The Sun. — 1844-12-05 (London, England)

COLTMAN.) The commission for this county was opened yesterday evening. In the course of his charge Mr. Justice COLTMAN observed, that he had received literally a mass of depositions, indeed, the largest and longest he had ever seen, against a person named Hassall, imputing to him the murder of his wife. It was a case which appeared to have created a great excitement in the county, as far as the reports in the newspapers enabled him to form an opinion. There were only two ways, consistent with the mass of evidence contained in the depositions, in which a charge could be presented to their notice against the accused—either that of accelerating the death by the administration of improper food or liquids, or by neglecting to supply proper care and nourishment to the deceased, both of which offences would amount to the offence of manslaughter only. It was, however, an important feature in the case for the consideration of the grand jury, that his wife was a person very much addicted to the ibe of ardent spirits, and was described by the witnesses to be seldom in a state of sobriety. The calendar contains the names of 24 prisoners, whose offences may be thus classed:—,Murder, 1; burglary,mmi m: 1;2 2; bheiasg haytiwait yr, olb;berrayp• ,e,lOl assaulto uws i tshh oionttienngt, o; uttering counterfeit coin, 1; stealing from the person, 1; and 5 for larcenies. Among the foregoing is not included the charge against Mr. Hassall, whose case continues to create very lively interest in the county. The bill of indictment is to be presented to the grand jury tomorrow morning. ?4r. Godson, Queen's Counsel, who is specially retained on behalf of Mr. Hassell, arrived from London yesterday evening at the Star Hotel. Mr. Justice Coltman has disposed of four cases this afternoon, none of which presented any features of general interest.  policeman. This had the desired effect. The defendant pulled off his dog, and, having, bden compelled to give his name and address, walked off. This statement was proved by Samuel David, of Devonshire-street, Mile-end, the dealer referred to, and by the woman who endeavoured to part the dogs. Crispin, one of the constables employed by the Society, deposed that he had seen Thompson's dog some days after the fight, and it was then in a miserable plight. The defendant denied the statement of the witnesses, and called a young lad to prove that Thompson's dog had bitten the bullterrier first, and that that had caused the fight. This witness deposed to such being the case eight days before, but said that he knew nothing of the transaction sworn to by the wi.nesses for the prosecution.  David said that he passed Thompson's house every day, and knew his dog well. It was a quiet, inoffensive animal of the mongrel breed, while the defendant's dog was a regular fighting dog, and bore evident marks about the head and body of having be-en engaged in many similar encounters.  The defendant said that the dug was not his, ifut that it belonged to his master, Mr. Norris. He hoped thar the magistrate would deal leniently with him. Mr. HENRY fined the defendant 30s ; in default, four• teen days' imprisonment in the House of Correction.