The Sun. — 1850-08-15 (London, England)

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDHALL. .Rourke was again brought up and placed at the bar before Mr. Alderman Finnic, charged with being concerned with others in the murder of a man named Hourigan, at a place near Bluff, in the county of Limerick, about three years ago. The officer Webb stated that information had been forwarded to the head of the constabulary at Bruff, relative to the detention of the prisoner on the above charge, and requesting an answer, stating the circumstances of the murder and a description of the parties concerned, together with uny further information they might be in possession of. To which was received a very vague reply from the sub-inspector, saying he bad referred it to the Inspector-General. A tubstquent communication had been made by this court, at the suggestion of the Alderman, to the Inspector-General in Dublin, but no answer had yet arrived from that quarter. Alderman FINNIS said it was very extraordinary conduct on the part of the authorities in Ireland to take no notice of the communication from this court, although a whole week had elapsed since it was made. Here was a man detained in custody on suspicion of being concerned in a murder that was committed some time ago in Ireland, and the authorities there, who were in possession of information relative to it, show very little inclination to bring the offenders to justice, and do not even appear to trouble themselves to return an answer when written to for information respecting such a serious charge. Mr. Beard (from Mr. Buchanan's office) appeared and conducted the defence on behalf of the prisoner. He said he hoped the worthy Alderman would not remand the prisoner again, the silence of the authorities in Ireland was sufficient to show that there was nothing on which the charge could be longer maintained. In addition to that he would show, if the Alderman would allow him, that prisoner was at work during the time the murder was committed, in London ; and, in order to lay before the Court such evidence as would justify the Alderman in discharging the prisoner, he would call his witnesses. Alderman FINNIS said he thought he could not do otherwise than remand the prisoner till some kind of an answer could be obtained from Ireland. He was loath to take upon himself to discharge the prisoner under the suspicious circumstances he had appeared b3fore in this court. Had the prisoner given a correct address in the first instance, instead of prevaricating in the way he had done, or had his wife given up the letter to,the officer on his demanding it, instead of destroyingit, the difficulty would not have been so great. But, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he feared ne should not be doing his duty were he to discharge the prisoner; he would, however, hear any evidence Mr. Beard might be able to lay before him in favour of the prisoner. Mr. Beard then called and examined—  William Flynn, who stated he was working in the next gang to that in which prisoner belonged, in the month of April, 1847, on the railway works in the Vauxhall-road. Prisoner was at work there for some months before and after April, and was never absent a day during that time. Witness had to book the men's time, and could swear prisoner was never absent at the time the murder was said to be committed.  Thomas Rine worked with the prisoner from the 3d of March, 1847, to the 25th of the following May. Patrick Murrigan knew the prisoner in 1847. He (witness) went to Ireland a few days before the murder was committed, leaving the prisoner in England, and returned soon after. _ _ _  Michael Kinnealy said he was in London on the sth of April, 1847, and prisoner dined with him on that day, and gave him a sovereign to send to hie (prisoner's) mother, who lived in Ireland in great distress. Witness saw prisoner on the 6th, the day on which the murder was committed, at work in the Vauxhall-road. Alderman Firms said he would have liked to have had the answer of the Inspector-General before dis, missing the case, but as the evidence seemed to prove so fully that the prisoner was in London at the time the outrage took place, he would discharge him, but, at the same time, he would like to have some security that the prisoner would appear when called to answer the charge, should any more evidence, arrive to strengthen the suspicion already attached to him.  Cllr. Beard said he could assure the Alderman that the prisoner should be forthcoming when required. He was perfectly innocent of the charge. SO