The Sun. — 1856-06-16 (London, England)

CRIMINAL COURT.—(This Day).  The June session of the Central Criminal Court was opened this morning by the Right lion, the Lord Mayor, the Right Hon. the Recorder, Aldermen Musgrove, Finnis, Carter, Sir H. Mugeeridge, and Lawrence, Mr. Sheriff Kennedy, Mr. Sheriff Rose, Mr. Under-Sheriff Stone, Mr. Under-Sheriff Rose, &cc. The first edition of the calendar contains the names of 123 prisoners. The Recorder, in his charge to the grand jury, expressed his regret that their labours were likely to be heavy, as the calendar contained a much larger number of prisoners, and the offences were of a much more aggravated character than usual at this period of the year. A good many of the cases were adjourned from the last session, in consequence of the important trial that was then disposed of, and he could not allow the present opportunity to pass without returning his own thanks personally, and those of the Court for the very admirable arrangements that were made by the sheriffs during the progress of that inquiry, and in consequence of which the business of the court had proceeded with perfect regularity and without any inconvenience being occasioned. his lordship then stated that there were a great many cases of highway robbery with violence, and no less than 22 charges of burglary, a very unusual number of that class of eases at this period of the year. It was always the practice of the court to punish such offences with considerable severity, and that course would certainly be pursued in order to check crimes of this descript.on. There was one charge of murder of a very peculiar kind, in which a man was charged with inducing an unfortunate woman to jump off London-bridge into the river, and, in this case, if it should be made out to their entire satisfaction that the prisoner did in any way induce or assist the deceased to jump into the river, he would be amenable to the charge of principal in the second degree as an accessory to the commission of the crime. It appeared to him, however, that the evidence to support this view of the case was very slight, and unless the fact Was clearly made out, they would not be justified in findkg the bill. The Recorder then referred to the charge of endeavouring to incite a mutiny on board a vessel called the Stebenheath, and he expressed an opinion that it would be the duty of the grand jury in this case to return a true bill. The Recorder then said that he understood a charge of forgery was likely to oome before them, issuing out of a petition that was presented to the House of Commons against the return of a gentleman as member for the borough of Sligo. It appeared that two witnesses were examined in support vf the petition, and they swore distinctly to certain acts of bribery having been committed by the gentleman in question. The gentleman himself was subsequently exaneined, and he in the most positive manner contradicted the testimony that had been given by those witnesses. A discussion arose as to whether an indictment for perjury should be preferred against those witnesses ; but as it was necessary in cases of perjury that two witnesses should be called to contras diet the alleged false testimony, it was impossible to prefer an indictment against them. It was now intimated that an indictment was to be preferred against the gentleman himself ; and he would only observe that it would have been much more satisfactory if the charge had been preferred openly before a magistrate, instead of coming to the grand jury behind the back of the party. The law, however, gave them the right to do so, but it was his custom in all such cases to warn the jury to look at the evidence with close attention ; bat, of course, if the charge was established it would be their duty to find the bill. The grand jury then retired.