Lent Assizes.
The assizes for this county commenced., here to-day, bef1bre ttle Lord Cbjie Baron ALr;Xt.knaE R`nt the: Eonouxable Mlr. Justi&e BEST. The calendar contins a list of twenty-six prisoners com- mitted for varioous offences; 'but the most promninent case is the al- leget nmurde. of James Grainge, bv Patrick Connolly and. others, at Shenle' hl U, on thb 31st of December last. MlIr. '.ustice BEseT, who presided in the Crown Court, charged the Grand Jury, and 'called thceir attention principally to the case Iabovc-mentioned. Hlis lordship, after stating to them nt substance of the depositions against the prisoners, as returned by the com. mitting magistrates, said ho understood that there were two distnct charges intended to be preferred against the parties-namely, one founded on Lord Ellenborough's act, 43d George IlI., for stab- binz the sheriff's officer, lYatson, with a pitchfork, with intent to murder hin; and the other for murdering James Grainge with a loaded gun. These charges he understood to be applicable to two dictinct transactions: first, that in which WVatson attemnpted to ar- rest Mr. Connollv ; and the other, when'the deceased was killed, in an attempt to apprehend the prisoner on a peace-warrant. The first aUeged offence must dep^nd upon the question, wvhether, in case death had ensued from the violence committed on Watson's person, the offence would have been murder. Irt order to the de6ision of this question, it would be necessary to attend. to the evidence as to thie mainer in which the offictattenmpted to make his caption. According to the depositions, the outer door of the house was open, anti in the attempt to force an inner door thc wound was inflicted. If this fact was clearly established, the first oftence would be made out. An officer could net break an outer door to execute civil process; but findingr tbe outer door open, he might enter, andi break inner doors to take his prsoner. If the door upon which the violence was committed in this instance was the outer entrance to thbe'luse, then the officer would not be justified in breaking it, tlough the prisoner was only a visiter. The depositions of the different witnesses varied in this point, and therefore it was incunmbent on the Grand Jury to pay particular at- tention to this partofthecase. Then, as to thesegond charge,therewas no doubt th-t if the deceased was a constable, and duly authorized to execute a warrant for the apprehension of Mir. Connolly for the breach of the peace committed on WVatson, the breaking open the house wac a lawful act, provided the prisoner had due notice of the contents and object of the warrant; and if the prisoner, in resisting the exe- cution of the warrant under such circumstances, killed3 ths officer, the offence would amount to murder. His Lordship observed, that there was a material difference in the depositions of the several wit- ncsses as to the notice given to the prisoner of the content.s of the warrant, and the authority of the deceased to execute it. Some said that the warrant was read to the prisoner, and others, that the rub. stance ofits contents was distinctly announced. It was the duty of the Grand Jury to watch with great circumspection this part of the evidence, because it was most material as it respect- ed the charge of wilful murder. It appeared from the deposiiiols, that Mrs. Brown, Moran, and the other prisoners, were encouraging the conduct of Connolly throughout the whole transaction, and there. fore, in the eye of the law they were aU principals. The Grand Jurv, however, would attenQ to all the circumstances of the case, as proved by -aiva yoe evidence, and retum such bills as were satisfac- torv to their consciences. The Grand Jury, after being out about four hotirs, returned a bill of fauslazlqtter only against kr. Connolly and hjugh Moran, and ienored the bill against .31 rs. Brown, Amelia Morgan, and Edward Travers.-There was nothing of public intcrest o:x the civil si(e. LERN7 AISIIZ)?.? *-----D M Hw- .IERTFORtD, ;IIA,RCH 4.