The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-11 00:00:00

Hayman heard no such conversation. It rested entirely upon
the evidence of one witness. These two motives, he sub-
tad, bad entirely failed. Leaving the case, then' free
frcm any motive let them go to the facts. He agreed that
they must take all the factstogether • but they must exa-
mine them individually and separately. The first fact was
his asking how ti e touch-rag was made, and Read told him ;
but it was Read who suggested that rock powder might be
used for firing a gun. That conversation, if true, did not
originate in any desire on the part of the prisoner to obtain
powder, for it was Read who had suggested in what manner
it might be used; but there was no corroboration of this
statement. Read said that the prisoner had accompanied
him to ins house. Mrs. Read said the prisoner came after
her husband had been at home an hour, and said he had
come to ask William to lend lam a bit of powder, and this
was inconsistent with the story told by Read. Then it had
been said that he stated he wanted it for Miss Morris's fowls,
which had the pip. Miss Morris had been called, and she
was indignant at the Idea of the fowls having the pip, but she
admitted that ;he did not, know what the pip was. C, Ind they
place any reliance nit this suggestion ? The next feet was
as to the Wesel. Mr. Herapatli said he could not say it was
human blood ; and he said it 111113 t, have spurted team same
wound. Did not that, at once remove all suspicion of its
being human blood ? because the surgenu had stated that
the blood frem the old woman's throat would not have
spurted out, and the old man had been shot by some one
standing at a distance from him. They must recollect tint
the prisoner was in the habit of assisting his grandfather in
killing pigs. The blood, therefore, was out of the question.
Time next point was that the old man had died from a gun-
shot wound, aad that some days before the prisoner had
filed a piece of iron at a blacksmith's shop; but of what
importance was that? In an idle moment he had taken up
the iron. The surgeon had stated that in his opinion the
wound was inflicted by a round bullet. What then became
of the idea of the piece of iron ? The 'next fact was, that
there was a gun in the house, and of so peculiar a descrip-
tion that no one but the prisener could have used it. As to
the gun being in the house there was nothing in that. Upon
the examination of the gun yesterday, he thought that the
suggestion that the prisoner alone could use it was at an
end, for upon trying the gun in court it stood both at half
and full cock. Goldsmith, the policeman, would have them
suppose that the prisoner was the first man who had sug-
gested that his uncle had been shot, whereas the evidence
proved that the gun had been found three hours before, and
it had been suggested that the old man had been shot with
that gun. Then his friend had prominently set forth the
fact of the prisoner's having gone to ask the number of the
£5 note. lie, however, submitted that that did not go one
step towards proving the guilt of the prisoner, but quite
the contrary ; for it was the very thing that any reasonable
and sensible person would have done in endeavouring to
discover the murderer. He would seek to know the
number of the note, in case it should be offered for change
by any one, so that it might afford a clue to discover the
perpetrator of the crime. If the prisoner had had a sinister
otject would he have taken the policeman with him ? The
next step was one upon whinkmuch stress had been laid by
the prosecution ;
he meant Oda difference of the statement.
of Mr. Meade King and the prisoner as to the ladder and
looking in at the window. Ile wished Mr. M. King, a ma-
gistrate, had not shown so much zeal as to go and subject
the prisoner, of whom he had a suspicion, to a most severe
examination. But he was glad he had done so, for it proved
no inconsistency in the prisoner's conduct. The first grave
charge wade by Mr. King was that the ladder had not made
a sufficient impression on the soft earth of the garden, when
it was first put there, according to the prisoner's statement.
