The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-16 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT.—(This Day).

The June session of the Central Criminal Court was
opened this morning by the Right lion, the Lord
Mayor, the Right Hon. the Recorder, Aldermen Mus-
grove, Finnis, Carter, Sir H. Mugeeridge, and Law-
rence, Mr. Sheriff Kennedy, Mr. Sheriff Rose, Mr.
Under-Sheriff Stone, Mr. Under-Sheriff Rose, &cc.
The first edition of the calendar contains the names
of 123 prisoners.
The Recorder, in his charge to the grand jury, ex-
pressed his regret that their labours were likely to be
heavy, as the calendar contained a much larger number
of prisoners, and the offences were of a much more
aggravated character than usual at this period of the
year. A good many of the cases were adjourned from
the last session, in consequence of the important trial
that was then disposed of, and he could not allow the
present opportunity to pass without returning his own
thanks personally, and those of the Court for the
very admirable arrangements that were made by the
sheriffs during the progress of that inquiry, and in con-
sequence of which the business of the court had pro-
ceeded with perfect regularity and without any incon-
venience being occasioned. his lordship then stated
that there were a great many cases of highway robbery
with violence, and no less than 22 charges of burglary,
a very unusual number of that class of eases at this period
of the year. It was always the practice of the court to
punish such offences with considerable severity, and
that course would certainly be pursued in order to check
crimes of this descript.on. There was one charge of
murder of a very peculiar kind, in which a man was
charged with inducing an unfortunate woman to jump
off London-bridge into the river, and, in this case,
if it should be made out to their entire satis-
faction that the prisoner did in any way induce or assist
the deceased to jump into the river, he would be amen-
able to the charge of principal in the second degree as
an accessory to the commission of the crime. It ap-
peared to him, however, that the evidence to support
this view of the case was very slight, and unless the fact
Was clearly made out, they would not be justified in find-
kg the bill. The Recorder then referred to the charge
of endeavouring to incite a mutiny on board a vessel
called the Stebenheath, and he expressed an opinion
that it would be the duty of the grand jury in this
case to return a true bill. The Recorder then said
that he understood a charge of forgery was likely
to oome before them, issuing out of a petition that was
presented to the House of Commons against the return
of a gentleman as member for the borough of Sligo. It
appeared that two witnesses were examined in support
vf the petition, and they swore distinctly to certain acts
of bribery having been committed by the gentleman in
question. The gentleman himself was subsequently ex-
aneined, and he in the most positive manner contradicted
the testimony that had been given by those witnesses.
A discussion arose as to whether an indictment for per-
jury should be preferred against those witnesses ;
but as it was necessary in cases of perjury
that two witnesses should be called to contras
diet the alleged false testimony, it was im-
possible to prefer an indictment against them. It was
now intimated that an indictment was to be preferred
against the gentleman himself ; and he would only ob-
serve that it would have been much more satisfactory if
the charge had been preferred openly before a magis-
trate, instead of coming to the grand jury behind the
back of the party. The law, however, gave them the
right to do so, but it was his custom in all such cases to
warn the jury to look at the evidence with close atten-
tion ; bat, of course, if the charge was established it
would be their duty to find the bill.
The grand jury then retired.