The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-11 00:00:00

CENT.

RAL CRIMINAL COURT--( THIS DAY)

OLD COURT.
Th,e June sessions of the Central Criminal Court com-
mence d this morning before the Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs,
Alder men Gabriel, Philips, and A bbiss, the Under-Sheriffs,
and the other criminal authorities.
The Grand Jury having been sworn,
The Recorder, in charging the jury, said he had to inform
them that a very few cases would be brought before them,
and tb ,ose would present nothing out of the ordinary descrip-
tion. There were three cases involving the sacrifice of
humrar life, and one only, however, assumed the form of
wilfvel murder. It was a case of infanticide, and the body
was discovered in a box. Before they could find a verdict of
guilty they must become satisfied that the child was placed
in the box alive by the prisoner with the intent to murder
it, and what occasioned the difficulty was, there was an
entire absence of medical testimony to prove that the child
had ever breathed previous to its being placed where it
was found. However, if in their labours assistance was
required that would be most readily rendered by the Court.
The two cases of manslaughter both arose out of a fight.
In each case the parties bad been drinking at a public-
house a quarrel ensued, and from what appeared in the de-
positions nothing unfair appeared to have taken place. The
question, however, the jury would have to determine was
whether death was produced by a blow given by the pri-
soner, and if so it would be their duty to return a true bill,
and the court would then further investigate the charge.
The remainder of the indictments were, as ho had before
observed, of such an ordinary nature that he felt it to be
perfectly unnecessary to make any observations upon them.
The jury then retired to their room.
THE GREAT JEWEL ROBBERY.
James Pearce, 28, lapidary, was indicted for stealing a
locket, of the value of £2,000, the property of Mr. Emanuel,
Hanover-squsre, and Emily Lawrence, 21, was also indicted
with stealing four bracelets, valued at £6OO, the property
of Messrs. Hunt and Roskell. There was also a second
indictment against Pearce for receiving the property well
knowing it to have been stolen.
Both prisoners pleaded not guilty.
Mr. ;Giffard and Mr. Lewis appeared for the prcsecution,
Pearce was defended by Sergeant Ballantine, and Mr.
Sleigh defended Lawrence.
Mr. Giffard, having stated the case, called the followins•
witnesses :
John Morris said—l am in the service of Messrs. hunt
and Roskell, of Bond-street. I recollect in the commence-
meat of November the female coming into our rihop. I
showed her a quantity of jewellery, amongst wbtich was a
large emerald bracelet, valued at £l5O. The emerald itself
was worth about £3O. The prisoner was accompanied by
another female. After inspecting a number of very valuable
bracelets she selected two, and ordered them to be set aside,
saying she would call next day for them. She never' came.
From circumstances that afterwards tr,anspired the jewel
cases were examined, and the case of the emerald bracelet
was found to be empty. In looking over the bracelets
others were missing, and a reward 'a £lOO was offered for
the apprehension of the thieves.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sletgh—l had never seen the
female prisoner before she came into our shop. I identified
her when she was in custody for the robbery at Mr.
Emanuel's. There were several other persons in and out
the shop the day the prisoner came. It was a day or two
after the female prisoner's visit on examining the bracelets
that I found the emerald one missing. I did not at the time
think it had been stolen, but I never was able to find it after
it had been shown to her.
Mr. Hannaford, lapidary, of 46, Clerkenwell-g-reen—l
knew the male prisoner. Last year in November he called
upon me, and amongst other things he showed an emerald
and two pearls. He took the jewels away but afterwards
returned, and the emerald was given to Mr. Gregory to
dispose of. I knew him by the name of Bingfield.
Cross-examined by Sergeant Ballantine—l knew him to
be a jeweller. lam not quite sure it was in November,
but I think so. He asked me to buy the emerald for £2O;
I thought that too much, and I gave him £l5 for, it. There
was no restriction as to where I was to take it to dispose of.
By Mr. Sleigh—There is nothing unusual about the size
or colour of the emerald, but it was cut in a peculiar man-
ner. There is great difficulty in identifying precious stones.
Mr. Gregory—l reside at King William-street, Strand.
I received an emerald from the last witness Hannaford. I
took it to Mr. Hunt's, in Bond-street, to dispose of, and he
detained it.
Mr. Hunt (of the firm of Hunt and Roskell) said—l re-
collect the emerald bracelet in question being in stock, and
also one with rubies and diamonds, another with pearls and
diamonds, and the several other ornaments enumerated in
the bill offering the £lOO reWard. The emerald I produce
is the emerald Gregory offered to me. I instantly recog-
nised it as my property. I afterwards weighed it
and found it was 10 carets, although the emerald I lost was
entered in my stock-book at 9 carets and three-quarters.
I said, notwithstanding that circumstance, the stone was
my property. The plan of our house is that when a stone
is given out to mount, the person mounting it makes an
entry in the book of the description and weight of the stone.
When this emerald was mounted, the usual entry was
made, but the party who did it is dead.
A long discussion then took place with respect to the
entry differing from the actual weight of the stone. At
length the case proceeded.
Witness continued—l produce the emerald. It is the one
I got from Gregory.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—Will you entrust the emerald
to me for a short time. (Laughter.)
Witness—Oh yes.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantyne (having looked at the stone
and placed it in Mr. Giffard's hand) :said, I have given it
to Mr. Giffard. (Laughter.)
Mr. Sleigh—Will you allow me to look at it. (Laughter.)
Witness—Certainly. (Laughter.)
Mr. Sleigh (after looking at the emerald, gave it to the
officer of court)—l have returned it, Mr. Hunt, to the offi-
cer. (Loud loughter.) We must be particular about such
things as these. (Laughter.)
Mr. Gregory recalled—(Looking at the emerald.) That is
the one I took to Mr. Hunt's shop.
Mr. Nash, an assistant to Messrs. Hunt and Roskell—l
know the emerald now in my hand to be the property of
Messrs Hunt and Roskell.
By Mr. Ballantine—There is a peculiar mark on it. It
was not thought necessary to put that:peculiarity into the
handbill offering the £lOO reward,
Mr. French said—l recollect the male prisoner calling
upon me in April last. He gave the name of Roberts. Ho
produced eight diamonds, which he left to set in a ring. He
then gave me another diamond and ruby, also to be set in
a ring. He paid for setting and took them away. He came
again on the 20th with some more stones to set. The value
of the stones brought to me to set, I should value at about
£6O. He never came for the last four diamonds he left with
me. They never have been called for. I produce them.
Cross-examined—l was in attendance at the police court,
but was not called.
Mr. Wm. Young—l am in The service of Mr. Emanuel,
of Hanover-square. I recollect the female prisoner calling
at our place on the 3d of January. I suppose the man who
was with her was the male prisoner.
Mr. French, re-called by Sergeant Ballantine—l identi-
fied the prisoner at the police court.
Sergeant Ballantine—You were not taken there and
shown the prisoner ?
Witness—l identified him.
Sergeant Ballantine—Do you mean to say that you ex-
pressed no doubt about the identity of the male prisoner ?
Witness—l don't know that I ever expressed any doubt
about the prisoner's identity. I think he told me he lived
at 4, Albion-road, or Grove, Newington.
By Mr. Giffard—l am certain the prisoner is the party
who employed me to set the diamonds.
By the Recorder—l have never been applied to for the
diamonds in my possession by any person connected with
the person who left them.
Mr. Streeter, manager to Mr. Emanuel, of Hanover-
square—The prisoners first called at our house in the early
part of January.
Inspector Whicher, of the detective police, said—On the
the 23d of April I went to 5, Albion-grove, about eight in
the evening. The male prisoner opened the door. I told
him I wished to speak with him. We went down stairs
and there I saw the female prisoner. I told them my busi-
ness, and that they would be required to accompany me.
The female prisoner went up stairs to dress, and when she
came down I asked her what she had in her hand, she de-
nied having anything. On attempting to open her hand she
resisted, and the male prisoner took up a poker, and at that
moment the female got away and then held up her hands
and said " You see I've got nothing." I then found on the
floor the ring made by Mr. French, some earrings, and other
property. I asked them to account for the possession, which
they refused. I also asked them a question about the
emerald, bat they refused to answer any questions. I took
them to the Kingsland station, and charged them with the
robbery.

