The Sun.
London, England, 1860-10-08 00:00:00

THE ROAD MURDER.

THE LATE EXAMINATION AT TROWBRIDGE.
The fruitless eonoloxion of the public examination
at Trowbridge, from which so much was hoped, and
which caused such intense excitement throughout
the country, as well as in this neighbourhood, seems
to have thrown a gloom over the locality from
which the satisfaction derived from reading for the
first time the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. and the
Misses Kent scarcely relieves it. While both the
press and the public all over the country regard the
decision of the magistrates as just, yet the failure
to produce a great amount of evidence appears to
occasion a deep and universal disappointment.
The recognisances of Elizabeth Gough were taken
in one sum of £lOO by Mr. Arthur John Speck-
man, of Blackheath, her uncle, who offered volun-
tarily to increase the amount to £5OO if he might
be allowed. This, however, was deemed unneces-
sary. Another uncle of the prisoner was present,
a respectable tradesman of Oxford, who likewise
offered to be bail for any amount.
I Elizabeth Gough, when discharged from custody
did not leave the station for some hours, but re-
, turned to London by the last train at night. She
expressed her thanks for the kindness she had re-
• ceived from the police superintendent before leav-
ing. As was to be expected the intense excitement
of those four days' trial has resulted in a reaction,
• and she is now, we learn, exceedingly unwell at her
home at Isleworth.
It will be remembered that at the close of the
examination of Mrs. Kent, that lady, who had
given her evidence in so clear and straigtforward a
manner as to secure even from Mr. Ribton, the pri-
soner's counsel, a high compliment, volunteered a
statement, which the bench, on the solicitation both
of the prosecution and the defence, did not permit
her to make. We learn that the statement she
was about to make was this—that not having been
permitted by the examining counsel to express
herself on the point, she begged to be allowed to
state most emphatically that her husband was not
away from her side for a quarter of an hour during
the whole night, and that the state of her health at
the time enabled her to swear positively to this fact.
Our readers ►ill recollect also that at the close of
the evidence of Mr. Parsons, surgeon, he handed a
written communication to the bench, the contents
of which were not allowed to transpire at the time.
We find that his statement was, that having exa-
mined Mr. Kent subsequent to his having given
evidence the previous day, he was opinion that his
mind was so affected by intense excitement, and by
persecution he had undergone, that no amount of
reliance ought to be placed on any statements,
which, under such circumstances, he might make.
Subsequent to the examination on Thursday even-
ing some severe remarks were made by Sir John
Aw dry, which time did not permit us to report, on
the fact of Mr. Kent's having locked up the police
on the night after the murder, and on his having
refused, through his attorney, to allow a plan of the
premises to be taken, which last step Sir John pro-
nounced to have been very ill-advised. Protesta-
tions were made at the time by Mr. Edlin and Mr.
Dunn, and since we have ascertained the facts to be
as follows :—On Mr. Slack's leaving Roadhill House
after the examination, he requested to be allowed
to return " for a purpose." Conceiving that be could
only wish to revisit the premises for one of three
purposes—viz., to have the deposition signed, to
examine the nurse in the nursery, or to take a plan
of the premises—Mr. Dunn advised that he be per-
mitted to do as he pleased, but Mrs. Kent was so
indignant at the treatment she had received from
Mr. Slack, and the surveillance under which she
had been placed by him, that she vehemently op-
posed his being permitted again to enter the house.
The point was submitted to Mr. Kent's counsel,
Mr. Edlin, of Bristol, who advised that the permis-
sion should be withheld until Mr. Slack stated his
object. The next heard of the matter was, Mr.
Kent's being asked in court if he had ever refused
the prosecution a correct plan of the premises
Fearing that his general refusal, as above, might be
so construed, he replied that he had, which was im-
mediately denied by Mr. Dunn. On Tuesday, how-
ever, a plan was taken, and put in in evidence, and
Mr. Kent himself took one end of the measuring-
tape in assisting to make it.
An instance of the eccentric and unjust character
of the working of legal regulations is shown in this
ease. The prisoner not being committed for trial,
not only do the witnesses receive no expenses, but
Mr. Clark, the indefatigable magistrate's clerk, will
receive not one farthing remuneration for all his
exertions, including the copying of 84 folios of
depositions.
After the inquiry on Thursday the 24 witnesses
were collected, some being fetched from Road for
the purpose, and the evidence read over to and
signed by each.
Admiration is expressed on all hands at the im.

