SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2667, 4 September 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSION. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) The quarterly Criminal Session of the Supremo Court commenced this morning at ten o’clock. The following are the names of the Grand Jury Collin Alan, John Darling, John Davie, F. fl. Evans, Jas. Galbraith, Robert Gillies, Henry Houghton, James Kincaid, Howard Lakeman, Richard H. Leary, Thos. C. Matheson, Edward Menlovc, George Miller, David McLeod, David Proudfoot, Alexander Rennie, C. H. Street. The Grand Jury having been sworn, his Honor addressed them, and said: —He was sorry that during the past quarter there had been considerable increase of crime as compared with the two previous quarters. Nine cases would be presented to them for examination, half of which were of an aggravated character. The first to which he would call attention was that of Bridget Gee, charged with the murder of her newly bom infant child. On the 25th May she was living as servant at the Glasgow Ai’ms Hotel. The landlady had previously some reason to suspect the girl was pregnant, but was not certain. On the 25th she was taken ill and went up stairs to bed, although nothing imminent seemed threatened. As she staid up stairs some time, the landlady took her some tea. The room was dark and nothing was observed. She still complained and remained there until half-past eleven o’clock at night, when it was thought necessary to send for a doctor. Blood was seen on the bed clothes, but the cause was not ascertained until the arrival of the medical meu, who found she had recently given birth to a child. Enquiry was made of her as to what had become of the child, and after being closely pressed she produced it, sewn up in a piece of canvas. Several wounds were found upon it sufficient to cause death. Tiie medical man would give evidence to shew that it had breathed and bled from the wounds, and this would be necessary to establish the charge of infanticide, and topre--vent the plea of accident. An instrument capable of inflicting the wounds—a pair of scissors—was found, She was handed over to the police, and the Graud jury must say whether there was a primn facie case against her. He would not offend their ears by detailing or expatiating upon the case of Thos. Stages, charged with an unnatural crime. They would hear the case, and it need not be twice told. A Chinaman was charged with attempting suicide. He was found by a miner living in Moray place wounded an<j bleeding, aid expressed his wish to commit suicide by saying “ Let me die—let me die.” He was handed over to the police, and while in custody, although to prevent further attempt his hands were strapped down, he contrived to get them lose and hang himself. Fortunately he was discovered and rescued. There would be little difficulty in the case. There were other oases of the usual character —one of cattle stealing, in which criminality was sought to be established by identifying the hide. In other particulars he thought there would be no difficulty. There were two cases of larceny, on which he need not expatiate. He would, therefore, come to the case of Reicheldt, charged with setting firo to his premises in Princes street, for the purpose of defrauding the New Zealand Insurance Company. His Honor gave a de'ail of the case, with which our readers are sufficiently familiar. He said that thirty-five witnesses wire suhpaiaaed for the Crown, and it would therefore be inexpedient to go minutely into all the circumstances. The p isoner would be defended by able counsel. He remarked briefly upon the circumstances of his .arrest, the explanations given, the alarm of fire, the discovery of goods in Goldammer’s possession, and the possible explanations of that circumstance. On the part of the Crown, it might be contended the goods were removed to enable the prisoner to defraud the Insurance Companies, Goldammer and Reichelt being old friends. On the other hand, they might have been bought by Goldammer, and stored where they were found without Reicheldt’s knowledge, in order that there might be no difficulty with his (Goldaramer’s) creditors, he at that time being before the Bankrupt Court. Any of these hypotheses, if established, would be favorable to the prisoner. It would he for them to consider if the evidence was sufficient to enable them to find a true Bill. There was another case of arson of which he bad not particulars, but which he believed presented no difficulty. There was also a charge against A. M‘Leod, for libel, which he believed would be proceeded with. As Reicheldt’s case would occupy considerable time, he should be compelled to put the Grand Jury tq the inconvenience of attending next Monday. The Graud Jury retired,'and after the lapse of about half-au-hour returned a true Bill against F. W. Reichelt, and afterwards against Alexander M‘Lcod for libel.

(Before a Special Jury.) P, W, Reicheldt, charged with feloniously, unlawfully, and maHsiously setting tire to a certain shop in Princes street iu hie possession and occupation, with intent to defraud the New Zealand Insurance Company ; and on a second count, upon a central charge of intent to defraud,—being placed at the bar, pleaded not guilty. Mr James Smith appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Barton, with him Mr Stout, for the defence. All witnesses were ordered out of Court. Messrs A. H. Shury (Foreman), J. Seaton, H, Calder, junr., Murdoch Ross, Henry Gjreep, Hijgji J£.irkpatriok, William Suavely, Dayid Baxter, Thqmas" OulJei], Thqma§ 6. Johnston, Charles Abbott, and Thomas Aitkin, were impanelled fvs a Jpry, Mr Smith stated the ease against the prisoner, and the nature of the evidence he purposed bringing before the Court, ■which would be to establish the conduct of the prisoner before the lire, at the time of the nrc, and after the fire, which he thought would prove conclusively that the fire had been ! caused by the prisoner, with a view to defrauding the insurance companies. He proposed to call" the evidence. Mr Barton applied that the jury might view the premise?. Mr Smith made no objection, but left it tp the Cogrt. His Honor thought it would be better that they should see the premises ; but no fine could be allowed to give any explanations. They must be sent iu charge of one or two constables Mr Barton wished they should he instructed as to what particular objects they should inspect. His Honor could do nothing more than give an order that they should view the premises —the loem in yio.

Bis Honor said that under some old rules made in 1859, on a jury being required to inspect premises, the sheriff and each special juryman were entitled to a fee of a guinea. They were then directed to proceed under charge of the sheriff and two constables. (Left Sitting.)