The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-15 00:00:00

THE PEOVER MUEDER.

Bartholomew Murray, who was found guilty of the
murder of Mr. Joseph Cooke and Mary Cooke, his
wife, at O:Tr Prover, has not yet attained the 19th
year of his age. His appearance most strangely belies
his act. He appears to have conducted himself ex-
tremely well in his early ernployment3, and to have ob-
tained, and, we would fain hope, deserved the good
opinion of his superiors. Little is •known in England
beyond what is given in evidence on his trial. Tho
crime for which he will have to suffer the most igno-
minious punishment of the law was perpetrated with
great coolness and doc;sion. No visible evidence ex-
ists that his hand did it. Not one mark or stain of
blood has been discovered on his apparel or person, nor
aoy of the property of the unfortunate deceased found
in or traced to his possession, excepting the money,
which, being in coin, cannot be sworn to. The rapi-
dity of his movements after the event were such as to
baffle the case, had it not been for the wonderful in-
terposition of a superintending Providence, which, by
some agency, simple in itself but almost incomprehen-
sible in its operation, will rarely permit such deeds to
pass without detection and punishment.
The conduct of Murray, from his first committal to
the time of our writing, has been uniformly consistent
—that is, he has continued to asseverate his entire in-
nocence of the crime with which he is charged. In
stating' this, however, we are bound also to state that a
prisoner named. Samuel Coates, charged with and
found guilty of forgery at the present Assizes, stated
that some time since Murray had made a full confes-
sion of his guilt to him, detailing also the circumstances
under which ho committed the murder. The character
of Coates, however, is of that qnestionable nature that
it was not thought fit that the prosecution should be
encumbered with Lis evidence, but that the case should
be laid before the tribunal of justice in its naked as-
pect as sustained by concurrent circumstances. We
think a wise discretion was exercised. Confessions and
when dependent for credit on
tiiever admissions—particularly
acity
of
fme
nore
criminal lives and habits—are
unsatisfactory.-- In this case; unfortunately for Murray,
no such aids were required.

The prisoner was most ably defended. No witnesses
were called for the defence. In fact none could be.
The cost of the defence was defrayed by an uncle of
the prisoner, who is a respectable yeoman, residing in
the county of avian. He attended the trial. The
day after the conviction he took a last earthly farewell
of his criminal nephew.
Murray went through the trial with great firmness.
When the verdict was pronounced ho was but little
moved. He contented himself • with merely saying,
" Gentlemen, I'm as innocent as a child unborn, and it's
not right I should suffer for others." His demeanour
when under and after sentence may be denominated ob-
durate. Since, however, he has been considerably sub-
dued. He has paid great, attention to his religious
duties, and is generally found by the clergyman and
turnkeys engaged in prayer. The day of execution is
not yet fixed.—Chester Paper.