The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-28 00:00:00

was more probate than the one which would be '
adopted by a peon secreted in the house ; in which
case there might naturally be some fear lest Mrs.
Baker in her *an should shriek, and thus arouse
the attention 01 the neighbours. On such good
terms were, in Sis opinion, the murderer and his
victim, that he bought they must, before the blow
was struck, hae been taking gin and water to-
gether. He wO seiTy to say that suspicion seemed
somewhat to atach to the clerks in Mr. Masefield's
office, because trawers which contained money were
the drawers ory that were opened ; and it was in
evidence that tie clients of Mr. Masefield, with the
public who carte in occasionally, would not, as a
rule, be familir with the place of the money, be-
cause Mr. Maefield had only recently altered the
position of hismoney drawer. Respecting the cause
of death, Mr. Griffin had stated, and Mr. Wood
agreed with lim, that that was strangulation, the
blow on the lead and the fall being, as he had re-
marked, suffisient only to occasion insensibility. It
was now for the jury to say who was the person
who had caused that strangulation, or whether the
injuries which caused (bath were inflieted by some
person or persons unknown.
The room had not been entirely cleared of the
public before the jury said that they had agreed
upon their verdict. "We find," said the foreman,
" that Harriet Baker was found dead, having been
murdered by some person or persons to us unknown."
Jones, who seems to be in no way dejected by his
confinement, was to be brought up again before the
magistrates yesterday (Friday) afternoon, when it
was thought that among other evidence some in-
formation would be forthcoming from the female
pauper in Birmingham to whom Inspector Glossop
had referred. During the inquest Superintendent
Tanner despatched an officer to Birmingham to as-
certain what she was able to relate.

An application has been made to the Secretary
of State for the Home Department to offer a reward
for the apprehension of the murderer. The Home
Secretary, however, declined to accede to the re-
quest for the present, saying that the result of the
current investigation must first be a failure to trace
the crime home to the guilty party.

DREADFUL MITI? 73 ER AT WALWORTH.

Yesterday morning considerable sensation was
created at Walworth by a report of a cold-blooded
murder. It appears that the deceased, Mrs. Sophia
Moore, aged 25 years, lodged at the house of Mrs.
'fart, 23, Trafalgar-street, Walworth, nearly oppo-
site the Lord Nelson Tavern. Her husband, Wm.
Moore, aged 30 years, who had been a widower,
with two children, and who had been only married
to the deceased about five months, was a hawker of
laces. About a fortnight ago he had a family party,
and the deceased's sister's sweetheart kissed the de•
ceased in the presence of the husband. This roused
his choler, and some words ensued, when he told
her to prepare for her death, as he meant to murder
her, This she regarded as an idle threat, but on
Tuesday morning, shortly before eight, he took a
sharp pointed table-knife and plunged it into her
left side up to the handle. He then drew it out and
the deceased ran down stairs and crossed over to a
inighbour'.s and faintly cried " Murder!" Some
neighbours sting the blood streaming from her
side, took her ini,o aim house and sent for Mr.
Howett, the surgeon. Th murderer made rapidly
off through the Lord Nelson Tavern into the Kent-
road.
The wounded woman was conveyed to Petersham
Ward, Guy's Hoipital. Every assistance which
medical skill could suggest was rendered, but she
gradually became weaker and weaker, and yester-
day morning death terminated her sufferings. The
i
murderer is described to be five feet nine nchee
high, pale complexion, sccr over the left eve, small
Wlhite plaid trousers, black coat, and old slippers.
Up to the present time he has not been taken into
custody.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—May 27•

