The Express.
London, England, 1857-10-08 00:00:00

By Mr. Roberts—The prisoner hoe beet in the employ of
myself's:id my partner for three years and a half or four
yams. Everything was satisfactory during that time; and I
eamaidered him to be • good and honest man. I never saw
him Idle a moment while he was with me.
By the Coroner—The prisoner was rather parrimoninui.
lb% Superintendent Andrews was renikd and he stated
that he had been shown the spot in the garden where the
two pieces of bran were found. He had several times before,
on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday last, emeninod that
spot, and it was impomilde that the pieces could have been
there without having been seen. The grass had been care-
tally searched to find the wadding used by the prisoner
when he shot the sparrow, and a piece of good gun wadding
was found there. A pair of old newer* and some pioces of
rag were ales there now which were not there when the pre-
vionasearch was made.

completed This
the evidence, and at ten minutes to eight
o'clock the coroner began to sum up. He strongly depre-
cated the comments which had been made by the prise
end urged the jury to dinning from their minds all except
the sworn teetimony which had been given before them
during this inquiry. The fact of the murder was undoubted
but es to the way in which it was committed there were two
peep/AO-me. In the Bret place it was a led the son
James, that three or four burglars entered the house, broke
open the writing-desk, and then proceeded to the old man's
room. The statistics of crime in this country showed that
the object of all burglars was plunder and not murder, and
that they never desired to commit bloodshed unless for the
purpose of persortrotection or of eecuring booty. In this
ease it was au that the burglars had broken open the
writing case, t, considering its lightness, it was more pro-
bable that they would have taken away the are altogether.
Under any circumstances, they would not have taken
the tronbG to break open the lock, when it was actually
unlocked. The murder of the old man, when asleep, wee
most inconsistent with the supposition that it was the act of
burglars. It was most eetreordinary that the table in which
there was so much money, se well as the deceased's clothes,
in which there was a shilling, had not been touched. It did
not seem likely that burglars would have deliberately com-
mitted en act which would at once have alarmed the whole
house, and still lees likely was ft that • man would have
stood on the Moire after the report of the gun. The other
reggeetion—the very mention of which almoet made ono
shudder—was that the old man had been murdered by hie
eon haute. This involved a charge of such a serious nature
that he (the coroner) deemed it hie duty to read over the
whole of the evidence relating to it. This he did at great
, commenting upon it as he proceeded.lenertly after half-pan nine o'clock the jury retired to con-
sider their verdict ; and they returned after an absence of
about half-an-hour. Their names having been called over,
the foreman (Mr. Charles Mainland) said "We and James
Henderson rally of the murder of his father."
The Coroner inquired if they were unanimous in their
verdict, and the foreman replied that they were.
The Coroner then issued his warrant for the committal of
the prisoner and the witnesses were bound over to prosecute
at the next Cheshire Ambles.