The Sun. — 1863-02-16 (London, England)

THE MURDER AT ACTON.  On Saturday afternoon the prisoners, Joseph Brooks and Isaac Brooks, underwent a further examination before Mr. Dayman, at the Hammersmith Police-court, on the charge of shooting Police-constable Davey, at Acton, on the night of Monday, the 19th ul:. On this occasion the witness Jane Lake, the afaPnced of Joseph, was placed in the dock by the side of Isaac, charged with being an accessory after the fact, as she had stated to a female named Walter that she had destroyed Joseph's hat. Mr. Treherne again conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Haynes appeared for all !he prisoners. Three witnesses were first called to prove hearing the report of fire-arms, and to going to Petherton Villa almost immediately afterwards; but they did not see any person running away. _ _ .  Inspector Searle added to his former evidence that at the time he apprehended the male prisoners, and after they (the police) had been to see Jane Lake with reference to the gun, Isaac's wife said, " She has sold us." Mr. Haynes was about to question the inspector as to the taking of Lake into custody, upon which Mr. Dayman said it was by his authority she was apprehended ; at least, certain circumstances having been mentioned to him, he thought they were sufficient for her to be taken into custody.  Mr. Haynes submitted whether it was fair to the prisoner to place her in the dock after having:extorted evidence from her against the prisoner Joseph. Mr. Dayman said certain evidence came to the knowledge of the police after she had given her evidence, and that that was the reason why he thought they would be justified in taking her. _ _  Mr. Haynes said that if her evidence was to be believed, Isaac could not be implicated in the murder. Mr. Dayman then said that if the prosecution proceeded against Jane Lake, all the evidence she had given would be struck out. It was not usual in these days to proceed again;, persons for being accessories after the fact. and he had no doubt that if an application were made to the Court they would try her separately, and then Mr. Haynes could call her as a witness for the prisoner Isaac. The evidence of the two females, Walter and Powell, against the female prisoner was read over at the request of Mr. Haynes, after which they were cross-examined, and they denied that there had been any previous arrangement between them to entrap the girl.  The female prisoner, who is described as being only 17 years of age, conducted herself with great levity, and appeared far more happy in the dock than she did when in the witness-box.  Fanny Lake, a young girl, the sister of the prisoner, was next examined, and she stated that she lived at home with her parents at No. 6, Chapel-place, Back-common, Turnham-green. She remembered the prisoners being apprehended. Two or three days afterwards she saw her sister cutting up something. She thought it aas a hat. It was not a high hat, but a round one. _  A deer-stalking hat was placed before her, and she was asked whether it was like the one her sister had, but she could not say. .  The witness also said it was cut like in half. She thought her sister burnt it. She saw her put it on the fire. She did not tell witness whose hat it was. She said nothing about the hat, nor did witness. It was daylight when she did it. Mr. Haynes thought there was not a tittle of evidence against her to send her for trial, and she was entitled to be discharged. The only evidence against her was some loose kind of conversation to two women.  Mr. Dayman could not say there was no evidence, for if the witness Walter was to be believed, there was the prisoner's statement with regard to the hat. He would not express any opinion as to what ought to be done, but would leave it to the discretion of those who were conducting the case. She had destroyed something which might have been serious evidence as against one of the prisoners. He should send her for trial with the other prisoners.  The depositions of those witnesses who were present were read over and signed, and the prisoners were formally remanded for the attendance of the remainder, including the wife of the deceased. The court was again crowded in every part.