The Sun. — 1850-11-25 (London, England)

THE SU.N,  city. Thr ro was one case of manslaughter aessinst the pilot of a steam-vessel. It would seem that the vessel the prisoner had charge of ran down a man in a boat, and the grand jury would have to ascertain whether it arose from any negligent act on his pa: t, or was the result of an accident which the prisoner could not possibly have had any control ovsr. There was another case cf painful character which he mast hi idly refer to. Two able bodied men applied to a workhouse for relief, but they were told they bad come to the wrong place, as relief could not be legally afforded there to persons in their condition, and they were accordingly requested to retire. They, however, exhibited no disposition to do so; and upon a porter of the workhouse attempting to remove them, one of the two struck him across the head with a knife, and the blow ultimately resulted in his death. The jury would have to determine whether this man had been guilty cf an attempt at murder or only of manslaughter. One other case only called for observation. It was that of three men who were charged with having broken into a gentleman's house in the dead of the night for the purpose of plunder. The case was rendered the more remarkable by the circumstances which led to the defeat of their object. The servants of the gentleman whose house was broken into appeared to have made a most gallant defence or their master's property, and two of the robbers had suffered severely from the injuries avhieh they received in the encounter. If it was generally known that fire areas were kept in large mansions for the especial reception of thieves, burglaries would become less frequent, thought it must not be understood that an a,tempt to commit a robbery would justify the reckless destruction of life. It was only in,cases where the offence could not be prevented, except by taking the life of the malefactors, that the law would absolve a party from the consequences of such an act, and though, as he had already observed, it was prudent to keep fire-arms they should, nevertheless, be only resorted to in extreme cases, and never used without great caution. He told them, in his opening remarks, that the majority of cases embraced by the calendar consisted of petty larceny. Two of the chief causes of that offence was the careless exposure of property in the streets outside shop-windows, and the facilities afforded by pawnbrokers for the disposal of stolen property. The remedy for the first of these causes was in the hands of prose. cutors themselves, but the latter cause could only be dealt with by the Legislature; for the rule of law was this, when a prisoner was convicted of a robbery the pawnbroker was bound to restore the stolen property to the owner, but if the prisoner was acquitted no such duty devolved upon the pawnbroker. No doubt this circumstance accounted for the apathy, if not utter disinclination, to identify prisoners which pawnbrokers generally felt when called upon to give evidence in some of these petty larceny cases; and he was afraid, until an alteration was made in the law, many offenders would still succeed in defeating the ends of justice. These were all the observations which he had to address to the grand jury, and congratulating them upon the prospect of their duties being exceedingly light, it only remained for him to dismiss them to the discharge of their important functions. The grand jury then retired.  13A8,1)thou?,