The Sun. — 1861-09-23 (London, England)

OLD COURT.  The September s :t-ions of the Central Criminal Court commenced this mc ruing before the Lord Mayor, Aldermen Sir J. Duk , Sir F. G. Moon, the Recorder, the Sheriffs, and Under Sheriffs. The Recorder, in charging the grand jury, said he was sorry to say that although the number of the prisoners for trial was not more numerous than might have been expected, yet many of the charges were of a most serious nature, and would call for the greatest consideration. There were no less than three charges of wilful murder, three of manslaughter, several others in which considerable violence had been used, one with stabbing with intent to commit murder, which still remained a capital offence, and two charges of rape. The first case to which he would refer was that against a person named William Cogan, who was charged with the wilful murder of his wife. The prisoner and his wife, it appeared, when sober, lived peaceably together, but when intoxicated they were in the habit of quarrelling, and the evidence showed that it was during one of these unfortunate differences that the , alleged offence was committed. Having related the circumstances connected with the case, which have already appeared, the Recorder remarked that the prisoner alleged that his wife, after cutting his throat, had committed suicide. There were no persons present when the offence was committed, so they would have to say whether there was sufficient evidence for further inquiry against the accused, when he would have the opportunity of fully entering into all the particulars of the case. If they should be of that opinion they would return a true bill against him. The next charge of murder was that against a man named Murphy, and he was also charged with the murder of his wife—the circumstances being somewhat similar to those in the case he had just referred to. The parties when sober lived peaceably together, but when drunk they also were in the habit of quarrelling. The evidence, however, in this case differed from the other, as there was amongst the witnesses a person who saw the act committed. This witness stated that he by accident went into the house where the two people were quarrelling, and was induced to look through an aperture in the door of the apartment, when he saw a man stab a woman, and from certain circumstances there could be no doubt that the prisoner was in the house at the time, and it would be for them to say whether there was sufficient evidence to place him on his trial for the offence. The third charge of murder was that against a seaman name Spiller. The evidence in that case would have also to be fully considered by them, but it appeared to be such as to call for no further remarks from him, as they would find it would present no difficulty to them in the discharge of their duty. The charges of manslaughter were preferred against Benjamin Martin and William Willsey. In the latter case death had been occasioned by the deceased interfering to prevent a quarrel between the prisoner and his wife. If the evidence bore out the charge, then it would become their duty to return a true bill against him. A woman, named Harris, was charged with causing the death of her child by wilful neglect, and if it appeared so by the evidence then the woman became amenable to the law, for a parent was clearly responsible for the death of the child under such circumstances. The evidence in the charge of rape against Henry Hearne was rather peculiar. The person upon whom the offence was alleged to have been committed was a married woman, the wife of a policeman. During the night, while the husband of the prosecutrix was on duty, the prisoner entered her apartment and got into the bed, she not being aware of the circumstance until it was almost too late. Immediately upon making the discovery the proseeutrix raised an alarm, and the prisoner was taken into custody and committed for trial for the offence. The defence set up was that the woman laboured under a peculiar delusion, and that in fact the offence had not been committed. He merely mentioned this circumstance, in order that the jury might be enabled to observe the demeanour of the prosecutrix while she was giving her evidence. There was also, he regretted to say, among the remaining charges one of those which had been so frequent of late—namely, a charge of fraudulent bankruptcy, and it was of the greatest importance to a commercial country that all such acts, if clearly proved, should be severely punished. With respect to the other charges they were not of a nature to call for any special remark, as they were of the ordinary description and would not offer any difficulty in their disposal.