abolition of capital punishment for larceny, there is encouragement to believe that an almost equally welcome amendment to our criminal law, to admit of an appeal from the haphazard verdicts of Old Bailey juries, may within a generation or two find its way into our statutes. In fairness to our legislators it should be mentioned that a recent act of Parliament has very sensibly diminished the number of cases in which the magistrates have been accustomed to refuse bail to accused per sons. Heretofore bail has been allowed only in exceptional cases, unless where the offence charged was of a trivial character. The resulting inprisonment before trial worked the greatest hardship to innocent persons and even to those who were con victed and sentenced to short terms. A poor man sent to prison to await trial was in some respects treated much worse than a convicted prisoner. For twenty-three out of twentyfour hours he remained in solitary confine ment in his cell. He was allowed only one hour's exercise in the day, and had no indul gence of any sort, the prison system not ad mitting of his being given any employment or occupation. The principal objection to allowing more exercise or recreation was that it would necessitate more wardens to look after the men, and the treasury off1cials would not consent to the- increase of ex pense! Under the new act Parliament has made it not merely a matter of discretion, but a duty on the part of magistrates to re lease accused persons in all but serious cases, even on the accused's own recognizance, and especially where it is a charge of a first of fence and when the prisoner resides in the locality where he is arrested.
An odd scene was witnessed last week in the Lambeth Coroner's Court. Coroner's courts in this country have jurisdiction of treasure-trove, and when such treasure is found, an inquest is held to ascertain not only " who were the finders and who sus pect thereof," but if there is any claimant to the property. In the event of no owner ap pearing, it is turned over to the Court, the finder being first rewarded for his find. In this case, two policemen found several bars or ingots of silver on the abutments of one of the bridges which cross the Thames. They were evidently the proceeds of some burglary and the melted down silver from family plate. They had been placed where they were found for extra concealment, the abutments being then several feet below low water-mark. But the burglars had not reckoned with the excep tionally low stage of the water at spring tide, and thus it- happened that when it reached its lowest ebb, the glittering silver became visible to the sharp eyes of the policemen. The ingots were taken to the Coroner's Court, and after the facts had been inquired into the usher went outside the Court and in a loud voice asked, " Does anyone claim some ingots of silver found in the river Thames at Westminster Bridge in June last?" On returning to Court he informed the coroners that there was no claimant to the property. The jury then returned a ver dict to that effect and that it was treasuretrove and should be handed to the Crown. The coroner therefore seized the ingots on behalf of her Majesty, and said he would send them to the Treasury.
^felS«
Stuff-Gown.
