The Express. — 1868-08-17 (London, England)

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. (THIS DAY.)  The August sessions of the Central Criminal Court commenced this morning, at the Old Bailey. There were on the bench the Right Hon. the Recorder (Russell (honey, Q.C.), Alderman Challis, Alderman Sir Francis Graham Moon, Alderman Finnic, Alderman Dakin, Alderman Lusk, Alderman Cotton, Alderman Canstin, Alder• man and Sheriff Stone, Under-Sheriff Davidson, &c. The first edition of the calendar contains the names of 121 prisoners, whose offences are thus classified: —Arson, 1 ; assault with intent to rob, 2; unlawful bankruptcy, 2; burglary, '25; uttering counterfeit coin, 12; embazzlement, 4; casting corrosive fluid, 1 ; sending threatening letters, 1 ; forgery, 7 ; larceny, 17 ; stealing post letters, 1 ; libel, 1 ; manslaughter, 9 ; murder, and attempt to murder, 2 ; misdemeanour, 15 ; assaults with violence, &c., 9 ; feloniously wounding, 2, &c. The Recorder, m charging the grand jury, stated that in consequence of the absence of the learned judges on their respective circuits there had been a longer interval than usual since the last session, and the number of prisoners standing for trial was therefore very numerous. Unhappily a great many of them involved the loss of human late, there being one charge of wilful murder, and, he thought, no less than 14 charges of manslaughter. The person charged with murder was a lad named Mackay, and it appeared that he was left at home with his mistress and that shortly afterwards some of the neighbours heard her crying Oh don't, yo•t will murder me." They went to see what was the matter, and the prisoner opened the door to them. On going into the house they found his mistress, u woman named Emma Grossmith, lying in a pool of blood. The prisoner wnsasked where his master was and he went out under the pretence of looking for him, but did not return, and he was only apprehended on the charge a short time ago. Some of the charges of manslaughter were of a rather peculiar character In one case the attention of the parish authorities was called to the children of a man and his wife named Brooks. The children, aged respectively 41 years, 2), and 1, were found in a dreadful state, and after being taken to the workhouse the youngest one died, its death being at any rate hastened by the want of proper care and attention. There was evidence to show that the husband was at work at the time, and if he had not had the means of supporting his children be ought to have taken them to the workhouse. The jury would have to consider whether there had been wilful neglect, and in the event of their being of that opinion it would be their duty to return a true bill. In another case a woman was charged with causing the death of a child of which she had undertaken the care for a sum of money weekly. It did not appear that the money had been paid regularly, but the prisoner, although not the parent, wee bound to take care of the child, she -having undertaken to do so. There was a charge against a husband of causing the death of his wife by neglect. It appeared that the deceased was perfectly helpless, and conlined to bed by disease, and that she was left to the care of an imbecile daughter, who could not attend to her. The attention of the authorities was called to her, and she was found to be utterly neglected, and shortly afterwards died. The Recorder next referred to several manslaughter erases of a more ordinary character, and the jury thereafter retired to their room.  (Betore the Recorder.)