The Poole Telegram. — 1882-06-30 (Poole, Dorset, England)

RST COURT-WEDNESDAY.  Befo e J. Floyer, Esq., M.P. (Deputy-Chairman), and other ma,;iatratea. .  The following gentlemen were sworn on the Grand Jury :—Messre. H. Fooke, Winterborne Whitchurch (foreman) ;J. Barnes, jun., J. Bradford (Corfe Castle), J. H. Dalwood (Sherborne), M. Dunning, W. F. Gifford (Stratton), F. Hellier (Bridpare ), J. Hansford (Bridport), F. Jacob (Dorchester), A. Knight (Dorchester), S. Lawrence, J. Liddon (Yetminster), C. I.anning, C. Pope, A. Purkiss, W. Porter (Blandford), J. H. Ryle (Melcombe Regis), J. Swoffield, S. Seymour, R. Spriggs, Andrew Tian, A. T. Tippett, R. Tuffin, T. H. Williams, William Wareham. One of the jurymen, a Mr. Read, of Bridwrt, objected to be sworn. The difficulty, however, was easily surmounted by discharging that gentlen.an. The CHAIRMAN, in charging the grand jury, said the calendar contained the names of 18 prisoners for their consideration—a larger number than they generally had at the sessions at this period of the year. Last year at this period they only had four cases. It was true two years ago, in 1880, they had a considerable increase, but, as their foreman would no doubt remember, this was caused by their having to deal with a peculiar class of offence, which they did nut very ( fen see in this court—viz., a large number of rioter s at the elections of Dorchester and Shaftesbury, which increased and added to the offences very much. With that exception the number of prisoners now for trial was an unusually large one for the Midsummer Sessions. The Chief Constable in his report yesterday informed the Court that the number of prisoners apprehended for offences in the past quarter was about the same as in the corresponding period of last year; but he remark° I very justly that although the number of offences committed in the quarter had not been larger, their character was of a much more serious description than they usually found committed in this county. They bad not those more serious offences to deal with to-day—they stood over for trial by Her Majesty's judges at the coming Assizes, and probably, as many of them were aware, there were two prisoners for trial upon the most s,rioue of all offences—namely, that of murder. Happily, they had not to deal with that to-day, but it gave rather an unfavourable view of the state of crime in the county. Having remarked on the arrangement of the calendar, which was an improvement on the last, but which, even now omitted the information they used to be afforded as to the locality of the prisoner, the Deputy-Chairman proceeded to remark on several of the cases, more particularly the obtaining money by false pretences at Weymouth. He explained that although the prisoner was to be tried there, he had never been in the county. Still, it had been decided upon appeal that the delive, y of a letter contaking the false 'pretences by the Post-office authorities was a delivery by the plsoner, the Post-office being considered the agent of the p-isoner for that purpose, therefore the deliverance of the letter by the Postoffice on behalf of the prisoner to the tradesman at Weymouth, which induced them to part with their money, was a delivery and an act done by the prisoner. Again, he pointed out it made no materi d oifferenca whether the intent to defraud or the actual fraud WM carried out upon the debtor, or upon the tradesmen, who should have received the money. After a few other remarks, the Deputy-Chairman dismissed the Grand Jury to their room.