5 a

CTOBER 8, 1860

partial and dignified manner in which the onerous
daties of chairman were performed by Sir John
Awdry, who, although not a magistrate of the
county, undertook the office.
We are unable to learn that any further steps are,
at all events for the present, in contemplation.
Road hill House has been removed from more par-
ticular police surveillance. _ _

As illustrating the curious reaction which so
commonly follows in the public mind, we may men-
tion that a Manchester paper states, and we believe
with truth, that since her discharge Miss Constance
Kent has received more than one offer of marriage.
We know also that invitations to visit all parts of
the country have been received from many total
strangers, and among them several of the aristocracy.
Doubtless a similar revulsion of feeling will follow
the release of Elizabeth Gough.

(From the Jfo.rning Poet.)
Three days of searching public investigation
have added nothing to our previous information re-
specting the Road murder. The same mystery that
hung over it at first enshrouds it still, in spite of
indefatigable perseverance and accumulated efforts
to bring the truth to light. Our readers have by
this time sifted, with mingled curiosity and vexa-
tion, the extraordinary investigation before the
magistrates at the instance of Mr. Slack, with the
sanction of the Home-offioe, and they will have
shared with us an intense disappointment at the
impotence of the result. The nursemaid has been
arraigned, a barrister has been specially retained by
the Crown for the prosecution, counsel has been
heard for the defence, 24 witnesses have been exa-

mined and cross-examined, every member of Mr.
Kent's family and every servant of his household
have been produced ; but, in spite of all, the prose-
cution has entirely failed to bring home to her the
crime, or any participation in it, or guilty know-
ledge of it ; and she was very properly set at
liberty on nominal recognisance% to appear when
she should be wanted. The result is that justice
is still baulked, and the perpetrator of that despe-
rate crime still walks undetected amongst honest
men.

