The Sun. — 1864-07-11 (London, England)

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.---This day,  The July Sessions of the Central Criminal Court commenced this morning at the Sessions House, Old Bailey, before Alderman Challis, who presided in the absence of the Lord Mayor; the Recorder (Russell Gurney, Esq., Q,c.) Alderman J. W. Lawrance, Alderman Lusk, the Sheriffs (H. N. Nissen, Esq. and Thomas Carr, Esq.,) the Under Sheriffs (Messrs Nicholson and Gammon), and other civic authorities.  The calendar contains a list of 106 prisoners for trial, of which 3 are for murder, 1 for shooting with intent, 1 for feloniously wounding, 10 for forgery, 4 for stealing Post Office letters, 28 for uttering counterfeit coin, 1 for rape, the remainder being for offences of an ordinary character. The Grand Jury having been sworn, The Recorder proceeded to deliver his charge, remarking that there were a larger number of prisoners for trial than usual at these sessions, but that was to be accounted for by a longer period having elapsed since the last session. There wore two cases of murder, bute n one of them it would not be necessary for him to remark, as the outrage and murder, if it was a murder, took place at Penile, which was beyond the jurisdiction of this ccurt ; he did not know why the depositions were sent to that court, except by mistake ; the case would, however, be Laken before another tribunal at the assizes, The other case was that in which a man named Frederick Britten was charged with the murder of a young woman at Islington. It appeared the prisoner was a Waiter in the same house with his victim, and he had committed the rash act through the jealousy of a young man, a cousin of the deceased, who had declared he should not have her. He stabbed her in the neck, from which injury she died directly after. The prisoner, when told she was dead, said he was glad of it, he had rather she was dead than she should have any one but himself. The jury would have no difficulty in this case in returning a true bill. There were also two charges of wounding with intent to murder. In the one case, which was a charge of shooting, there could be no doubt there was great provocation. The prosecutor had been found in bed with his wife, and the prisoner had pursued him from one room to another. The only question was whether they would be of opinion that the prisoner had fired with intent to kill; if so, it 'would their duty to send the case for trial. The other case was that of a man who kept company with a woman. There was a charge of rape in a railway carriage, which Would require careful investigation. It would appear that after the alleged offence had taken place another female entered the compartment, but the prosecutrix made no mention of what took place, and passed a station without getting Out, remaining with the prisoner. There was also a case under the Foreign Enlistment Act, in which a person was charged with engaging firemen for a Confederate steamer. A point of law might arise whether engaging a fireman came within the Act. If the facts were as stated on the depositions, it would be better for them to return a true bill. The Recorder then referred to several charges of forgery which would require no special remark, and also the case of robbery of letters from the General Post Office. After some general remarks he dismissed the jury to their dules.