Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 1, col. 7) CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. ----- These Assizes, which have been looked forward to for some time past, with extraordinary interest, on account of the magnitude of the crimes charged against some of the prisoners, commenced here on Monday last, before Mr. Baron ROLFE, and Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, and closed on Thursday. The Judges arrived by a special train from Newcastle about two o'clock, and were met at the Railway Station, London Road, by the High Sheriff, T. FEATHERSTONHAUGH, Esq., of The College, Kirkoswald, in a very handsome carriage and four. The liveries of the postillions and footmen were of the most splendid description, scarlet and silver, and the "set out" was allowed on all hands, to be one of the most tasteful ever seen in Carlisle. Their Lordships were received at the Court House by the Mayor and Corporation; and the Commissions of Assize and Gaol Delivery having been read, the Court was adjourned till Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. In about an hour afterwards, their Lordships proceeded to the Cathedral, to hear Divine Service. After prayers, an excellent and appropriate sermon was preached by the Sheriff's Chaplain, the Rev. Paley GRAHAM, of Lazonby, from Proverbs c. 5, v. 22.:-"His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins." In the afternoon their Lordships set off for Rose Castle, the seat of the Bishop of Carlisle, to dine with his Lordship. THE SHERIFF'S DINNER.-At six o'clock a party of gentlemen sat down to a most sumptuous dinner at the Bush Hotel. The High Sheriff was supported on his right by the Hon. C. HOWARD, M.P., and on his left by Sir G. MUSGRAVE, Bart., Wm. MARSHALL, Esq, M.P. Henry HOWARD, Esq. of Greystoke Castle, and amongst the company were the principal magistrates and other gentlemen of the County. The High Sheriff was extremely happy in introducing the various toasts of the evening; and the party did not separate until past ten o'clock; and a more agreeable party we have rarely if ever witnessed on any similar occasion. The hilarity of the meeting was greatly promoted by the vocal and instrumental performances of a party of professional glee singers. BUSINESS OF THE COURTS. Both Courts opened at ten o'clock on Tuesday morning, Mr. Baron ROLFE presiding at the Crown Court, and Mr. Justice CRESSWELL at Nisi Prius. The calendar contained the names of fourteen prisoners, and there were two others brought up upon their recognizances, having been admitted to bail. Of the prisoners in the calendar, two were set down as able to read and write well; nine as reading imperfectly; and two as unable to read at all. In the Nisi Prius Court, seven causes were entered for trial-four of them Special Jury cases. Two of the latter, which had excited the most local interest-"WISE v. DIXON and others," and "DIXON and anor. v. DIXON," which were to try a right of water in the "Little Caldew," went off, soon after the opening of the first case-a verdict for the plaintiffs, Messrs. P. DIXON & Sons, having, at the suggestion of the Judge, been taken, subject to a reference to Mr. BLISS, the Barrister. The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS proceeded to swear the following gentlemen on the GRAND JURY. Hon. Chas. HOWARD, M.P., of Naworth Castle, foreman. Sir G. MUSGRAVE, Bart., of Eden Hall. E. W. HASELL, Esq., of Dalemain. H. HOWARD, Esq., of Greystoke Castle. C. FETHERSTONHAUGH, Esq., of Low House. E. STANLEY, Esq., M.P., of Ponsonby Hall. W. MARSHALL, Esq., M.P., of Patterdale Hall. W. E. JAMES, Esq., of Barrock Lodge. P. WYBERGH, Esq., of Isell Hall. T. SALKELD, Esq., of Holme Hill. G. H. HARTLEY, Esq., of Rose Hill. Jos. SALKELD, Esq., of Penrith. H. D. MACLEAN, Esq., of Carlisle. F. L. B. DYKES, Esq., of Dovenby Hall. W. WILDE, Esq., of Carlisle. Thomas SCOTT, Esq., of Penrith. W. BUSHBY, Esq., of Greystoke. R. R. SAUNDERS, Esq., of Nunwick Hall. R. FERGUSON, Esq., of Harker Lodge. John DIXON, Esq., of Knells. Peter DIXON, Esq., of Holme Eden. F. B. ATKINSON, Esq., of Ramsbeck Lodge. Mr. BARON ROLFE charged the Grand Jury-He said on former occasions when he had the honour of addressing them, he had the good fortune to comment on the light character of the offences submitted to their investigation. He regretted to say that that was not the case on the present occasion. To what the difference might be attributed he could not state, but certainly the fact was so. Some offences of great enormity would have to come under their consideration. He had looked through the depositions as far as time would permit, and he was not aware that anything was likely to present difficulty to their mind. He should content himself with shortly pointing out what the cases were, and the points to which their