The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-06 00:00:00

THE SUN,

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE asked if the magistrates were
Liable for casts? _ _

Mr. CREASEY did not think they were, but had the
conviction been quashed, they would have been liable to
an action for false imprisonment. Besides a technical
objection which appeared upon the warrant of commit-
ment, there was the additional ground of objection that
the two convicting magistra,es were ratepayers of the
parish of Dinechurch, to which the prisoner's family bad
become chargeable, and hence they were interested in
maintaining the conviction.
Mr. Justice COLERIDOE—You may take a rule.
Rule nisi accordingly.
IN RE AN ATTORNEY.

Mr. RowNsoN;riilied to the Court for a rule calling
upon an attorney of the court to show cause why he
should not be struck off the rolls.
The application was supported by a couple of affida-
vits, which stated that the attorney in question had bee❑
concerned in a couple of cases which had bean tried at
the York assizes. Some of the witnesses applied to him
for payment of their expenses, but he told them he could
not comply with their request, as he was without funds;
and yet it would scern that he had included their ex-
penses in his bill of costs, which had beau taxed, and had
actually made an affidavit, shearing that the witnesses
attended the assizes for only one case, whereby he in-
duced tt e Master to allow expenses in the two cases
which had been tried.
Application granted.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.

OLD COURT:

The May session of the Central Criminal Court com-
menced this morning before the Lord Mayor, the Re-
corder, the Common Sergeant, Mr. Alderman Hunter,
Mr. Alderman Sidney, Mr. Alderman Carden, the She-
riffs, &c. According to the calendar there are 155
prisoners for trial.
The grand jury having been empanelled and sworn,
The RECORDER proceeded to deliver his charge to
them. The calendar, he observed, contained a
list of 155 prisoners for trial, and that number,
as he had often had occasion to observe,
would no doubt be considerably increased be-
fore the termination of their labours. The calendar pre.
sented the case of parties charged with various offences,
some of them, he was sorry to say, of a grave and se-
rious character, such as to require patient investigation
at the hands of the grand jury, and involving serious cir-
cumstances as respected the parties charged, and the
public at large. The larger portion of the commitments
were in cases of larceny. There were no less than 52
cases of ordinary larceny, and a variety of other cases of
aggravated larceny, such as those being committed in a
dwelling-house, on the person, and by servants. There
were also several cases of larceny on the person com-
mitted with violence, which amounted in law to
robbery. There were altogether 88 cases of lar-
ceny, to which tight be added six cases
of robbery, because in those cases property was taken
from the person in the commission of the crime. Of
the remaining cases on the calendar, there were five
charges of cutting and woanding with intent to do
grievous bodily harm, and there were also seven charges
of forgery. There was also in the calendar a charge of
murder, but the grand jury would not have to consider
that, as the bill was found in the former session,
There was another case of feloniously administering
poison, and one of feloniously cutting and damaging
trees. With regard to the cases of poisoning, of cutting
and wounding where the intent was charged to be to do
grievous bodily harm, and the cases of robbery with
extreme violence, he would only,administer to the grand
jury this caution, that in proportion as the charge was
of an aggravated nature they would exercise due
caution, and sift the evidence to the utmost,
in order to see whether the case was a fit one to be
made the subject of future inquiry, because if the grand
jury were of opinion that the evidence was insufficient,
they were bound to throw the shield which the constitu-
tion had given them around the party charged, and not
put him to the obloquy and trouble of a further trial.
With respect to the charge of administering poison
with intent to murder, that was still an offence
of a capital nature. In the present instance the charge
was preferred by a father against his daughter under
circumstances which the grand jury were bound calmly
to investigate. They were bound not lightly to enter-
tain so serious a charge; but, if upon weighing the evi-
dence they thought the case called for, they would put it
in a course of further inquiry by finding a true bill. As
to one case of larceny the grand jury might
have to encounter some difficulty in its investigation; he
alluded to the charge of stealing a cheque belonging to
a company, in which the party charged was said to be
the servant of the company. If the evidence sustained
the charge which would be brought before the grand
jury, then it would be desirable that the case should b.:
put in a further course of investigation, because it in-
volved the character of a servant who had
the greatest facility to commit the most extensive frauds
upon his employers; but, unless it was proved that the
cheque was the property of the employers of the party
charged, there would be a failure of evidence. If
from the evidence adduced the grand jury should be
satisfied that the party charged had employed the
cheque of his employer other than for the pur-
pose for which it we; intended, then a
case would be made out calling upon them to put the
case in a farther course of trial. There was another
case that would come before the grand jury, which was
one of great peculiarity—a charge which by law was a
misdemeanour. He alluded to the charge of
stealing a deed. In that case a question might
arise how far the owner of the deed caused

it to pass into the hands of the party charged.
The Act cf Parliament relating to this subject was the
7th and Bth George IV., chap. 29, and as the subject
might involve a nicety in point of law, he would recom-
mend the grand jury, if they considered the party had
got fraudulent possession of the deed, to find a true bill
and leave thereby the cate to the Court and the
petty jury. For his own part he was not
prepared to say the evidence did not amount
to that contemplated by the statute to which he hai re-
ferred. The Learned Judge, after referring to several
of the minor cases in the calandar, remitted the grand,
jury to the discharge of their duties, and the Court then
proceeded to swear in the petty jury.