The Sun.
London, England, 1856-08-18 00:00:00

AUGUST

MAR IT liEVlS.—iXbis Day.)

CRIMINAL COURT.--(This Day).

The Ahgust session of this Court commenced this
morning at the Ohl Bailey, before the Lord Mayer,
Alderman Sir J. Duke, M.P., Sir C. Merehall, Alder.
man and Sheriff Kennedy, Mr. Under-sheriffs Stone
and Rose, &c.
Mr. Commissioner Gurney charged the grand jury,
in the absence of the Recorder. He said he was
afraid he could not congratulate them on their la-
bours being light, considering the number of prisoners
contained in the calendar for trial, and which was
larger than usual, in consequence of a longer time
having elapsed since the last session than ordinarily,
and was not to be taken as au indication of an in-
crease of crime. The nature of the cases admitted of
congratulation, for with the exception of two, in
which death resulted, there were none of a very se-
rious description to come before them. These
cases partook of the character of manslaughter, and the
case of Joseph Dunn was a rather peculiar one. A
coroner's jury was summoned to inquire into the death
of the deceased, and they appeared to have entered into
the matter rather hastily, and to have come to the con-
clusion that the deceased died from natural causes. It
appeared that the deceased was unfortunately in a state
of intoxication at the time of the accident, and they
would have to consider whether the prisoner acted in
self-defence, because, in that case, he would not be
guilty of the offence charged. The other case of man-
slaughter was one of a more serious description, and
arose out of a drunken frolic of a rather barbarous cha-
racter. All the parties were more or less in a state of
intoxication. The deceased was lyiug down on board.
ship when one of the crew poured naphtha on
him and set fire to it, and they would have
to consider whether, from the evidence that would
be submitted to them, they could gather that the offence
was committed by the prisoner, `John Dunning. There
was another charge of a somewhat peculiar description in
the calendar, viz , that of Mr. Charles Murphy, charged
with stealing a child between five and six years of age.
The prisoner alleges that he took the child out of kind-
ness, to support it and bring it up to his own trade, in
consequence of the child being unkindly treated by its
parents. If, however, it be shown that the prisoner
took away the child, intending to deprive the parents
of their child, it would be their duty to find 'a bill for
felony. A charge would be preferred against a Mr.
Weston, a publican, for having sold a noxious drug in-
stead of spirits. It was not, he believed, intentionally
done, but rather as a joke. Under certain old acts of
Parliament the position of a publican was different
to that of many other tradesmen, and there could
be no doubt that a publican selling corrupted
victuals or drugs for spirits was guilty of a criminal of-
fence. A learned judge had lately decided that a pub-
lican was liable, under the acts to which he (Mr. Com-
missioner Gurney) had alluded, whether ho sold the
noxious drug instead of spirits knowingly or not. If,
therefore, they were satisfied when the case came before
them that the publican sold the noxious drug in the place
of spirits, they would feel it their duty to return a true
bill, and leave to the learned judge who would try the
case the applicability of the rather ancient statutes al-
hided to to the charge in question. The learned gentle.
man then referred to the Act of Parliament passed last
session empowering grand juries to administer an oath
to witnesses instead of their being sworn as heretofore in
open court. The preamble stated that the alteration
had been made to expedite business. Expedite here
was meant to improve, but he was afraid it certainly
would not have the former effect in the Court ; but any
thing that tended to improve justice was of more impor-
tance than a saving of time.