The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-09 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD GIBSON, A BANKRUPT.

This was an adjourned certificate meeting.
Mr. Lawrence, as heretofore, appeared for the
assignees ; Mr. Linklater for certain creditors ; but
as it had been previously arranged when the bankrupt
Sturt passed his last examination that the certificates
of both the partners should be considered at the same
time, the consideration of this certificate was ad.
journed until the 22d inst., by consent and without
discussion.

(Before Mr. Commissioner EvANs.)

IN THE MATTER OF JAMES RBDWARD, A BANKRUPT.

The bankrupt had for many years carried on busi-
ness at Portsea as an importer of foreign fruit, and
also as a fishmonger. The debts and liabilities amount
to 3,800/., and the assets are very small.
Mr. LAWRENCE, in support of the bankrupt's ap•
plication for his certificate, stated that the bankrupt's
losses had arisen almost wholly from the damaged
state of the cargoes of fruit consigned to or purchased
by the bankrupt for sale in this country.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said he was aware this
description of trade was very hazardous, and as there
was no opposition, he should grant the certificate of
the second class.

Robert 11. Gould, formerly proprietor of the
Wenham Lake ice establishment, in the Strand, came
up on the question of passing his last examination, but
the balance-sheet, which is in the course of prepara-
tion by Mr. Butler, not yet being in readiness, the
meeting was adjourned.
There was a meeting for the choice of assignees in
the matter of Lewis Joel, of Argyll-street, jeweller,
but the bankrupt was unable to surrender, being in
prison on charges of forgery. The meeting was con-
sequently adjourned.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Gonumax.)
IN RE SEARCH, A BANKRUPT.

This bankrupt, a builder, cams up to pass his last
examination, supported by Mr. Sargood.
The solicitor to the assignees stated that just
prior to the adjudication, the bankrupt's pro-
perty had been seized by a Mrs. Field, who
claimed to be a creditor for money lent to the
amount of upwards of 2001.; but from the
present position of her circumstances, as admitted by
herself, the assignees were not satisfied as to her
ability to make such loans, and from the fact of part
of the money being lent only a few days before the
execution upon her goods, they suspected a collusion
between her and the bankrupt.
Mr. SARGOOD, on behalf of the bankrupt, said he
could not allow that assertion to go uncontradicted, as
the execution had been adverse, the writ having been
issued against the bankrupt from a little angry feeling
arising from his refusing to give Mrs. Field a bill of
sale by way.of security ; and the property so seized
had been given up to the assignees, the bankrupt
having given his creditors all the assistance he could
in bringing his affaira within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
Mrs. Field was then examined, and having satisfied
the Court, was allowed to prove for her claim ; and
the bankrupt thereupon passed.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUB.)
IN RE JOHN P7ll, A BANKRUPT.
This was the day appointed for the choice of assig-
nees, and the bankrupt applied under the 112th sec-
tion of the 12th and lath Victoria, c. 106, to be
discharged from custody, he having surrendered him-
self as required by the statute.
Mr. ROXBURGH, for the detaining creditors, ob-
jected, and stated that a previous application had been
made to Mr. Commissioner Goulburn, who declined
to interfere until the bankrupt had filed an account
of all money received and paid by him during his
imprisonment.
Mr. SARGOOD said such an account had now been
filed, and he trusted the Court would see no objection
to the bankrupt's discharge.
Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE said that from the
account filed it appeared that the bankrupt had re
ceived and paid away upwards of 800/. lie (the
Learned Commissioner) thought the bankrupt ought
to have come to the court before he dealt with that
property, end not having done so he was not a fit
person for the relief he prayed.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
NEW COURT. _ _

The grand jury came into this court just before it
was adjourned ; and, among others, returned' a true
bill for murder against Sarah Drake. The .trial is
expected to take place on Thursday.
The cases disposed of during the day were utteilY
destitute of interest to the public.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Jan. 8.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADA➢SS, Assistant-Judge, and
a Bench of Magistrates.)
These sessions for the month of January com•
menced this morning at Hicks'-hall, Clerkenwell-
green.
The calendar contains a list of 100 cases, of which
as many as 93 are indictments for the commission of
felony.

