The Sun. — 1852-11-22 (London, England)

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. OLD COURT.  The first sessions of the Central Criminal Court during the present Mayoralty, were opened this morning by the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, Aldermen Fairbrother and Carden, Sheriffs Carter and Croll, and other civic functionaries.  The grand jury having been sworn and selected their foreman,  The Recorder proceeded to deliver his charge, observing that, though the calendar presented no unusual number of cases, there were several charges of a very grave description ; and while, on the one hand, there was happily a diminution of offences of violence against ' the person—such as cutting and wounding, and the use of dangerous implements, which too frequently came before that court—he regretted to say that, on the other hand, there was more than the ordinary number of cases in which life had been destroyed. There were no less than four serious charges of murder, and one very grave case of manslaughter. With the exception of one of these, none appeared to him to present ,any legal difficulty, and therefore it would be unnecessary to detain the grand jury by making any observations upon them. That one case was a charge against a man named Horler, for the murder of his wife, and if the evidence brought before them was at all like that which appeared in the depositions, he feared they would have no doubt of the prisoner's guilt, and that they would feel it their duty to find a bill against him. One of the other three cases, was of that class which had lately become very frequent, viz..:—the murder of a child by its mother. Whether any encouragement had been given to this description of crime, which he could not readily believe, by the mercy which perhaps was too often shown by judges and juries, he could not venture to say, but it was lamentable to find that so many among the female of the population of the country brought themselves into a state of disgrace by a fiendish disposition to destroy their offspring. They would have to deal with this case like any other charge of murder, and if they were satisfied that the child was born alive, which was the principal question, and that the prisoner caused its death, it would also be their duty to return a true bill. There was another case in which a woman was accused with the destruction of her offspring, but it would probably assume the charge of manslaughter— that being the shape in which it was presented by the verdict of the coroner's jury. It appeared that the accused party concealed her condition, and denied that she was with child until the last moment, and made no provision whatever for the birth. From the appearance of a cupboard, where she was seen to go by her fellow-servants, it was supposed she had been secretly delivered, and a search being made, the infant was found, with very little on it, in the yard of the house. If a person so delivered, deliberately exposed the child in some unfrequented place, where it was not likely to be discovered for the purpose of causing death, she would' be guilty of manslaughter and not murder ; but if the circumstances merely showed gross neglect or carelessness, or that the mother placed the child in a spot where it was likely to be seen, and to receive succour from other hands, without any wish to destroy its life, then that would not be murder, though it would unquestionably amount to the crime of manslaughter. There was another case of murder, in which a young woman was committed for destroying a child which was not her own. The charge was originallyfor administering corrosive fluid with intent to do grievous bodily harm, but the child had since died, and the case would now be brought before them in the form of murder. The remaining case was one in which a young man was charged with pouring corrosive fluid on a young woman with whom he had  illicit connection. Under the statute, pouring vitriol, or any other fluid of that kind, on the person of another, with the intention either of disfiguring or doing grievous bodily harm, constituted a felony, and was punishable as such. The Recorder, before remitting the Grand Jury to the discharge of their duties, said though he did not go the length of saying that the Grand Jury should be entirely abolished, he thought their services might be dispensed with in many of those cases which had been fully investigated before a magistrate.