The Sun. — 1847-03-01 (London, England)

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.) OLD COURT.  The 161st sessions of this Court, and fifth during the present Mayoralty, were opened this morning in presence of the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, Sir Chapman Marshall, Alderman Hughes, and Sheriffs Challis and Kennard, and the Learned Recorder of the City of London. Prom the short time which had elapsed since the last sessions, the calendar was necessarily light; it contained the names of no more than 104 persons committed to take their trial on the present occasion, but some of—these for crimes of rather grave character. -7 , The RECORDER, when the grand jury had been chosen and ' sworn in, proceeded as usual to deliver his charge. He said the calendar contained a list of persons amounting to 104 but .he was given to understand that that number had been already greatly augmented by commitments on Saturday last, and he believed it very probable that a considerable addition would be made to that number in the course of their attendance there. There were a number of the cases committed for trial which were of grave importance and serious aspect, but in general they were simple in the facts, and it did not appear to him after reading over the depositions that they were at all likely to involve any questions of law. But if contrary to his expectation, such difficulties should arise, the Court, as usual, would readily furnish the grand jury with the assistance which the circumstances might appear to require; yet considering the depositions which had been submitted to him, with one exception, he did not think the cases called for any lengthened observations on his part. There were such crimes in the calendar as cutting and wounding, using violence towards children under ten years of age, and other offences of like serious nature; but still the question whether these cases ought to be submitted to further investigation depended upon the evidence, whether that was such as to support the charge; and in exercising their judgment on that. they would merely have to consider whether the evidence was left unanswered and unexplained, for in that case they would have to send it for further inquiry before the petit jury. But, on the other hand, if the case on the part of the prosecutor did not warrant them in giving the evidence their credit; if it betrayed any sinister motive on the part of the person promoting the charge, it became the duty of the grand jury to shelter the person committed from further proceedings on that charge. There was, however, one case on which he felt it his duty to make a few remarks, because it was a case a little out of the ordinary character, and one where, though the facts were of the clearest description, some considerations perhaps beyond them were involved. It was not his duty to say what was the proper effect of the evidence which appeared on the depositions, but it might be necessary to lay before them such observations as be thought might enable them to come to the conclusion whether they ought to send the case for further inquiry. He alluded to the charge of manslaughter in the administering of medicine. Now that was a case in which a distinction had been laid down in law, that if a physician or surgeon should in the proper discharge of his vocation administer medicines or potions, and death should fallow, that that was not manslaughter or murder, but a misadventure. But he felt it necessary to observe another distinction which had been taken in cases of this nature, viz., between a licensed member of the profession, a regular physician or surgeon, and a person not in possession of this