What had Mr. King done ? He had the ladder placed in the
same position ; and he bad gone tip twice and the prisoner
once, and then be stated that the impression was much
deeper. It was unwarthy of the prosecution to have relied
upon such circumstances. Then came the question as to the
prisoner's not having seen anything in the bedroom. But
what was the conduct of Mr. King ? He had been in the
bedroom, he had inspected it, and was aware that a
murdered woman was lying in the bed ; and then with his
mind so preccupied, he had looked into the room; but if a
stranger had looked in ae the window, all he could have
seen would have been the appearance of some body
in the bed. There was nothing else fur him to
have seen, for there was no blood visible. Therefore,
the prisoner, looking in hastily without his mind being pre-
pared for anything, had nothing to lead his mind to the fact
of his grandmother being murdered, and if he had not
looked into the window in a particular way, as Mr. King
admitted, be could not have seen the bed. But Mr. King
said, look which way he would, he must have seen the
timings strewn about the floor. But when the prisoner
looked in before 6 o'clock the deed might not have been en-
tirely complete, for +he repo.l of the gun was not heard till
20 minutes to 6 o'clock. M;ght it not have been that, when
the prisoner was rattling at the door, the author of the deed
had not completed his work of pillage ? He might have
finished that after he had been disturbed. Then he came to
the last of the many facts that had been strung together by
the prosecution to connect the prisoner with this crime—he
meant the only strong fact in the case against the prisoner.
He did not conceal from himself that it was one which
might lead to a suspicion ; but it was of so vague a charac-
ter that they could not place any reliance upon it. On the
Thursday morning they found a bundle in the pigstye, and
' it contained a knife and a letter belonging to the prisoner.
At first it was suggested that the handkerchief was a
strong. fact, but one of the jury had exploded that
by saying there were one hundred dozen of that sort
of handkerchiefs made by the same manufacturer ;
and the only thing spoken to was that Mrs. Nation
had heard that it was hemmed by a child. Were they
to convict a man of murder upon such a circum-
stance ? With regard to the knife and the letter—what
possible motive or object could the prisoner, had he coin-
witted time murder, have had in putting such articles into
the bundle, which would convict him of time crime? It was
so improbable that he would rsk them, in the name of com-
mon sense, whether they could believe the prisoner could
have done such a thing. Could they believe a man would
be so insane? The prisoner had what might be called a
double home at his grandfather's. If he had not his knife
and his letter in his pocket they would expect to find theta
lying at one or other of his homes. If any foul murderer melee
into the house and took all the property he found lying
about, they would expect to find those articles among others
which lied been stolen, and these things were found with the
sugar-tongs and the £5 note. Could they suppose, if the
prisoner had committed the act, that he would have taken
j the trouble to take the knife and letter from his pocket
and put them into this bundle ? Could any human
being suggest an object for such a course ? It was
not as if the murder had been committed with time knife.
If that supposition should be rejected as absurd, what wrs
time other alternative ? That he, being at the cottage—his
home by day—might have kept little things belonging to hint
' there. What more likely than that, after using the knife to
eat his supper, he might have left the knife where he had
sopped ? If he had committed the act he could not have
been such a madman as to have put those timings in the
bundle. The greater probability was that the knife was
lying carelessly about the inn and was taken up by the plun-
derer. Why, when the policeman searched the prisoner
and asked if he bad anything eke, the prisoner at once said,
" Yes, there's my knife," and he searched in his pocket for '
it. If he bad put the knife in the bundle would he have
named the knife? Then, as to the letter; he had itnagined
it was a loveletter. Had he left that about as well as the
knife? or had it dropped out of his pocket? The grand-
mother might have found it, and seeing it was a love-letter,
she might have become alarmed, feeling that he could not
keep a wife, and might have taken charge of it ; and the
murderer in search of plunder might have caught that up
with the £5 note. But there was one little fact which ap-
peered to him conclusive of the prisoner's innocence. They
had heard that some of the proceeds of the robbery had been
found in a straw rick, deposited in a glove. To whom did
that glove belong? Was there a tittle of evidence to con-
nect that glove with the prisoner or with Mr. and Mrs.
Bucknell ? Was it not conclusive that some person to whom
that glove belonged had committed the murder ? But not
only was there this strong fact but there was another
equally cogent ? A£s note had been found in the bundle.
