The Sun.
London, England, 1861-09-23 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT.—(This Day)

OLD COURT.

The September s :t-ions of the Central Criminal Court
commenced this mc ruing before the Lord Mayor, Aldermen
Sir J. Duk , Sir F. G. Moon, the Recorder, the Sheriffs,
and Under Sheriffs.
The Recorder, in charging the grand jury, said he was
sorry to say that although the number of the prisoners for
trial was not more numerous than might have been ex-
pected, yet many of the charges were of a most serious
nature, and would call for the greatest consideration. There
were no less than three charges of wilful murder, three of
manslaughter, several others in which considerable vio-
lence had been used, one with stabbing with intent to
commit murder, which still remained a capital offence, and
two charges of rape. The first case to which he would
refer was that against a person named William
Cogan, who was charged with the wilful murder of his wife.
The prisoner and his wife, it appeared, when sober, lived
peaceably together, but when intoxicated they were in the
habit of quarrelling, and the evidence showed that it
was during one of these unfortunate differences that the
, alleged offence was committed. Having related the cir-
cumstances connected with the case, which have already
appeared, the Recorder remarked that the prisoner alleged
that his wife, after cutting his throat, had committed
suicide. There were no persons present when the
offence was committed, so they would have to
say whether there was sufficient evidence for fur-
ther inquiry against the accused, when he would
have the opportunity of fully entering into all the
particulars of the case. If they should be of that opinion
they would return a true bill against him. The next
charge of murder was that against a man named Murphy,
and he was also charged with the murder of his wife—the
circumstances being somewhat similar to those in the case
he had just referred to. The parties when sober lived
peaceably together, but when drunk they also were in the
habit of quarrelling. The evidence, however, in this case
differed from the other, as there was amongst the witnesses
a person who saw the act committed. This witness stated
that he by accident went into the house where the two
people were quarrelling, and was induced to look through
an aperture in the door of the apartment, when he saw a
man stab a woman, and from certain circumstances there
could be no doubt that the prisoner was in the house at the
time, and it would be for them to say whether there was
sufficient evidence to place him on his trial for the offence.
The third charge of murder was that against a seaman
name Spiller. The evidence in that case would have also
to be fully considered by them, but it appeared to be such
as to call for no further remarks from him, as they would
find it would present no difficulty to them in the discharge
of their duty. The charges of manslaughter were pre-
ferred against Benjamin Martin and William Willsey.
In the latter case death had been occasioned by the
deceased interfering to prevent a quarrel between the pri-
soner and his wife. If the evidence bore out the charge,
then it would become their duty to return a true bill
against him. A woman, named Harris, was charged with
causing the death of her child by wilful neglect, and if it
appeared so by the evidence then the woman became amenable
to the law, for a parent was clearly responsible for the death
of the child under such circumstances. The evidence in
the charge of rape against Henry Hearne was rather pecu-
liar. The person upon whom the offence was alleged to
have been committed was a married woman, the wife of a
policeman. During the night, while the husband of the
prosecutrix was on duty, the prisoner entered her apart-
ment and got into the bed, she not being aware of the cir-
cumstance until it was almost too late. Immediately upon
making the discovery the proseeutrix raised an alarm, and
the prisoner was taken into custody and committed for trial
for the offence. The defence set up was that the woman
laboured under a peculiar delusion, and that in fact the
offence had not been committed. He merely mentioned this
circumstance, in order that the jury might be enabled to
observe the demeanour of the prosecutrix while she was
giving her evidence. There was also, he regretted to say,
among the remaining charges one of those which had been so
frequent of late—namely, a charge of fraudulent bankruptcy,
and it was of the greatest importance to a commercial
country that all such acts, if clearly proved, should be
severely punished. With respect to the other charges
they were not of a nature to call for any special remark, as
they were of the ordinary description and would not offer
any difficulty in their disposal.