'EXPENSE OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.
The Learned JUDGE, in charging the grand jury,
said, that there were some matters to which he was
anxious to direct the attention of that body, inas-
much as they affected:not merely the due administra-
tion of justice, but the time and convenience of the
public, as well as the amount of expense
for the criminal prosecutions in that county. It
had happened that at the last session of that Court
the grand jury had been detained a very considerable
time, most unnecessarily, in consequence of the re-
fusal of one of the City legal authorities, whilst pre-
siding at the Central Criminal Court, to allow a
policeman, who was a witness in that court also,
to come away from the Old Bailey for the purpose
of giving his evidence before the grand jury at
these sessions. Not only had there been a most un-
necessary waste of time and inconvenience created by
that line of conduct, but whilst there had likewise
been considerable expense incurred by the parties
concerned, the prisoner had altogether escaped, be-
cause the grand jury, without the testimony of that
policeman, had been unable to find the bill, and as
they had no other business he had been compelled to
discharge them. Now it had so come to pass that a
similar occurrence had happened on the following day,
but fortunately, in that instance, justice had not been
frustrated, for, by mutual consent, parol evidence was
admitted of the existence and nature of certain docu-
ments which were in the possession of the officer,
who, like the man in the previous case, was in attend-
ance at the Central Criminal Court. The Common-
Sergeant, however, had sent a message in reply to
his request that the policeman might be permitted to
come to Clerkenwell to go before the grand jury,
which he looked upon as being very far below that
dignity which ought to characterize the communica-
tion of one judge to another. Since that day he had
ascertained that at the moment when the Common
Sergeant had sent him the uncourteous reply to which
he had alluded, the prisoner at the Central Criminal
Court had not even been arraigned, and, therefore,
it was impossible that he could have been tried for a
considerable time afterwards. If, therefore, the
policeman had been allowed to come to Clerkenwell
for the short time his attendance would have been
required, in order that he might go before the grand
jury, there could have been no hindrance of the
business of the Common Sergeant's Court, while the
grand jury of Middlesex had been uselessly detained,
as he had already stated, for a considerable time, and
the prisoner had been discharged. Now, in order to
prevent the recurrence of such an unseemly proceed-
ing, that Court adopted a resolution, not with the view
of entering into a contest with any other jurisdiction,
but for the simple purpose of avoiding a repetition of
such an ungracious conflict. The Court had come to
a resolution, under which, in all instances where a
policeman was concerned in two cases, the one being
committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court and
the other at the Middlesex Sessions, that the
policeman, when the two tribunals were sitting
at the same time, should come to the latter
court the first thing in the morning and state
the fact. The Court would then make such an ar-
rangement with respect to the particular case as that no
inconvenience should arise as between the two Courts.
He was quite satisfied that this arrangement would
meet with the approval of all her Majesty's Judges. The
Learned Judge having made a reference to the fact
of grand juries being secret tribunals, went on to say
' that, from the time of the Revolution the system of
the administration of justice in England had through-
out the world obtained the esteem of all as being the
purest in existence. That purity was mainly attri-
butable to the great extent of publicity with which
that administration was surrounded. Everything
that transpired in an English court of justice was
under the immediate eye of the public, and it was the
knowledge of that publicity which kept judges, juries,
counsel, and witnesses steady in the performance of
their several duties, and at the same time deterred
them from deviating from that strict path of pro-
priety which they were bound to observe. Not so,
however, was it the case in the instance of grand
juries, for they were altogether irresponsible bodies,
and were sworn to secrecy, being at the same time
without the requisite facilities and means for investi-
gation, and with no hand to guide them in their pro-
ceedings, and oftentimes it had happened that from
the want of the proper amount of knowledge there
had been a perfect frustration and failure of justice.
His own experience had taught him, and his con-
viction had become strengthened more and more every
day, that publicity was the most important element
in the administration of justice, and that the services
of grand juries might be dispensed with to the great
advantage of the public.
Thomas Daldy, aged 30, who some time since had
been the keeper of a public-house in Charles-street,
Drury-lane, and subsequently of a beer-shop which
obtained some notoriety as the resort of thieves in the
locality of Clare-market, was convicted of having
robbed a lady of the name of Stanley of her purse,
containing 11. ss. 10d. The robbery was committed
at Madame Tussaud's waxwork exhibition.

