The Sun. — 1856-10-27 (London, England)

CRIMINAL COURT.—(This Day.)  The October sessions of the Central Criminal Court commenced this morning at the Old Bailey, before the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, Alderman Finnis (Lord Mayor elect), Alderman Sir J. Musgrove, Alderman Sir F. G. Moon, Alderman Kennedy, Alderman Hale; Sheriff.; Mechi and Keates, and Undersheriffs Crossley and Anderton. The Recorder in charging the grand jury, said he regretted to find that the printed calendar was in point of numbers unusually heavy, and that he could not hold out to them'tbat their labours were likely to be light. The number of prisoners in the calendar amounted to 161, which in all probability would be increased by the number committed on the first two days of the session to 180 or 200. He was unable to suggest any particular cause for this increase of numbers, and he was inclined to attribute it to accidental causes rather than an indication of an average increase of crime. The calendar though heavy in number was not so in the character of the offences. There was one charge of murder and one of manslaughter. There were comparatively few cases on the calendar involving charges of either destruction of life or severe injury to the person, but there was a considerable number of charges of burglary. These charges were generally more numerous at this season of the year than in summer, from the long nights affording facilities fur their perpetration ; and they also increased in spite of the severity with which the perpetrators were treated in that court when charges were distinctly proved against them. He regretted much to find that larceny by ser vants, whose duty it was to protect the property of their employers, did not decrease. The charge of murder in the calendar was one of a peculiar character, and was a charge of murder against a husband, arising from the death of his wife from taking medicine to procure abortion. The learned judge then detaqed the circumstances of the case, which, it will be recollected, occurred a few days since at Hackney, and said that he feared there would be a difficulty in proving the charge of murder, and tbat'a legal difficulty existed in convicting the prisoner of being an accessory before the fact. He advised them to well attend to the evidence, and, if it did not warrant them returning a bill for murder, to return a bill charging the husband as an accessory before the fact, in order that the statutes on this point, which it was feared were defective, might undergo revision. After referring to other cases in the calendar, the learned Judge said that the case of Robson was one that had created much attention, from the nature of the charge and the prisoner's connection with the Crystal Palace Company. The prisoner was charged with two offences —one for stealing a number of certificates of shares, the property of his employers, and the other with having forged the name of a person to a transfer of shares. If the prisoner forged the name it was an indictable offence ; and if he dealt with the certificates entrusted to him by his employers, either by selling them, obtaining money on them, or giving them to a friend to obtain a loan of money on them, it was in either case a dealing with the property of his employers, and amounted to larceny.