attention must be directed. [Here Baron ROLFE spoke about some other cases.] He was not aware of any other cases on which he need make any observation, except the two cases of the greatest enormity-those two persons charged with the crime of wilful murder. [Here Baron ROLFE spoke about another murder case.] There was another case also of a most terrible nature. There was a charge against a man, or rather two distinct charges, of having at two distinct times, poisoned first his wife, and next his father. Now, owing to an accident, the depositions had come to him in an imperfect form. With regard to those in reference to the alleged murder of the wife in November, he had seen them pretty nearly in their integrity; but with regard to those relating to the murder of the father he had not seen them in extenso. It appeared that the father died on the 20th of May (he thought it was), under circumstances that led to the suspicion that he had been poisoned, and that, an investigation took place, in the course of which suspicions were raised that his wife might have been poisoned in the same manner, as she had died after an illness in which she had exhibited similar symptoms to those of his father. The first point for the consideration of the grand jury in both cases was whether they were satisfied, on the medical testimony, that the parties died from poison; and in this case the evidence would consist,-first, in showing that the death was just such as ordinarily happens to persons who have taken poison, arsenic particularly-and, secondly, that, on examination, after death, the bodies exhibited those appearances which are the result of persons having so died from arsenic, in the stomach and viscera in some form or other. That point being established, it was to be considered how they could connect the administering of the arsenic to the prisoner. On that subject he had only to say that they should weigh well all the circumstances. In this case-and, indeed, in all similar cases, it was impossible that any body could be brought forward to say he saw the prisoner put arsenic in the food taken by the deceased; though it was idle to suppose that any person was not to be convinced without certainty. When the Grand Jury had arrived at the conclusion that the parties had died from poison, they must next see whether the party charged had any opportunity of administering poison, and whether he had any motive for so doing. Ordinarily speaking, if a party has an opportunity of committing a crime, but no motive, it was hard to attach suspicion. That the prisoner in this case had the opportunity of administering poison was obvious. He was living with his wife, and was constantly visiting his father just about the time his illness attacked him under which he died. Having satisfied themselves that he had the opportunity, they must then inquire, had he any motive? With regard to this point, the motive must have been that of succeeding, in his father's case, to the estate of the old man. As regarded his wife, a great deal of evidence would be produced with the object, as he collected, of showing that an improper intercourse was taking place, during the latter part of his wife's existence, with a young woman servant in the family, and it was meant to be suggested that he wished to put his wife out of the way in order that he might carry on that intercourse with greater facilities, and without the obstacle which his wife presented. How far that motive had been made out, the Grand Jury must decide. Another matter which in this case was most important-after laying a foundation by showing that the prisoner had the opportunity and the motive of poisoning the parties with whose murder he was charged-was, had he in his possession the means of poisoning them? It appeared, hat [sic] he had had rat powder, which had been purchased many years ago, and kept in an out-house that was accessible to other parties, who knew of its being placed there. But it was suggested that he did secretly purchase poison at Newcastle, last year, in an out of the way shop; and if that was supported by the evidence it showed that he had got poison for an object which he knew it was important to conceal. This would be the spirit of the investigation: he would not attempt to point out in detail the particular sort of testimony that would be given. If the proofs which he had pointed out as important came out so strongly as to lead to the conviction that the prisoner was guilty of the crime laid to his charge, of course the Grand Jury must find a true bill, and send the case for trial: if not, however much it might have to be regretted, it would be their duty to find no bill. The Grand Jury then retired, and on returning into court, soon afterwards the criminal business was proceeded with. ----- PRISONERS. [Here follow some other criminal cases.]