The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-04 00:00:00

MORNING SUN

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

The third Sessions of the Central Criminal Court, dur-
int* the present Mayoralty, commenced yesterday, at
the Justice Hall, at the Old Bailey.
At ten o'clock the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, Alder-
man Sir Chapman Marshall, Alderman Lainson, the
Sheriffs, the tinder-Sheriffs, and the other City autho-
rities, took their seats upon the back and the Court
was opened with the usual formalitqF
- -

The Grand Jury having been impanelled and sworn,
The RECORDER proceeded briefly to address them on
their duties, the performance of which would not, he was
happy to state, according to present appearances, detain
them so long as was sometimes the case. The cases that
were brought before them were for the most part of an
ordinary character. There was one case, however, to
which he would direct their attention for a few moments.
It was on a charge of feloniously uttering forged notes.
It was perfectly possible that a person might be inno-
cently in possession of forged notes, and might attempt
to pass them without knowing they were forged,
therefore the mere fact of possession could not be
taken as an assumption of guilt. It was for them
to decide whether the previous circumstances deposed to
in the case, such as that the party charged had made a
previous unsuccessful attempt to pass the same note, ar-
gued a guilty knowledge on the part of the accused.
He was sorry to observe that the Calendar contained
six charges of cutting and maiming, none of which,
however, presented any legal difficulties. He would
not detain them longer, but at once remit them to the
execution of their duties.
The Grand Jury then retired.
The Calendar contains the names of 162 prisoners, of
whom 21 are committed from the City of London ; 111
from the county of Middlesex ; 14 from Kent ; and 16
from Surrey. There are four charges of cutting and
maiming from Middlesex, and two from Surrey.

ROBBERY AT A BARRISTER'S CHAMBERS.—Louisa
Stanfield was indicted for stealing a considerable quan-
tity of plate, consisting of silver spoons and forks, of
the value of 401., the property of James M'Donald.
Mr. Adolphus appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Chadwick Jones for the prisoner.
The prosecutor is a barrister, occupying chambers in
the Temple, and had employed the prisoner as his laun-
dress, and her husband in waiting on him at his cham-
bers. The prosecutor goes the Northern Circuit, and
on his return to town at the conclusion of the long vaca-
tion, he discovered that his forks and spoons had been
taken from his chambers and transferred to the shop of
Mr. Walmesley, a pawnbroker, residing at No. 100,
Drury-lane, by the prisoner at the bar, and a quantity
of imitation silver substituted in its stead. The pri-
soner, during the prosecutor's absence, had been en-
trusted
with the keys of his plate chest.
On behalf of the prisoner, Mr. CHADWICK JONES,
having elicited from the prosecutor that he had been left
a legacy under his father's will in which document he
was called James Benassa M'Donald, contended that the
indictment was bad, on the ground of the misnomer.
Mr. ADOLPHUS contended that the objection was in-
valid. The prosecutor, who was born in India, had come
to England at a very early age, and had always gone by
the name of James M'Donald only, and the circum-
stance of his having once signed his name as James Be-
nassa M'Donald, was not sufficient to prove that he had
received the name of Benassa at his baptism.
The RECORDER said that, in his opinion, the evidence
in support of the misnomer was so slight, that it scarcely
amounted to anything. That, however, was a question
of fact which he should leave to the Jury. The case
must go on.
Mr. CHADWICK JONES having addressed the Jury for
the prisoner, who had hitherto borne a good character,
The RECORDER, in summing up, said that the Jury
would have two questions to determine—first, did Mr.
M'Donald bear any other Christian name than that of
James; and, secondly, did the prisoner take the property
in question with the intention of stealing it.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Mr. ADOLPHUS said there was another indictment
against the prisoner, which, however, under the circum-
stances, it was not his intention to press. He felt bound
to say that no person could have behaved better than the
pawnbrokers had in the present case—they had afforded
every facility to the prosecutor.
Mr. M'Donald recommended the prisoner to mercy.

The prisoner was then removed. -
John Stanfield, 27, the reputed husband of the female
prisoner, was then indicted for stealing a shirt and some
other articles of wearing apparel, the property of the
same prosecutor, his master.
Mr. Doane defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prosecutor upon making the dis-
covery of his former loss, instituted a further search,
which led to the apprehension of the prisoner, and upon
his person there were found some articles of wearing
apparel, the property of the prosecutor. There was
every reason to believe, that although the prisoner and
the woman represented themselves to be man and wife,
that they were not married, and it appeared that it was
in a great measure owing to his solicitation that the
former prisoner had committed the offence of which she
had been found guilty.—The Jury convicted the prisoner.
The RECORDER directed the prisoners to be brought
up for judgment, and after observing that they had been
convicted of a very serious offence, said that as there ap-
peared to be good reasons for believing that the woman had
acted under the control and solicitation of the other pri-
soner, the sentence upon her would not be so severe ttX it
otherwise would have been, He then ordered the man to
be transported for seven years, and the woman was sen-
tenced to be kept to hard labour for twelve months.
William Cooke, 19, was indicted for stealing a cash-
box, fifteen sovereigns, and some silver, the property of
William Finch, and John Hardman, 23, was indicted for
feloniously receiving part of the money, knowing that it
had been stolen. Mr. Prendergast defended Hardman.
Mrs. Fanny Finch deposed that her husband kept the
Cock public-house at Clapham, and on the 29th of Oc-
tober, a quarter before twelve at night, she placed a cash-
box on a chair in the tap-room. It was locked, and con-
tained about twenty pounds in gold and silver. She let
some people out of the house, and having secured the
door she went up to bed, leaving the cash-box in the
tap-room. The prisoner Cooke had been employed in
the house occasionally, and he came backwards and for-
wards after the loss of the cash-box was discovered.
The cash-box was missed on the following morning after
she had left it in the tap-room.
.James Knowles, a labourer, proved that on the 18th
of November, he was at work at the prosecutor's cow-
house, when he found a cash-box. It had been covered,
but a dog that was with him, scratched it out of the
ground. It was half open, and all the money was gone.
A police constable proved that while he was on duty at
the Clapham Police Station, he heard a man named
Laing ask the prisoner Cooke what he had done with the
money, and he replied that he took the cash-box out of
the tap-room, and carried it into the yard, where he
broke it open, and he took out the money and gave five
sovereigns to Hardman, and some more of the money to
his sister, and he kept the rest, and afterwards hid the
cash-box in Mr. Finch's cow-shed. Another police-con-
stable proved that the prisoner Hardman came to him and
told him that he wished to deliver himself up, and he said
that he knew nothing of the robbery, but that Cooke, as
they were walking together, pulled a bag of money outof
his pocket and gave him two sovereigns, and he was at
first afraid to take them, but he ultimately did so, and he
afterwards gave him two more, and he then accompanied
Cooke to his sister, and he gave her some money, and
they subsequently went to Kent-street, in the Borough,
where they staid till they spent all the rest of the mone).
Mr. PRENDERGAST, on behalf of Hardman, submitted
to the Jury, that although it appeared to be clear that he
had received some of the stolen money, there was not the
least proof that he knew it had been stolen ; and he
called witnesses, who gave him a good character.
The prisoner Cooke said nothing in his defence.
The Jury found Cooke Guilty, and acquitted Hardman.
The RECORDER having ascertained that Cooke was in
a very ill state of health, and under the care of the sur-
geon of the gaol, ordered the judgment upon him to be
respited until next Session.