The Sun. — 1850-08-20 (London, England)

GUILDHALL.  Yesterday Wm. Rourke, who wcs charged about a week back with being concerned with others in the murder of a Mrs. Hourigan and her son, at a place near Bruff, in the county of Limerick, about three years ago, and discharged for want of sufficient evidence to convict, was again placed at the bar before Alderman Kelly on the same charge,' having been again apprehended in accordance with the wishes of the Irish authorities, who were apparently ignorant that he had been discharged.  The Chief Clerk, after reading over the depositions taken on several previous examinations, informed the worthy Alderman that the prisoner at the bar had been apprehended in consequence of certain information obtained from the police at Bruff. He had undergone several examinations, and was at length discharged by Alderman Finnic, who complained very much of the gross neglect displayed by the Irish authorities to the requirements of this Court in the prisoner's case. Information had been sent to the inspector of police at Bruff, who shortly after sent a very cool reply, furnishing no further particulars concerning the murder, but merely stating that he had referred the communication of this Court to the superintendent. No further answer was returned, and the prisoner was kept in confinement, awaiting the pleasure, or leisure, of the superintendent of police at Bruff. A communication was made on the Bth of the present month to the head of the constabulary at Dublin, but no answer was returned. On the direction of Alderman Firmis a subsequent communication was made on the 14th, laying the whole of the particulars connected with the case before the Court, and the great neglect of the authorities in Ireland, before the Secretary of State, who communicated forth with with the Irish authorities. In consequence of this a letter was received on the 17th, dated the 16th (eight days after the official letter from this Court), requesting the magistrate to hold Rourke in custody, as they had every reason to believe that he was one of the parties implicated in the murders of the Hourigans. Alderman KELLY said, under these circumstances, and seeing from the evidence that the prisoner must have been in London at the time the murder was committed, he thought there could be no plausible pretext for detaining him longer in custody. If it were true, as had been sworn by several witnesses, and he had no reason to doubt it, that prisoner had been at work in London every day from the 3d of March, 1847, to the 26th of March of the same year, it was quite plain that he could not be concerned in a murder which took place in Ireland about the middle of that period. The Chief Clerk said that the communication received from Dublin Castle on the 17th stated that an officer would be dispatched to London to take the prisoner over to Ireland, but no officer had as yet arrived.  Alderman KELLY said it would not be right to keep the prisoner longer incarcerated, when there IN as not a tittle of evidence against him. The officer here said he believed that the prisoner, if set at liberty, would be forthcoming at any time when called on, as he had frequently expressed his willingness to appear, for the purpose of establishing his own innocence.  Alderman KELLY said it certainly Appeared to him a mark of innocence on the Ka or thp uy Ultill sum 11 Diunuetlug lutuincr war. /IC should nut feel justified in keeping him from his work, and would therefore discharge him at once. The prisoner wa* then discharged.