The Sun. — 1845-03-22 (London, England)

THE SALT-HILL MURDER.  It may be remembered that a man named Wilder was tried and convicted at the Aylesbury assizes, and sentenced to fifteen years' transportation for a robbery committed at the residence of the Rev. Mr. Luxmore, with whom the prisoner lived as butler, at Eton College. During the incarceration of John Tawell at Aylesbury gaol, Wilder and he were cc nfined in the same ward, and a sort of fellow feeling sprung up between them Tawell, it appealing, being equally certain that Wilder also would be acquitted. Tawell, who had taken a fancy to Wilder, absolutely engaged him as his servant, at a certain rate of wages, to live with him at Berkhampstead, and it was arranged that at the conclusion of the trials they should return to his residence in that  town together. Wilder was first tried, and when his conviction was announced to Tawell he remarked, with evident feelings of alarm and dismay, which he attempted to conceal, " Well, it's very extraordinary; I hardly know what to think of a Buckinghamshire jury after this!" When Wilder returned to Tawell, at the prison, the latter very coolly obt-ervtd to him, " Well, be of good heart; ytu will find Sydney a very plesant place, and I have no doubt, after a little.time you will manage very well, as I did." We have heard that at almost the last moment it could be legally done, the miserable' man, as some atonement for his horrid crime, settled an annuity of 201. a year upon each of the two children, the issue of his connexion with the murdered woman, secured, in the names of  trustees on his property in Australia. It has been stated that the expenses of the defence of the prisoner amounted to 7001. This amount only embraced one portion of the expenses incurred on his behalf. We have heard from one of the parties retained by Tawell that they will fall, on the whole, very little short of 2,0001. Independently of his counsel, Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. O'Malley, and Mr. Gunning (whose fees were exceedingly liberal), he had three solicitors—viz., Mr. Bevan, of the Old Jewry ; Mr. King, selected for his extensive chemical knowledge ; and Mr. C. S. Voules, of Windsor, who was retained on account of the local knowledge he possessed of the neighbourhood in which the foul crime was perpetrated.  Not less than eight of the most celebrated medical practitioners and operative chemists were subpcenL,,ed on behalf of the prisoner to attend the trial, none of whom, however, were examined. We learn that these gentlemen were summoned to be present to be examined in the event of the medical gentlemen, who attendod for the Crown, failing in those direct proofs with reference to the presence of hydrocyanic acid in the contents of the stomach of the deceased, so necessary to establish the guilt of the accused. The proofs in this respect being deemed to be too conclusive to rebut with the least chance of success, they were not examined. The names of those gentlemen are—Dr. Letheby, lecturer on chemistry at the London Hospital, who rendered great assistance to Mr. Fitzroy Kelly (sitting by his side) during his cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution ; Dr. Addison, physician to Guy's Hospital ; Mr. Bransby Cooper, surgeon to Guy's Hospital ; Mr. Ilerapath, of Bristol : Dr. Stour, Dr. Barnes, and Mr. Bell, of London ; and Dr. Graham, professor of chemistry. The execution is fully expected to take place on Friday next.