The Learned JUDGE, in passing the sentence of
transportation for seven years upon the prisoner, said
that he was well known as an active member of the
swell mob.

us
ol t i
forn g maArybrahvvaeasstonW,es
hist onw,
i3f.03
~
swinanse idnednicetsesded,foarndassaal
assaulting Mary
conducted Ann Coney.
Mr.
case for the defence.
It appeared that the prisoner had lived for some
time in an upper room of the house, 7, Colonnade,
Parnell
Russell-square. It appeared, also, that he had been
out of employment for a length
of time, and that
he was a man of intemperate habits, and that he
and his deceased wife suffered,
severe privations. They had scarcely in consequence,
an article of
furniture, and frequently
miserable condition of their h quarrelled about the
ome ; and on the 6th of
December they sat down to
breakfast, in company
with Mary Ann Coney, the
wife's sister, to partake
of a breakfast procured with a borrowed sixpence. In
the course of that meal the
foul epithet to his wife. She" replied that if she
prisoner applied a very
deserved the name he had called
led her he was eating
the produce of the conduct
application of that epithet. which
_ had justified the
l:
commenced throwing spoonfuls of hot tea into her
face, and she in return threw a mug of tea over her
husband. Holding a child, some sixteen months of
age, in one arm, he dealt the deceased with the hand
he bad disengaged several blows upon the side of her
head. Coney then interfered, and threatened to use a
knife which she had taken up during the melee if he
did not desist. The same afternoon he told Coney to
however, leave the house. She refused, to go, and he
then seized her by the wrists and
and h threw her with great
violence into the passage,
hold of her by the hair of her e subsequently took
head and endeavoured
She
to throw her down stairs. returned to the room,
however. During the following the prisoner
commenced another attack upon his
is wife. She was
then in such a weak condition that she could not
stand, and she fell to the -
ground and received the
alleged injuries. While she was in that position, and
while he was holding his child in hisarms, he said,,
it If it was not for this poor child I'd give it you.'
She died upon the following Wednesday. A coro-
ner's inquest was held upon the body, and Mr. W.
in to attend Home Popham, surgeon, who was called
her, having stated that she died from
congestion
the brain, arising probably from violence, th of
the jury
returned a verdict to that effect, and the prisoner
was accordingly taken into custody. The surgeon
now stated, that although no external sharks of vio-
lence existed upon the person of the deceased, yet that
ows
of the
congestion of the brain might have arisen from bl
given by an open hand. The conditionbody
was in such a state that a very slight cause might
have produced the congestion, such as the
shaking
front a fall.
Mr. PARNELL, on behalf of the defendant, said, he
was unable to deny but that an assault had been
committed, although, at the same time he must submit
that his client had received very great provocation, for
his wife was a woman of unusually lazy and dirty
habits, and when they had quarrelled it had been in
consequence of the filthy state in which she had kept
herself and her child. All he should
therefore do
would be to call a variety of witnesses who would
prove that the defendant was not a man of a brutal
or malicious disposition.
The Learned JUDGE intimated to the Learned
Counsel that he could not call witnesses to character
in a case where the charge was merely one of a com-
mon assault.
Mr. PARNELL was much surprised to hear such
a principle laid down by any judge, seeing that
he had never known evidence of that sort refused in
any other court.
The Learned JUDGE said, that if the Learned
Gentleman had seen such evidence received in a
similar case in any other court, it must, have
been so received by a Learned Judge in a spirit of
kindness, or if not so, then by one who was ignorant
of the law of evidence. In the court in which they
were then sitting, such evidence, in such a case, had
never been admitted. Those members of that bar
who were frequent in their attendance at that court
well knew what the practice was in these cases.
Mr. PAYNE said, that the invariable rule of that
court was not to receive such evidence. That was
his experience. Was his Learned Friend in a con•
dition to cite any instance where it had been admitted?
Mr. PARNELL observed, that such evidence had been
constantly given and received at the Central Criminal
Court, before the Recorder of London, of his own
Eersonal knowledge. If, however, the Learned
tilidge of that court would not hear it, he must then