The Sun.
London, England, 1861-10-21 00:00:00

127,547 88,022

71,346
4,065
2,774
13,248
1,080
5,282
5,508
3,481

48,445
313
3,105
4,234
1,227
1,527
2,736
14

40,804 106,78.1 01,001

CRIMINAL COURT.—(This Day,)

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
The October sessions of the Central Criminal Court com-
menced this morning.

The Recorder, in charging the grand jury, said the cases
in the calendar were by no means numerous, yet some of
them were of a very serious description, and would require
the most careful consideration. The first one he would
mention was that of a charge of wilful murder against a
person named Baldry. He was the captain of an American
vessel, and it would be necessary that he (the Recorder)
should mention to them how the law bore upon the point.
A person in authority was to a certain extent allowed to
tnflict moderate punishment, and in the event of death
taking place after it amounted to what was termed in law
misadventure ; but if the punishment inflicted was immo-
derate, and death ensued, the act was either manslaughter
or murder. In order to find a person guilty of murder it was
necessary to show that the instrument by which the injuries
were inflicted was one likely to cause death, because if such
was the case, then it became evident that the person ad-
ministering such punishment had some malicious feeling
towards the deceased, and the law said such person was
guilty of murder. If, on the contrary, the instrument used
was not of the description ho had mentioned, the offence
amounted only to manslaughter. The facts appeared from
the depositions to be that the deceased was a sailor on board
the ship of which the prisoner was captain, and that on the
former refusing to do certain work he had been commanded
to do, the captain proceeded to inflict punishment on him
with a rope ; and, according to one of the witnesses, he
never did any more work after he had been punished, while
two or three others said he had performed his duty for
three or four days. When the ship arrived in London no
immediate communication of the occurrence was made to
the authorities, and the case was only made known after a
quarrel between the captain and his crew, relative to the
payment of their wages. In arriving at a decision they
would also have to consider the state of health of the de-
ceased, because if he was in a weakly condition it would be
highly dangerous to inflict any punishment until he was
able to bear it. The other case was the indictment pre-
ferred against two persons named Garret and Vale, and
death had, it appeared, been occasioned by attempting to
procure abortion. The facts were exceedingly painful. If
the indictment rested upon the evidence in the depositions
it appeared to be very slight ; but in addition to this there
was the statement of the deceased person, upon which it ap-
peared to him the case against the prisoners mainly rested.
It was well known to most of the jury that a
statement made against a prisoner, without it was taken
cn oath, could not be used against him ; but to this the
law made one exception, and that was, where the person
making it was believed to be in a dying state; then the
law supposed that a statement made under such circum-
, stances was invested with all the solemnity of an oath, and
was admissible as evidence. It, however, appeared that
the evidence to prove the charge was very weak, but per-
haps more would be elicited by minute examination. The
charge of manslaughter was that preferred against a person
named Rayner, who was one of the servants of a railway
company. There could be no doubt the deaths of the un-
fortunate persons were caused by an accident on a railway,
and the duty of the jury would be to see if that accident was
caused by the negligence of the person indicted. There
was a charge of arson against two persons, named George
and Frederick Cliff, who it was alleged had committed the
act in order to defraud an insurance office. Against one of
the prisoners there did not appear very strong evidence, but
against the other the case was different, as he had, accord-
ing to the evidence, made several misrepresentations. The
fire, according to ono witness, was raging in two distinct
plaoos at one time, and one of the prisoners was seen to
leave the place in a very hurried manner just previous to
the conflagration breaking out. When he was afterwards
asked to account for the fire, he said he could not tell how
it occurred, as he was at Walworth at the time. If it was
clearly proved that the prisoner had been seen under the
circumstances he had mentioned, and he had denied it, it
did appear that he had made a false statement as to the
circumstance, and therefore the fact would re-
quire their most serious consideration. There were
two other serious offences against two persons named
Smith and Robinson, for rape. He did not think he need
further allude to the case, only to say that it was highly
important to know when the offence was first complained
of. In both these cases it appeared the injured parties had
complained immediately after the offence was alleged to
have been committed. Cases of the nature he had alluded
to deserved the most serious consideration, because they
were very easily made, but not so easily disproved. He did
not think there was any other case in the calendar to
which he need call their attention.
The grand jury then retired.