And yet, however unsatisfactory in its resul._
this examination is a contribution towards the ulti.
mate detection of the murderer. It helps to nar
row the ground and limit the number of suspected
persons. 'We insist now, as we did from the first,
that the inmates of the house on the night of the
murder are responsible for the crime, and that it is
amongst them that the murderer will ultimately
be found. It will not do to throw dust in people's
eyes by saying that certain servants vowed ven-
geance against the children, or that some one must
have been concealed in the house, and the like.
There has not been a shadow of evidence that any-
body was concealed ; or would have any motive for
being concealed ; while there is evidence to show
that the house was properly secured, and had not
been forcibly broken into. It is impossible to re-
lease the household from the responsibility. That
household consisted of nine persons, any of whom
might have committed the murder. The effect of
two public examinations—the first, however, a most
unsatisfactory one—has been to acquit two of the
family—viz., Constance Kent and Elizabeth Gough.
There now remain seven others,of whom one must be
presumed to be guilty ; while there are five out of the
seven, viz., Mrs,Kent, the two elder Misses Kent,and
the cook and housemaid, who may claim to be above
suspicion. It remains for the other two to clear
themselves ; for however legal evidence may for the
present be at fault, the public will not pat aside its
suspicions in the face of certain probabilities which
must occur to every one who has weighed the ease,
or has read what we have said about it in previous
articles.
In reviewing the whole of the circumstances,
who can help a feeling of astonishment at the course
it has taken, at the conduct and demeanour of the
family, and the unaccountable proceedings of some
of the lawyers ! The murder was committed
savagely on a helpless child in the dead of night.
In the morning he was missed as early as 5 o'clock,
and it was eight before he was discovered. Although
the household, including the outdoor servants, con-
sisted of 13 grown or nearly grown persons, not
one of them thought of going to the closet where
the child was found ; and when it was found it was
by strangers ! There seems, indeed, to have been
no hearty search by anybody except by Benger and
Nutt. The nurse was standing on the lawn when
the child was brought in ; the other servants were
about their work. It is perfectly wonderful the
sang froid with which some of the parties con-
ducted themselves. The deadly deed of blood, that
ought to have filled "every soul with horror, and
stirred up every feeling of indignation, and stimu-
lated every energy in the anxious search, seems to
have made but little disturbance in the ordinary
proceedings of the establishment. There is a ghastly
stolidity in the conduct of Mr. Kent. He was in
bed when the news of the child being missing was
brought to him. He did not get up. His distracted
wife was, to use her own words, " here, there, and
everywhere" looking for the little boy, but it was
not till he was told that the drawing-room windows
had been found open that he got up ; and when up,
his conduct was moat unaccountable. He does not
seem to have searched the house; he did not go and
scrutinise the very place where, if there had been foul
play, the child was most likely to be found, and where,
indeed, he was found ; but he started off to Trow-
bridge, assuming, without a moment's thought,
that his child had been stolen and had been carried
thither. When on his return he found out the
crushing truth, the same strangeness marked all
his conduct ; he gave the key of the laundry to the
doctor, but did not himself go to confer with him or
examine the child. He questioned the other ser-
vants ; but, strangest of all, according to his own
evidence, he did not question the nurse. He suffered
the leery person primarily responsible for the safe
custody of the child during the night to be ques-
tioned only by his wife. Afterwards he admits
that he asked a question now and then. When the
police came to his house at night he locked them in
the kitchen ; when they knocked he did not open
the door for 20 minutes. Is it too much to ask for
some evidence as to what he was doing all this
time? The nurse, it seems, did not go to bed that
night at the same time as the other servants. Why
not ? What was she doing? Mr. Kent's conduct in
not attending the inquest is in keeping with all the
rest. Indeed, we have no words to describe our
astonishment at his proceedings throughout. He
could scarcely have done other than he did had he
been a party to the murder. In all the subsequent
stages he has rather obstructed than aided inquiry.
He is the real prosecutor, but he has acted as if he
wished to stifle rather than assist the prosecution.
The strong expressions of the chairman of the bench
of magistrates in regard to the locking up the po-
licemen, and the refusal to have a plan of the house
made, might with equal propriety be applied to
several other portions of Mr. Kent's conduct in this
harrowing business.
Passing from Mr. Kent to the nurse, it is true
that the evidence fails to establish the charge
against her, muca neglect of duty, much prevarica-
tion, much that is in every way the reverse of satis-
factory or reassuring. There can be little doubt
that she has a well founded suspicion who the
murderer is. Her answers to questions about
Constance Kent's night gown, as well as many
other observations, all point to a determined
reserve, which indicates the possession of know-
ledge, or at least suspicion, which she does not wish
to show. We have intimated before, that in the
absence of any other motive the child's death might
have been sought with the design of preventing his
telling anything he might happen to know respect-
ing the behaviour of any persons in the household,
and this is supported by the evidence of Mrs. Dal-
limore, who declared the nurse to have said that
" the murder was done through jealousy; the little
boy goes into his mamma's room and tells every-
thing." Now, we ask again, was there anything
that it would be dangerous for him to tell : had he
seen anything in the nurse's room that would bring
discredit on her or anyone else ? We ask the ques-
tion ; we cannot suggest an answer. The question
is forced upon us by the circumstances. If anything
took place in the nurse's room—if anyone were there
who ought not to have been there, then there may
have been a motive not otherwise presumable for
silencing the child. It is important that the child
is believed to have been smothered, or in some way
strangled. This rather strengthens than weakens
what we have said. However this may be, we ad-
here to the belief we have before expressed—that
the murder was committed by two persons, pro-
bably actively by one, with the knowledge and as-
sistance of the other. There are only four persons
who could be open to suspicion, Constance Kent and
her brother William, both of whom had acted
strangely before, and Mr. Kent and the nurse, both
of whom have acted so unaccountably since. Of
these four, Constance Kent and the nurse have been
examined and acquitted. Whether either of the
remaining two is guilty, God alone knows. A
lengthened inquiry has left us only where we were,
and we must for some time longer be patient under
the temporary suspension of justice; but we may
hope that all clue is not yet lost, and that even out
of this depth of dark crime and mystery the truth
may be discovered, to the vindication of the inno-
cent before the world, and the just execution of the
guilty.

