The Sun. — 1844-07-17 (London, England)

PARKE.) His Lordship in charging the Grand Jury said, he was sorry to observe that notwithstanding the numerous gaol deliveries in the county, and the operation of the Central Criminal Court, there were so many prisoners for trial at the present assizes, and still more to see the magnitude of the offences with which a great many of them were charged. There were several cases affecting the lives of the accused, and, but for the recent alterations of the law and the amelioration of the punishment formerly inflicted, many others would have been in the same position. The most serious case appeared to be a charge of child murder, and in this case it appeared by the depositions that the usual difficuly in cases of this description, namely, whether the infant was born alive or not would not, arise, inasmuch as it would be shown that it was three weeks old at the time it was destroyed, and he apprehended that if the facts should be proved, as they appeared upon the depositions, it would be their painful duty to find a bill for the murder. There was another revolting case, in which a father was accused of a felonious assault upon his own child; and it was alleged that the offence had been committed while his daughter was under ten years of age, which, if made out, amounted to a felony, even if the jury should believe that the child was a consenting party. This, said the Learned Judge, was the most shocking case he had heard of during the period he had been connected with the . administration of the criminal justice of the country, and it would be the duty of the grand jury. to take the facts dispassionately into their consideration, and see whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant them in returning a bill either for felony or misdemeanour. He regretted to see in the cask:titter that there were many instances of an offence which was very common both in that and the adjoining county—the destruction of corn and other agricultural produce by incendiaries ; but it was satisfactory to find that, in nearly all the cases, the parties accused were not labourers, who were alleged to be dissatisfied with their employers, or with any particular law, but were children of tender age, in one case the prisoner not being more than eight years old. The law did not hold any one criminally responsible for his acts who was under seven years of age, and, perhaps, in some of the cases the grand jury might be induced to consider that the age of the 4tecused was so near that fixed by the law as not rendering them responiiQe, that they would pause before they a bill, although he must admit that the depositions showed the parties accused to have admitted that they were aware they were doing a wicked action, bat at the same time without any apparent motive. The Le.trned Judge proceeded to state that it was not necessary to prove any malice or ill-will against the owner of the property, this having been specially provided for by the statute ; and all they would have to consider was, whether, at the time the offence was alleged to have been co emitted, the party accused was aware that he was committing an illegal and wicked act, to the prejudice of 'another. In one of the cases it did not clearly appear that the stack was actually ignited, and on that the jury could not find a bill fur felony, but must return one for inisdemeanour, f it the attempt to commit the offence Ti:o grand jury then retired. 'There were no cases of interest tried during the day.