The Sun.
London, England, 1861-10-09 00:00:00

POLICE INIELLI'}ENCE, 0c,% 8.

WESTMINSTER.—THE WESTMINSTER MUR-
DER.—Mr. Bury Hutchinson, solicitor, repeated to
Mr. Arnold the application he made on Saturday-
to Mr. Poynter, detailed in our impression of Mon-
day, fora warrant against Joseph Saunders, for
wilful and corrupt perjury against William Malo-
ney, under sentence of death for the murder of his
wife in Legg-court, Westminster.
Mr. Hutchinson at great length detailed the cir-
cumstances upon which he grounded his applica-
tion, without any material difference from the
statement already published, and solicited the
magistrate's earnest consideration in a matter of
such serious moment as the life of a fellow-creature.
Saunders had sworn that he saw the woman mur-
dered, that he remained at the corner of the court
afterwards till the police brought Maloney out, and
that he had not been into any place of refreshment
until he had been subsequently into Bcnnett's•yard.
He swore he had had nothing to eat or drink
during the day, while that he had had two penny-
worths of pudding could be most distinctly proved.
Mr. Arnold—Supposing that to be false, would
it be a material fact in a charge of murder ?
Mr. Hutchinson—ln the case of Dr. Griffiths
Jones, last sessions at the Central Criminal Court,
where he had sworn before Sir Cresswell Cresswell
that he had a Scotch diploma as well as being a
member of the College of Surgeons, the former was
held to be material, as tending falsely to give more
positiveness, and induce the Court to rely with
greater credit upon what he said.
r. Arnold—l am not aware that Saunders swore
before me that he had had nothing to eat
or drink ; and whether he had or had not, I cannot
see that it could be material to the issue.
Mr. Hutchinson—lt goes• to his credit ; if he is
discredited in one particular his evidence is not re-
liable in another. But the evidence of his being
at the shop of Mrs. Crowe and purchasing this pud-
ding involves another and more important point.
It shows that he has again falsely stated that he
saw the prisoner brought out of the court by the
police ; that after seeing Maloney commit this mur-
der he remained at the end of the court until he
was so brought out, when i❑ truth he had been in
Mrs Crowe's shop some minutes when he was brought
out. Permit me to call your attention, particularly
to the circumstances that occurred at Mrs. Crowe's.
A little girl named Scott ran into her shop at a few
minutes past 12, and explained that a woman had
cut her throat in Legg-court ; immediately upon
which Saunders enters the Shop, complains of being
very tired, sits down and calls for a pennyworth of
pudding, remains there until he has talked about
family matters and Maloney is brought out, and
afterwards swears that he went into no refresh-
ment-house, but remained at the top of the court.
Surely this shows him unworthy of credit.
Mr. Arnold—What do you allege as the first
assignment of perjury ?
Mr. Hutchinson—The first part is to negative
his being near the spot at all.
Mr. Arnold—According to your own showing he
was within a 150 yards of Legg-court when at the
shop of Mrs. Crowe ; her evidence would set him
up and show that he must have been close to it.
Mr, Hutchinson—Not at the time Maloney was
brought out by the police, which he swore.
Mr. Arnold—But he might have been when the
alleged fatal blow was struck.
Mr. Hutchinson—We deny that he saw any such
blow struck, or that it ever was struck. We can
show by the most abundant testimony that Saun-
ders could not have been in Legg-court at all ; he
must have been seen had he been there.

M. r. Arnold—That is very negative evidence; the
testimony of Mrs. Crowe would go to prove that he
was about the•spot, and the evidence of the wit-
nesses taken before me shows that there were a great
many people about.
Mr. Hutchinson—Not at first, I think; not till
after the policeman went down the court.
Mr. Arnold—l understand there were two wit-
nesses called upon the trial who swore they saw
him go down the court.
Mr. Hutchinson—There was a woman who swore
she lived opposite the court in Peter-street, and was
looking out of the window when she saw a man go
down with a black felt hat on, whereas Saunders
wore a brown straw one ; that she did not see his
face, and did not see him come back out of the
court. She was asked if she could point him out,
d did without seeing his back, but at time the
matv.9r had been so canvassed, and he had been
brougix; backward and forward by the police that
every on, in the neighbourhood knew him. She had
caught but ).7. casual glimpse of him.
mr. Hampl,:reys, an inspector 9f the B division,
the officer en i jed n. the case, and the chief
clerk of the court,
ccplamed that the woman had
identified the man,;
unders, and had sworn at
S .
the trial that she distill: ctly saw his profile each
e saw Saunders there
way on the day the woman
died. The conduct of
the other woman who swore Ea:
was most extraordinary. She 81lid she was passing
the court, saw him there, and heai:d,
him say there
was murder being done ; but did not
attend befor. e
the coroner's jury to give that evidenCe
c;
before
e
not come to that court to give her evevidentshe did
the magistrate, but made her appearance tie verY
day before the trial at the police-station, after a :lum-
ber of examinations, and the matter had gone the
round of the newspapers, to say she saw Saunders
;,n the court. I have every reason to believe
ithat
there two women are mistaken in Saunders'den-
tity. Jam told that there is a man for whom
he has bon taken, so much like him that if he were
placed in a corner amongst others, he would be
picked out for him:
Mr. Arnold—lt comes to this, that two women
swear, to the best of their belief, Saunders was in
the court, and those whom you would call would
swear to the best of their belief that he was not .
how could you expect that upon such a conflict of
testimony any one would be convicted of perjury.
Mr. Hutchinson—l have not only the evidence of
four or five other respectable persons, but that of
Mr. Howe, the grocer opposite the end Of the court,
who, standing there transacting business with a
gentleman, must most unquestionably have seen
Saunders had he been there.

Mr. Arnold—A man who was standing at his
'nor talking to another on business is not likely to
-,rnisance of any person who passed.
• -hinson--Sounders is so very peculiar
in his appearance that any lady

take e,,,

Mr. Mu._
and conspicuoub
must have remarked
80, anything so remarkable
Mr. Arnold—l do not s
unless attention was
or conspicuous in the man,
prrticularly called to him. for 41:1
Ilutchinm—A io lairooo4o