespass, he could
not adjudicate. A civil action might, perhaps, be brought.
The prisoner was discharged.

The Brussels Opera company left London on Sun-
day morning for Antwerp, by the steam-ship Soho,
from Brunswick Wharf, Blackwall. As they performed at
Drury-lane Theatre on Saturday night, and were so en-
gaged until midnight, the time allotted for preparation for
their departure was very small, and as their theatrical
wardrobe and effects were delivered to them in bulk on
their arrival here for professional purposes, without payment
of the duties, under protest that they should be again ex-
ported to Belgium within a stated limited period, it became
necessary for the director, on the part of the troupe, to
make application to the revenue authorities for their exami
nation to take place at a very early period of the morning of
Sunday, previously to shipment and their departure, in
order to relieve the parties to the bond from the onus which
had devolved upon them for the general convenience of this
gifted company.
MUSICAL GOSSlP.—Paris.—The Italian Opera has
published its programme; it will re-open on the Ist of Oc-
tober. Grisi, Persiani, Marietta Brambilla, Mario. Lablache,
Ronconi, Corelli, Cullini, Tagliafico, Peppina Brambilla,
Angiola Albini, and Coletti, are among the engagements
announced. The theatre continues under the direction
of M. Vatel. A new opera, La Caquet du couvent, the
music by Henri Potier, has been produced at. the Opera
Comique, with considerable success. The success is traced
to the performers, Madame Potier, Mdlle. Marie Lavoye,
and St. Foye, rather than to the music, or the book, which
is the production of MM. Planard and Leuven. A dramatic
version of Clarisse Harlowe, after the form given to it by
Jules Janin, has been produced at the Gymnase Dramatique,
with brilliant success; the names of the authors are MM.
Dumanoir, Leon Guillard, and Clairville ; the first and last
of these have had little to do in the work, but M. Leon
Guillard, the real author, to insure its production, was
compelled to avail himself of the names and prestige of others
better known, if not clever than himself ; this is the system
in Paris. M. Guillard is a cousin of Massol, the singer.—
Vienna.—Liszt, the pianist, after giving about a dozen con-
certs here, and a great number more in the Austrian pro-
vinces, was attacked by an inflammatory fever which raised
apprehensions about his life. Under the care of M.
Loewe, the famous homoeopathic doctor, he recovered
entirely, and will shortly repair to Italy. The _Album
de Sainte Cecile informs us that on the 11th of Julyl the
inauguration of the monument to Glucksttoaotked
thatace.
Mozart's Requiem was executed.—
Jenny Lind has refused the offers made sadle to her from
the Imperial Theatre at St. Peterburgh—viz., forty thou-
sand silver rubles for five months, and one thou-
sand rubles extra for each representation. Among the most
interesting features of the forthcoming festival at Birming-
ham is the 93d Psalm, to which Moscheles has set music.
High expectations are entertained of this first essay of
this master in the ecclesiastical style. Balfe, the new chef
d'orchestre of her Majesty's Theatre, has signed a renewed
engagement with Mr. Lumley for two years. He has adopted
the poem of Halevy's Mousquetaires de la Reine for his new
opera at Drury-lane Theatre. Leopold de Meyer, the pianist,
promises to return to England in May. Miss Messent has
concluded an engagement with Mr. Bunn to fill the situa-
tion of seconda donna at Drury-lane Theatre. A. chorus
written by Rossini, to celebrate the recent Pontifical mark
of clemency, has been much talked of. Some ;say it is ori-
ginal, others that it is from one of the finalec of the Donna
del Lago, others that it is from some less known work • but
no one seems absolutely to know anything about it, not
even
the Bolognese, who regard every movement of Rossini with
so jealous an eye.—New Italian Opera.—This bubble has
burst effectually, Persiani, the original proprietor, having
withdrawn from the speculation.---Musical World.
DEATH OF ROBERT PLUMER WARD, ESQ.—Died on
Thursday last, at the residence of the Lieutenant-Governor
of Chelsea Hospital, in his 82d year, of a sudden attack of
angina pectoris, Robert Plumer Ward, Esq., of Gilston Park,
in the county of Herts. Mr. Plumer Ward held office for 25
years under the governments of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Perceval, and
Lord Liverpool, and retained to the last that vigorous intel-
lect which has, more recently, identified his name with some
of the master-pieces of English literature.
THE NEW SPIRITS LICENSES BILL.—The greatest
activity prevails in the Excise department, making ar-
rangements in the event of the Spirits Licenses Bill passing
into a law. Mr. John Wood, the chairman of the board,
who had left town for the purpose of making his annual in-
spection of the coast, was called to town, and remained in
communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the
whole of Friday and Saturday last; and Mr. C. Freeling,
the secretary, was also required to be in attendance to afford
information. The duties of the surveying offices in thickly
populated districts are at present sufficiently heavy, and little
addition can be made to them, consequently some few new
officers will be required ; but in other districts, it is stated,
the additional duty will be performed by the surveying offi-
cers. The premises of chemists and druggists will be pe-
riodically visited; and each vendor will be required to take
out a two-guinea license. The object of tho Bill is to put a
stop to illicit distillation,