The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-03 00:00:00

TALLOW.

Owing to the large arrivals, and to the closing of the
annual accounts, our market is heavy, and prices have
given way from 6d to 8d per cwt. P. Y. C., on the spot,
is 45s to 45s 3d ; and for delivery during the next
three months 448 to 44s 3d per cwt. Town Tallow is
478 6d to 48s per cwt. net cash, and Rough Fat 2s. 81d.
per 81ba.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY

OLD COURT.

-
These sessions, the third of the present mayoralty,
commenced to-day before the Lord Mayor, the Re-
corder, Sir J. Pine, Mr. Alderman Musgrove, Mr.
etl'lerman Sidney, the Sh,i &c.
4ccoroiHg to the calendar issued this morning,
these are only 122 prisoners for trial, of which there
are 23 from London, 72 from Middlesex, 1 from
Essex, 7 from Kent, and 19 from Surrey. The
summary of the offences charged on the calendar
against parties may be stated as follows :—There are
2 parties charged with a nameless offence, 4 with
burglary, 10 with unlawfully uttering counterfeit
coin, &c., 2 with cutting and wounding with intent,
&c., 4 with embezzlement, 6 with forgery and
uttering forged instruments, 1 with horse stealing,
6 with housebreaking and larceny, 43 with larceny,
Si with larceny in a dwelling-house, 8 with larceny
from the person, 16 larceny by servants, 10 with
misdemeanours, 1 with feloniously administering
poison, 5 with receiving stolen goods, and 2 with
robbery.
A great number of persons, who had been sum-
moned on the grand jury were excused, on the cer-
tificates of medical gentlemen that they were labour-
ing under the prevailing epidemic.
The grand jury having been empanelled and sworn,
The RECORDER proceeded to deliver his charge to
them. The calendar, he was happy to say, was un-
usually light, there being only 122 persons charged
with different offences. There were, however, four or
five cases to which he thought it fit particularly to direct
the attention of the grand jury. There were two cases
of cutting and wounding, one of feloniously adminis-
tering poison, a charge of arson, and a charge of
forgery, the latter being a charge of forgery cognizable
by the law of this country under the statute of the
11th George IV. and the Ist William IV., chap. 66,
sec. 18, namely, engraving a note in a foreign lan-
guage, with intent to defraud a foreign Prince. With
regard to the cases of cutting and wounding, it was right
that he should state that in every charge of feloniously
cutting and wounding an intent was charged beyond
an aggravated assault, such as, for instance, in some
cases, with intent to murder, to do some grievous
bodily harm, and so on, and in reference to these
charges special provisions were made by the statute,
and the Court was given the power to sentence the
party to three years' imprisonment. It was, however,
perfectly competent to the grand jury, on both the
cases charged in the calendar, either to find the whole
bill charged, or only part of it, or to reject it altoge-
ther, notwithstanding the provisions of the statute,
as these provisions did not refer to the finding of the
grand jury. One of the charges in the calendar was
against a party who, having had a quarrel in a public-
house, and having a sword- stick in his possession,
either purposely or by accident injured the keeper of
the public- house slightly by it. On the one side
it was said to have been done purposely, on the other
by accident. If the grand jury, after hearing the
evidence, came to the conclusion that it was the re-
sult of accident, it would not be right for them to find
a bill against the party charged, saying that it was
done with intent to do some grievous bodily harm ;
but if, on the other hand, they thought it was com-
mitted purposely, they would be justified in doing so.
The other charge was one of a most serious nature,
namely, kicking a woman, the result of which was
internal hemorrhage, which endangered her life.
On this case he would leave the grand jury
to form their own opinions after they had
heard the evidence. The charge of arson was that of
setting fire to a house, accompanied with larceny, by
the taking away of the cash-box containing the pro-
perty of the master of the apprentice who was charged
with the offence. Now, on finding a true bill fur
arson, it was not necessary to prove that the whole
of the house was burnt, the burning of any part, how-
ever trifling, was quite sufficient, although thefire
was afterwards extinguished. Ile (the Recorder) un-
derstood that in the case he vas alluding to the fire only
charred the floor of the room. With respect to the charge
of poisoning, it was a charge preferred by a wife against
her husband, and the mode of administering the
poison was mixing opium in the woman's tea while
her attention was called off by admitting a child at
the door. The grand jury would have in this case,
the evidence of medical persons as to the existence of
the poison and the quantity administered; the circum-
stances of the case were, however, such as the grand
jury would readily deal with, and he would, therefore,
make no other remark with respect to the case than this,
that such cases were involved in great obseurity, and
it would be for the grand jury to say, after the evi-
dence, whether they thought sufficient had been
brought before them to entitle them to call upon the
party accused to answer the charge before the petty
jury. With regard to the case of forging fereign
notes, he had already stated that it was an offence
cognisable under the statutes of the 11th George IV.
and the Ist William IV., chap. 66, sec. 19. The
Learned Judge having referred to the statute, and
read the clause relating to the charge, left it to the
grand jury to say whether the party charged was