Mr. Bucknell had said he bad £4O upstairs. Where was
the other £35? Had the prisoner got it? Not one farthincs.
was found upon him. Where was that £35? It was clear
there must have been some person connected with the
murder who was a stranger to the house, and who had the
£35. Put all the facts together, anti weigh them sepa-
rately, and lie thought, although there might be sus-
picion, yet there was not a conviction such as
they could act upon. If they had some facts which
raised a suspicion, let them compare theme with the
general bearings of the case, and if they found the general
facts consistent with the prisoner's innocence, then how
could they say the prisoner was guilty? It was material to
consider the time. It was clear that the report of the gun
was 'heard at 20 minutes to 6, therefore that roust have been
the time at which the old man was murdered. Then, it
was clear that the prisoner was at the gateway with his
fattier just before 6 o'clock; therefore they had the two points
of time-20 minutes to 6 and 6 o'clock. The time of
the prisoner was clearly accounted for after 6 o'clock.
Thus, as to his time before 6, it did not appear when he
was seen going to the Cottage Inn on that morning ; but
they had been asked to believe that, because it so happened
that no one saw him go there—he was there before the gun
was discharged, and, further, that they had gone by a short
road through the fields. They were asked to believe this
without any evidence to support the proposition. Why
were they to take any such timing for granted? To found
two such theories upon such a presumption of facts
was what he should not have expected from this
prosecution. They would not set upon such wild specula-
tion without some evidence to support it. The prisoner,
when examined by Mr. Meade King, said he arrived at the
inn shortly before six o'clock, and what was there to contra-
dict it? A man named Willes was called to prove that the
prisoner did not pass along the road between five and a
quarter to six, and he then left his garden and went into his
house. Why, that was what he (the learned counsel) wanted
to prove. That quarter of an hour would be the very time
the prisoner %wend have gone along the road. That was the
strongest possible point in favour of the prisoner. If he did
not go along that toad betweep five o'clock and a quarter to
six he could not be the person who committed the act. To
get over this the prosecution asked them to believe that he
had gone across the fields; but, why were they to jump to
suea a conclusion ? That disposed of the qmiestion of time,
and that was only consistent with the innocence of the pri-
soner. He would now assume that the gut) which deprived
Mr. Bucknell of life was discharged at 20 minutes to 6,
and he would assume that Mr. Bucknell's life was taken
first. It was, therefOte, most probable that some one was
concealed in the cellar, and had shot Mr. Bucknell Qpon his
entering that cellar. Then the death of Mrs. Bucktell was
accomplished. This must have taken time. What did the
murderer do next? Ile ransacked the house. He must have
selected the things and tied them in the bundle. He must
have put the silver in the glove; must have got out of the
house, gone to the pigstye, and concealed the bundle, then
to the pond to wash the hay knife, and then to the straw
rick to hide that knife and the glove,—and they were asked
to believe that the prisoner did all this in 20 mittens. But
the owner of the glove might have begun this deed at 20
minutes to 6, might have murdered both these unhappy per-
sons, and might have been disturbed by the prisoner's
rattling at the door, and during the time tint the prisoner
went to Mr. Mortis's house the murderer might have con-
cealed the things and escaped. The person who committed
the murder was evidently disturbed while in the act of
plunder, for Mr. King bad told them that everything in time
room indicated that the person must have been disturbed.
What a medley of things was in time bundle,—the knife, the
key, the letter, time tongs, the £5 note, and the halt fait-
tnegs—and yet the silver spoons were lift in the room ! lie
conk! not conceive anything extraordinary in the conduct
of a stranger who, having committed such murder, should
conceal his plunder upon time premises. The next inquiry
was the conduct of the prisoner at the time and immedi-
ately after the discovery of the murder. It WIS within their
experience that there were some signs about the conduct of
a murderer. But what was the conduct of the prisoner?
Had he committed time act they would hardly expect tint
iummediately after it he would have gone to request the
neighbours to come to the spot, and then would have gone to
time Star Inn to endeavour to discover the number of the nete.
Was there any confused manner, or anything to lead them at
the time to cast any suspicion upan him? There was nothing
extraordinary or improper in his conduct. He actually in-
vited the policeman to go and search the pigstye, where, if
he was guilty, the most damning proofs aeainst Min would
be found. He had now gone through all the facts, and he
asked them to weigh them in every way. Until he came to
the knife and the letter there was not a fact worthy of their