The Express. — 1867-11-18 (London, England)

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. (THIS DAY.)  The November session of the Central Criminal Court was opened this morning at the Old Bailey. There were present the Lord Mayor (Alderman Allen), the Recorder (the Right Hon. Russell Gurney). Alderman Sir Sydney Waterlow, Alderman and Sheriff Stone, Alderman J. C. Lawrence, Alderman Causton, Sheriff M'Arthur, I'nderaberlif Davidson, and Undersheriff Roche. The calendar' shows a total of ti 3 oases standing for trial, and the offences are thus classified :—Arson 4 ; bigamy, 1; burglary, 7 ; uttering counterfeit coin, 12% chapel-breaking and larceny, 3 ; embezzlement, 2; forgery, 3 ; larceny in a dwelling- I house, 1 ; larceny, 8 ; larceny from the person, 7; larceny as a servant, :1; misdemeanour, 4 ; murder, 1 ; accessory to rape. 1 • robbery, 4 ; feloniously wounding, 2. The Recorder, in charging the grand juiy, remarked that u so short a time had elapsed since last session, their duties would not be very heavy. There was one charge of wilful murder against Ernest Roder, who was indicted for murdering the child of a woman with whom Le lived, but it was not his child. There was no doubt the death was caused by an injury in the forehead ; and what the , jury would have to consider was whether that was an accidental injury caused by a fall of the child, or whothee it was willtilly caused by the prisoner. On this point the medical evidence was that it might have been caused either way. The prisoner's statement was that the child fell on the floor while in a fit, and the main evidence for the prosecution wee that of a female neighbour, who stated that on looking through a hole in the door she saw the prisoner throw the child violently down, and the question for the jury to consider was whether her evidence WAS to he relied upon. There were three charges of arson one against a person of the name of Duncroft, for setting fire to a wheat rick. The principal witness in this ease deposed that he saw the rick on fire and immediately afterwards sew the prisoner walking along. A subsequent examination showed that the footmarks near the spot corresponded with the prisoner's boots, but the prisoner suggested that the fire was caused by a spark from his pipe, and that he was not therefore liable to • criminal charge. The second charge of arson was against a publican named Richard Morris, for setting fire to his house. On • Sunday afternoon he and his children left the house, and shortly afterwards flames were seen to issue from it. In the cellar certain articles were found to have been steeped in spirits, and there was also a quantity of gunpowder placed in one of the casks. The prisoner's reply on being spoken to was that some enemy must have done it ; but it would be proved that shortly before he had purchased some gunpowder. The third charge was against two persons named Smith and Edson, and the interest in this case arose from the fact of one of the prisoners being a policeconstable, his motive for the alleged offence being furnished by himself in a statement he bad made to the effect that on • former occasion, when he had been the first to discover a fire, he had received some remuneration. The learned Recorder then alluded to some other cases in the calendar, and the grand jury thereafter retired to their room.