The Express. — 1863-03-05 (London, England)

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.  OLD COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Williams.)  Caroline Burns, 15, a diminutive-looking girl, was charged with the wilful murder of her male illegitimate child. The jury, after a very short consultation, found the prisoner Not Guilty of the murder, but convicted her of the minor offence of eedeavounng to conceal the birth. They at the same time recommended her to mercy on account of her tender age and her previous good character. Mr. Sleigh said he thought it right to inform his lordship that the mistress of the prisoner bad very kindly offered to take her back again into her service and to look after her, if the court passed a slight sentence of imprisonment. The learned judge said he should not pan sentence upon the prisoner at present, but would consider what was best to be dons for her. .  JoAle Aldrett, 50, draper, was indicted under the new Bankruptcy Act for misdemeanour in having unlawfully, after having been duly adjudicated a bankrupt, embezzled a portion of his estate, namely, the sum of 1001., with intent to defraud his creditors. The indictment also alleged that he had put forward certain fictitous statements of losses and payments with a view to account for his property, intending thereby to deceive and defraud his creditors. Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. F. H. Lewis conducted the prosecution. Mr. Laxton was counsel for the defence. The defendant carried on business as a draper in a small way at Woolwich, and it appeared that during last year he was in difficulties, and on the 24th of September he was daly adjudicated • bankrupt upon his own petition. He was then required to undergo the usual examinations before the Registrar or Commissioner of the Court of Bankruptcy, and io the course of these examinations the defendant represented that he bad sold his stock and furniture • few months before his bankruptcy, and that on the 24th of June he bad received a cheque 1311. 7s. in payment for a portion of hie property upon the London and Westminster Bank. He then represented that he bad paid 1001., part of the proceeds of thin cheque, to his father-in-law, who resided in Suffolk, to cover a debt he owed him, and the only question involved in the present inquiry was whether this was • true statement or whether it was not fictitious, and merely put forward to account fur the sum referred to, and to prevent the creditors of the defendant from obtaining posse*. don of the money. The evidence that was adduced in support of this suggestion was that the stamp upon the agreemeet for the supposed loan of 1001. alleged to have been repaid on the 24th of June was not issued until some time afterwards, and also that certain bank notes that were given in exchange for the 1001. Bank of England note bore endorsements, to fictitious mime, .in the handwriting of the defendant. It transpired in the course of the inquiry that the present prosecution had been instituted by Messrs. ?swoon and Co, of St. Paul's-churchyard, who were creditors of the defendant, and that the Court of Bankruptcy had declined to interfere in the matter, so far as to be responsible for the costs, but alsoit appeared : that the Isatexaminationof the defendant was adjourned sine die, with liberty to the creditors to prosecute the defendant if they should think proper to do so. Mr. Lentoo. on behalf of the defendant, contended that there was nothing to show that the transaction alleged to have taken piece between the defendant and his father-in. law was not a genuine transaction, and that the money was not really repaid He alsourged that nothing was morenatural than that the defendant, when he found himself in difficulties, should have attempted to save his own relations at the expense of his other creditor.; and he said that although this proceeding could not be justified morally, still it would not constitute any legal offence. The jury returned • verdict of Guilty, but sentence was deferred.