The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-02-06 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL FEBRUARY SESSIONS.

The general Sessions of the Peace, for this Borough,
commenced yesterday before Gilbert Henderson, Esq.,
the Recorder. The Calendar contained 65 cases, with the
nairies of 83 prisoners for felony ; and 6 cases of misde-
meanour and assault. The offences are of the usual kind
that come before the court, and none of them present any
features of peculiar interest.
The following were sworn of the Grand Jury :
Ralph Brakebank, Blackburn. place, merchant, Foreman.
William Ashley, Everton-road, merchant,
Joseph Brereton, Jordan-street, timber merchant,
John Campbell, Tahebarn-street, merchant,
Wm. B. Corrie, Rumford-place, do.
Charles Cusack, Brunswick-street, corn merchant,
Thomas Philip Danson, Covent-garden, merchant,
Samuel Dutton. Water-street, merchant,
Wm. Rathbone, Duncan-street, ditto,
Robert Gill, Chapel-street, ditto,
Henry Glynn, Exchange-street East, ditto,
Robert Horsfall, Netherfield-road North, broker,
George Hall, India-buildings, cotton broker,

Jas. Harvey, the younger, Catherine-street, gentleman,
T. D. H eadlam , Exchange-street West, insurance-broker,
Chas. Inman, Netberfield-road North, gentleman,
William Laycock, Fazakerley-street, iron merchant,
William Lockerbv, Upper Parliament-street, merchant,
George Quayle, Shaw street, merchant.
The proclamation against vice and immorality being
read,
The RECORDER proceeded to address the Grand Jury.
He stated that the number of cases that would be sub-
mitted to their consideration was about seventy, and he
did not anticipate that any difficulty would arise in their
disposing of them. It wa.• the duty and privilege of juries
to take a part in courts of justice, and when the evidence
was submitted to them to come to a decision, and no pri-
soner could be dealt with until twice twelve of his coun-
trymen had been summoned to investigate the charges
against him. The provinces of the two juries were, how-
ever, distinct : their province (the grand jury's) was only
preliminary, the other's (the petty jury's) was of a final
nature. It was not for the grand jury to decide on the
guilt or innocence of the party charged. It was impossi-
ble, indeed, that they could form such an opinion, unless
they had an opportunity (which they had not) of hearing
the prisoner, by himself, or by his counsel and witnesses,
in his defence. They had simply to hear all the evidence
that would be laid before them for the prosecution, and
ascertain if it were sufficient to warrant them in sending
the case to be tried before a petty jury. The bill of in-
dictment would instruct them in the nature of the offence
charged, and when they had heard the witnesses, it was
for them to consider whether it was of such a general
character, as would, if uncontradicted, render the party
liable to a conviction,—in which case they would find the
bill; but whenever it fell short of this, and was not suffi-
cient in their opinion to sustain the charge, they would
find no bill. Most of the cases had already been before a
magistrate, who in sending the parties for trial considered
he had sufficient evidence for doing so ; but they had to
act on independent grounds; to sift the evidence for
themselves, and to decide accordingly. He, however,
enjoined them not to reject a bill on slight grounds. The
cases, he considered might be safely left in their hands.
They were for the most part very simple, but there were
some of them involving circumstantial evidence which
would require considerable attention. He might remind
them that the simple removal of an article with intent to
steal it, rendered the party amenable to the saw, although
it found its way again to the owner. For instance, if a
party removed a watch and took it to a pawnbroker, through
whom the owner got it back, the intent was to be consi-
dered as made good. So, if a party removed a bundle from
the place where it was left, and removed it to another place
for the convenience of being carried off, and it was there
found before it was taken away, the party was liable. He
was happy to say that in the cases that would be laid before
them, there were numerous instances of the vigilance of
the police in detecting offenders. He concluded by say-
ing that he did not deem it necessary to delay them longer
from their duties.

The grand jury then retired, and in a short time re-
turned a true bill. The cases throughout the day were of
no peculiar interest. The following is the result :
Ann Finan, aged 16, for stealing a piece of flannel—
? years' transportation.

Margaret Roberts, 29, stealing wearing apparel-7
years' transportation.

Henry Henderson. 29, stealing five spoons, two cups,
&c.-10 years' transportation.
Mary M*Donald, 25, stealing bed-clothes and wearing
apparel-9 months' imprisonment.
Thomas Lloyd, 14, stealing a dress-7 years' trans-
portation.

James Welsh, 40, stealing a watch from the person-10
years' transportation.
Ann Smith, 29, stealing fire-irons, the property of the
Corporation-7 years' transportation.
The above were nearly all old offenders. A few more
were found guilty of minor offences, and sentenced to
various terms of imprisonment.