A MAD LEAP FROM A TRAlN.—Richard. Buckle,
of Clifton, an ex-policeman of the Middlesborough force, a
few mornings ago had a most miraculous escape for his
Ile was riding in the train of the Great Northern between
Tallington Station and Essendino junction, when ins. state
jumped
out stupor with liquor he rose, opened the door, and
out of the carriage into midnight darkness. The train was
running nearly 60 miles an hour at the time. He was a
little hurt when found. The passengers naturally expected
to hear next day of his being dashed to pieces.—Neweastl.
ChrWaft

THE TVAKEFIPI,I) POISONING CASE.

TERMINATION OF THE INQUIRY.
AGBRIGG, SATURDAY.
The adjourned inquiry into this mysterious affair
was resumed at one o'clock this afternoon, at the

Graziers' Arms, Agbrigg, before T. Taylor, Esq.,
Honorary Coroner. The following fresh evidence
was produced.—

The Rev. Father Young—l produce the following
two letters written by me for Miss Adamson.
" Sandal, Aug. 14.
" Sir,—As Miss Francis Adamson may now be
considered to be on her death-bed, she desires me
to write and ask you if it would be convenient to
send £5O immediately, and, in the remittance, to
state what money remains in your hands. She also
requests you, in case of her death, to send the re-
_..

mainder io the Reformatory, Loughborough.
•' Mr. J. Golding, Liverpool."
The second letter referred to some family arrange-
ments.

Sarah Stringer, mother of the prisoner, exa-
mined—l am a widow, and reside at Dirtcar. My
daughter Emma resided with the deceaSed for above
two years in the capacity of domestic servant. On
the morninc, of Miss Adamson's death I went to her
house witht'a cart and box, containing clean clothes.
I occasionally washed for the deceased. The box in
question contained clean clothes for my daughters,
Emma and Matilda. Prior to it I had never been
at Miss Adamson's since last winter, with one single
exception, when I called at the door a fortnight
ago, but I only saw my daughters upon that occa-
sion. Upon the day of deceased's death both my
sons were at her house, but I saw neither of them

.._ .
writing. William cannot write, but James can a
little. I heard no comments made respecting the

property of the deceased. I saw a written paper
lying on one of the tables, which I took up and
threw into the fire, upon learning from Emma that
she had been with it to the priest for his signa-
ture, which had been refused. I will swear that
I was never in aoy room any day when
Mrs. Bateson was requested to write her name
on any document whatever. All that went
away in the cart was our own property. I
do not remember telling Mr. Fernandes, the attor-
ney, that the deceased had left a will prepared by
proper attorneys.
Matilda Stringer, one of the sisters who were ac-
cused of aiding and abetting in the capital charge,
was next examined, but nothing particular elicited,
except the admission that she (the witness) drew
up the document purporting to be a will of Miss
Adamson's. It will be recollected that at a previous
examination a witness, namEd Hannah Bateson,
distinctly swore that one of the prisoner's brothers
drew up the document.
James Stringer, the brother alluded to, was also
examined, but he positively declared that he first
saw the document in his sister Emma's hands. He
did ask Bateson to sign it, but that was all.
Edward Hoyle, broker's assistant, proved remov-
ing all the goods from off the shelf in the kitchen
the day before the sale of Miss Adamson's effects,
but saw no packet of any kind. This is the shelf
on which a man found a packet of arsenic on the
first day of the sale.
The Coroner then briefly summed up the evidence,
pointing out the distinction between murderers of
the first and second degrees, and also between cir-
cumstantial and direct evidence In the present case
it was clear that the deceased had been poisoned,
and the only question was who administered it ?
The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder.