The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-16 00:00:00

THE MURDER AT ACTON.

On Saturday afternoon the prisoners, Joseph Brooks and
Isaac Brooks, underwent a further examination before Mr.
Dayman, at the Hammersmith Police-court, on the charge
of shooting Police-constable Davey, at Acton, on the night
of Monday, the 19th ul:. On this occasion the witness
Jane Lake, the afaPnced of Joseph, was placed in the dock
by the side of Isaac, charged with being an accessory after
the fact, as she had stated to a female named Walter that
she had destroyed Joseph's hat.
Mr. Treherne again conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Haynes appeared for all !he prisoners.
Three witnesses were first called to prove hearing the
report of fire-arms, and to going to Petherton Villa almost
immediately afterwards; but they did not see any person
running away. _ _ .

Inspector Searle added to his former evidence that at the
time he apprehended the male prisoners, and after they (the
police) had been to see Jane Lake with reference to the
gun, Isaac's wife said, " She has sold us."
Mr. Haynes was about to question the inspector as to the
taking of Lake into custody, upon which
Mr. Dayman said it was by his authority she was appre-
hended ; at least, certain circumstances having been men-
tioned to him, he thought they were sufficient for her to be
taken into custody.

Mr. Haynes submitted whether it was fair to the prisoner
to place her in the dock after having:extorted evidence from
her against the prisoner Joseph.
Mr. Dayman said certain evidence came to the knowledge
of the police after she had given her evidence, and that that
was the reason why he thought they would be justified in
taking her. _ _

Mr. Haynes said that if her evidence was to be believed,
Isaac could not be implicated in the murder.
Mr. Dayman then said that if the prosecution proceeded
against Jane Lake, all the evidence she had given would be
struck out. It was not usual in these days to proceed
again;, persons for being accessories after the fact. and he
had no doubt that if an application were made to the Court
they would try her separately, and then Mr. Haynes could
call her as a witness for the prisoner Isaac.
The evidence of the two females, Walter and Powell,
against the female prisoner was read over at the request of
Mr. Haynes, after which they were cross-examined, and
they denied that there had been any previous arrangement
between them to entrap the girl.

The female prisoner, who is described as being only 17
years of age, conducted herself with great levity, and ap-
peared far more happy in the dock than she did when in the
witness-box.

Fanny Lake, a young girl, the sister of the prisoner, was
next examined, and she stated that she lived at home with
her parents at No. 6, Chapel-place, Back-common, Turn-
ham-green. She remembered the prisoners being appre-
hended. Two or three days afterwards she saw her sister
cutting up something. She thought it aas a hat. It was
not a high hat, but a round one. _

A deer-stalking hat was placed before her, and she was
asked whether it was like the one her sister had, but she
could not say. .

The witness also said it was cut like in half. She thought
her sister burnt it. She saw her put it on the fire. She did
not tell witness whose hat it was. She said nothing about
the hat, nor did witness. It was daylight when she did it.
Mr. Haynes thought there was not a tittle of evidence
against her to send her for trial, and she was entitled to be
discharged. The only evidence against her was some loose
kind of conversation to two women.

Mr. Dayman could not say there was no evidence, for if
the witness Walter was to be believed, there was the pri-
soner's statement with regard to the hat. He would not
express any opinion as to what ought to be done, but would
leave it to the discretion of those who were conducting the
case. She had destroyed something which might have
been serious evidence as against one of the prisoners. He
should send her for trial with the other prisoners.

The depositions of those witnesses who were present were
read over and signed, and the prisoners were formally re-
manded for the attendance of the remainder, including the
wife of the deceased.
The court was again crowded in every part.