-
The Court sat to-day at the Guildhall, West-
minster, to hear the adjourned appeals ; present—
Mr. Payne (presiding for the Assistant-Judge), Mr.
Pownall (chairman of the bench), Sir John Hansler,
Capt. Hansler, Messrs. Bird, Cox, Harwood, W.
P. Bodkin, C. S. Butler, M.P., Halswell, Brooking,
E. Davis, Bayle, Huggins, Armstrong, Wyatt, H.
Wilson, S. Morley, Swift, the Hon. Charles Len-
nox Butler, Arthur Ballantine, J. P. Pierce, Alder-
man Wilson, and Marshall.
Alexander Solomon appealed against the refusal
of the justices of the Tower division to renew a
licence under the 9th George IV., cap. 61, to sell
exciseable liquors in the house and premises called
the Crown and Seven Stars, 47, Royal Mint-street.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson appeared for the appellant,
Mr. Bodkin in support of the decision of the jus-
tices below.
The house in question had been licensed about
40 years, and the present appellant was in posses-
sion, and held a lease for 21 years; he had ex-
pended a considerable sum, about £5OO, upon it in
improvements, in addition to £l,BOO which it had
cost him in the first instance, having taken the
house for a bad debt to that amount. In 1857 the
licence was transferred to a person named Lindo,
who, however, got into difficulties, and an equitable
mortgage was executed, In 1858 an application
was made for a transfer of the licence to H. M.
Solomon, not this appellant, but the magistrates
refused that application on the ground that Mr.
Solomon was not in this country, he being in the
West Indies ; though they offered to transfer it to
Mr. Jackson, now a publican in Cranbourne-pas-
sage, but who at that time was managing the
business of this particular house as agent to H. M.
Solomon. Mr. Jackson declined to undertake the
responsibility of accepting the license, and it
therefore lapsed. The appellant took the house
for the consideration already stated, and had im-
proved it, at great outlay, and in the present year
he applied for the li-ience, but the magistrates re-
fused to grant it ; hence this appeal.
Mr. Bodkin said the ground upon which
the magistrates gave their decision was that a
great many habitations near this house had
been removed for the enlargement of the Mint,
and that there were already between the
Blue Peter and the Old Fountain, a distance of
213 yards, four licensed houses, which, taking the
number of the immediate dwellings, would give a
public•house to every 20. The magistrates, there-
fore, thought this was a legitimate opportunity to
reduce th e number of public-houses huddled together
within a few yards of each other, and he submitted
to the court that they had exercised a sound dis-
cretion.

Mr. Atkinson said the licence had not been lost
in consequence of misconduct ; it had been in
existence 40 years, and he thought the court would
do an act of justice and give it to the. appellant,
who had staked his all in it, never dreaming that
the licence would be refused.
The court granted the licence.
Henry Weller appealed against the refusal of the
lustices of the same division to grant a similar
icence to a house and premises in Hyde-place, New
North-road.

Mr. Bodkin supported the appeal, Mr. Tindal
Atkinson the decision of the justices below.
It was urged that this house, where an excellent
beer trade had been carried on, had peculiar claims
for a licence. It was in a rapidly improving and
increasing neighbourhood, and situate on a main
line of thoroughfare to the new cattle market. The
licence was granted almost unanimously.
! Marks Coles appealed against the refusal of the
same justices to grant a licence to a house and pre-
mises called the Unicorn, No. 32, High-street,
Shoreditch.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr.
Beard, appeared on behalf of the appellant ; Mr.
Tindal Atkinson in support of the decision of the
divisional justices ; and Mr. B. C. Robinson for
parties in opposition.
This house is situate close to the passenger en-
trance to the Eastern Counties Railway terminus,
upon a site where formerly stood a public-house,
called the Unicorn, which was pulled down when
the new road was made from the station to the
docks. The premises are situate in an immense
line of traffic, and were built upon a plan approved
by the Board of Works, who, after the old pre-
mises were pulled down, became the freeholders.
There had been a former appeal by a Mr. Hancorn,
which was not. successful, and there had been some
question about the premises not being finished. On
behalf of Mr. Coles, it was submitted that they
were now fitted up in the best possible way, and
would afford, if licenced, a vast amount of con-
venience and accommodation, to passengers by the
railway, exclesionists, persons too late or waiting
for trains, and commercial travellers, and that there
was no other house in the neighbourlv,od so well
calculated to afford such accommodation—for which
there was, in fact, a great necessity-as that of the
appellant, who had in it a stake of near upon
£5,000. The quantity of beer sold over the counter
under 'the beer licence was something enormous,
and an account had been kept, from which it ap-
peared that more than 200 persons a day had called
and asked for refreshment, which could only be
supplied under a spirit licence. On the other side
it was contended that there was an abundance of
every kind of acconunodntion required in the neigh-
bourhood, already existing, there being 10 licensed
houses within sight of the appellant's house, besides
coffee-houses, eating-houses, and beer-houses, and
that there was no public necessity for an additional
house, which there could be no doubt was intended
for a gin palace, which would prove a nuisance
rather than a boon. The ease was ably argued on
both sides. Ultimately the license was granted by
13 votes to 4, and there was a good deal of applause