The Sun. — 1863-04-06 (London, England)

OLD COURT.  The April sessions of the Central Criminal Court commenced this day before the Lord Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen, Sheriffs, and Under-Sheriffs Mackrell and Farrer.  The calendar contains the names of 110 persons for trial, and amongst them standing over from last session were the cases of the two brothers Brooks charged with the murder of the police-constable Davy at Acton, that of manslaughter against the two contractors arising out of the accident by the falling of an arch at the coal-depot on the Great Western Railway, and also the charge against Saqin, the Chinese, for unlawfully wounding, he having been acquitted of the charge of murder last session. The Grand Jury having been sworn, The Recorder, in charging them, said, that coring to the absence of the learned judges on circuit, the number of prisoners awaiting trial were rather larger than usual. There were two cases of murder, who would be brought under consideration, both being the crime of killing illegitimate children. In the first case there appeared to be some doubt as to whether the child was born alive, but in the other the medical evidence put that fact beyond all doubt, and it would be for them to say whether the evidence reduced the charge to manslaughter, but if they were satisfied there were prima facie cases it would be their duty to return a true bill in both cases. There was a case in which a Peruvian soldier was charged with manslaughter on board a foreign vessel which was lying in the port of London, on board of which were some soldiers, amongst whom a disturbance took place, one of the officers interfered to quell the disturbance, and a soldier was taken into custody, when the whole of the soldiers rose in mutiny to rescue their comrade. The seamen armed themselves to prevent this, and in the struggle that ensued the deceased received a stab from a bayonet which the soldiers drew, and which caused death. He could net see how the charge w.s reduced to manslaughter, because if a body of men resisted with weapons lawful authority, and death was causes by any of them, the offence was, in law, wilful murder. It was stated that the prisoner was not the man who inflicted the wound ; but if a body of men were acting in concert, and death ensued, all were guilty, no matter who struck the fatal blow. The Coroner might have good ground for reducing the crime to manslaughter, but they would have the witnesses before them, and it would be for them to satisfy themselves whether the charge amounted to murder or not. There was a charge against a prisoner of attempting to obtain money from the prosecutor by means of threats and menaces, and if they were satisfied it would be their duty to send the case for further investigation. There was a charge of conspiracy against a prisoner with another person who had absconded, to obtain goods at a  time when he was insolvent, and there was some difficulty in the case from its peculiarity, but the evidence pointed more particularly to the person who had absconded than against the prisoner. There was a charge of arson against a master of a workhouse, who stood indicted for setting fire to the institution, and who had been heard to threaten to destroy the building in order that he might be transported, and that seemed to be the motive in offences of this description, penal servitude being considered as no great punishment—but all such persons would find that for the future penal servitude would be much more severe than it had hitherto been. With these observations the learned gentleman dismissed the grand jury to the perfor • mance of their duty.