The Sun. — 1856-06-21 (London, England)

OLD COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.) Bernardo Henriquez, 23, a Spanish seaman, was indicted for the wilful murder of Vessiel Calliger. Mr. W. Smith prosecuted ; Mr. Cooper was counsel for the prisoner.  The evidence in this case was explained to the Court and jury through the medium of an interpreter and so far as the facts could be ascertained, it appeared that the transaction which was the subject of inquiry took place in a sailors' lodging.house at the East-end of the town, and according to the evidence for the prosecution, after a scuffle had taken place between a man who was in company with the prisoner and another foreigner, during which blows were exchanged, the deceased, who was playing at cards with another foreigner, suddenly got up from his seat and ran towards the prisoner, evidently with the intention of doing him some violence, upon which it appeared he drew a very formidable knife acd stabbed him in the belly, thereby inflicting an injury of which he died a few hours afterwards. It ap• peared that during the fray the prisoner himself received some injury in the face, and he asserted that this injury had been inflicted viy the deceased. Mr. Cooper addressed the jury with a good deal of earnestness on the part of the prisoner, and he contended that upon the facts before them they would belierfectly justified in saying that the prisoner was guilty of the crime of manslaughter only. The learned judge having summed up, and called the attention of the jury to the absence of any evidence of provocation to justify the act committed by the prisoner, and so to reduce the crime to manslaughter, The jury, after a short deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of murder, but recommended him to mercy on account of his being a foreigner. Mr. Justice Coleridge, after a short delay, put on the b'ack cap, and passed formal sentence of death • and the prisoner, who evidently understood very little of what was going on, left the bar loudly protesting his innocence, avid declaring that he was the injured party. James Moore, 40, a little humpbacked man, was in• dieted for feloniously sett!ng fire to a workshop, with intent to injure George Sinken. Mr. Platt prosecuted. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Langford. This case was of a somewhat peculiar character. It appeared that the prisoner occupied a portion of a house in Little Earl-street, Seven-dials, which belonged to the prosecutor, and that on the night mentioned in the indictment the premises were discovered to be on fire, and it was with a considerable deal of difficulty that some of the inmates, and among them the daughter and wife of the prisoner, escaped with their lives. There was no direct evidence whatever against the prisoner, but it appeared that very shortly atter toe fire occurred he went up to a police constable in Bow-street and said that he had set Mr. Sinker's place on fire, and gave him a letter to the prosecutor to that effect. It was elicited, in crossexamination, that the prisoner was addicted to drunken habits, and that be had been " on the drink," as it is termed, for a fortnight before the fire occurred. Mr. Langford upun these facts endeavoured to show that the prisoner had falsely accu,ed himself of the crime under the influence of liquor, and that in the absence of any positive testimony to prove his guilt he was entitled to be acquitted.  The fury returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard lahour for two years.