Sergeant Tanner also produced a quantity of jewellery
found at the prisoner's residence.
Mr. Hunt was recalled, and the diamonds being shown
him said he could not speak with any certainty as to their
being his property.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Sleigh then proceeded to address the jury for the
female, and Mr. Sergeant Ballantine followed for Pearce.
- The jury found the male prisoner guilty of receiving the
property of Messrs. Hunt and Roskell, knowing it to have
been stolen, and acquitted the female prisoner.
The other indictments against both prisoners tespecting
Mr. Emanuel's property were then proceeded with.

We read in the Leeds Mercury :—Mr. Baines,
M.P., and Mr. Christopher Heaps, clerk and treasurer of
the overseers of Leeds, gave evidence on Monday last before
the select committee of the House of Lords on the electoral
franchise, relative to the addition that would be made to the
constituency of this borough in case the bill for the repro-
sentation of the people should pass into law. They laid
before the committee the results of an independent inquiry
made into the probable effects of the bill in the several
townships of the borough, and those results substantially
agreed with the returns already laid before the Rouse of
Commons. Mr. Baines also laid before the committee nu-
merous particulars to prove an extraordinaryimprovement
in the education, the habits of providence and temperance,
and the social condition of the people, with the view of
showing that a great extension of the suffrage might be
made with safety and wisdom, and could not longle with-
held.