The Sun. — 1857-12-11 (London, England)

THE BRAMHALL MURDER.  The following evidence was taken yesterday after the despatch of our parcel Mr. Cooke, land agent to Colonel Davenport, deposed that in October, 1856, at the request of the prisoner, he met him at his father's farm. The deceased was absent in Scotland at the time, and the conversation was with respect to the prisoner and his brother managing the farm, because the prisoner alleged his father's eyesight was so bad. Mr. Thomas Smith, one of the firm of Messrs. Sanders and Smith, cornfactors, Manchester.—The prisoner was cashier to the firm. On the 30th of September last the prisoner called on witness, and he detailed a conversation which he had had with the prisoner on that occasion. In the course of the conversation the prisoner stated that the house had been broken into and robbed, and that his father had been shot, Witness then drove the prisoner down to the nearest police station, where the prisoner gave information of the robb3ry. Mr. Edward Jones, agent to the Central Loan Association, deposed that in May, 1854, the deceased made an application for 1,0001., and obtained it, 9001. of which he paid off. Witness saw the deceased last in September. His mind was then as vigorous as it always appeared to have been. John Foote said he left the service of deceased the Saturday before he was killed. He remembered leaving a broken brace behind him. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Sergeant Parry then commenced his speech for the defence, which occupied 4 hours in delivery. He commented upon the principal points in the case, impressing upon the minds of the jury the fact that they were not called upon to say who had committed the murder, but whether the prisoner did it ; and he felt confident that though the whole case wasenveloped in mystery, yet they would come to the conclusion that the prisoner had not been proved guilty of the deed. The court rose at eight o'clock. This morning Mr. Baron Channell took his scat in court at ten o'clock, and immediately commenced to sum up the evidence produced during the two previous days. He said that the prisoner was charged with the wilful murder of his father, and he thought the mention of that fact would be sufficient to bespeak the patient attention cf the jury to the remarks which he was about to make. The evidence upon which the prosecution asked for a verdict was circumstantial ; it was not evidence derived from personal observation ; and in cases of a similar description it was rare that a human eye witnessed the transaction, save he wbo committed it, and sometimes the victim himself. Tho deceased in the present instance had 'been shot while asleep, and thus sent suddenly to his great account. Although the evidence was circumstantial as contradistinguished from direct, yet the law al!owed juries to act upon it, because the security of life and property demanded that such cases as the present should be investigated, and if a chain of circumstances, clearly and distinctly deposed to by witnesses on their oath, could lead to no other cooelusion than the guilt of the prisoner, then the jury must act upon it accordingly. His lordship then said he would not read the whole of the evidence, but only such parts of it as he thought important in the matter. The learned Judge then proceeded to comment on the statement made by the prisoner on the day the murder was .com witted, and also upon the evidence which had been laid before the jury. His lordship was three hours summing up. The jury, after deliberating two boars, brought in a verdict of not guilty, which was received in court with loud applause, the prisoner waving his cap.