The Press. — 1857-06-27 (London, England)

THE DUBLIN MURDER.  OUR readers can scarcely have forgotten the discussion in our columns of the atrocious Broadstairs murder, at Dublin, of Mr. LITTLE, the unfortunate cashier. We took special means for secaring particular information on that occasion, and the result of our inquiries was that gross mismanagement had been shown by the official authorities at Dublin, and that the close inquiry had aided in the concealment of the murderer, who, in our belief, was connected in some way with the railway. We showed, also, that the Dublin journals had not been well treated by the authorities, while knowledge of particular facts was allowed to circulate freely in certain families; and we strongly dwelt on the danger resulting from the lamentable impunity given to daring criminality. The cruel injury done to the private characters of several innocent persons we also dwelt upon, and we carefully closed our columns against certain unworthy suggestions of a sectarian character, which seemed to us made with more zeal than discretion. We intimated strongly our opinion that the whole inquiry was much mismanaged, and we have now additional reasons for entertaining that conviction. Without discussing the case against the person or persons now accused, we may call attention to some apparent cases of neglect of search. One of the places where the missing money has been found "is situ" aced at the western side of the cattle plat" form, adjoining the boundary wall of the " North Dublin Union Workhouse grounds." It is a house of office ; and, recollecting the wild and desperate characters that are too often to be found in a workhouse, we may express our surprise tbat the place in question had never been searched. Every place of that sort in the immediate locality of the railway should have been carefully examined, it' not for the money, at least for some of the weapons or incidental accessories employed in the atrocious deed. Again, it is asserted that " a statement made by " SPOLLEN (the accused) as to his whereabouts " on the night of the murder was accepted as " true by the police, because it was corroborated by the wife before she had any means "of communicating with him. These state" ments agreeing satisfied the police." How could the police have known whether there had not been a previous agreement as to what story should be told? Agreements in such cases are often extremely indicative of artifice. It is stated also that " early iu November"— the murder was on the 13th—" the accused " was employed in painting portions of the " interior of the building, and, according to " sonic, upon the day itself, or on the one pre" ceding the murder, was engaged in some " painting-work in the room of the deceased " gentleman." We have asked previously in these columns—" Why were the counter and " railing of defence, put up by Mr. Little, " removed from the room Why were the fixtures " dismantled? And on whose authority was that " dilapidation of the apartment caused ? And what " possible good was to be expected from the removal  SATUIiDAY,  "of those objects !" These were questions which we know were eagerly asked by learned persons profoundly experienced in the practice of the criminal law. We now forbear to put certain questions as to those fixtures, which may be of immense importance in a judicial inquiry. In our former comments we reminded our readers that Lord Chancellor BRADY had never been eminent as a practitioner in criminal law, that Mr. AttorneyGeneral PITZGERALP excelled chiefly at Nisi Pries; that Mr. CHRISTIAN, the Solicitor-General, was a leading equity lawyer, not versed in criminal practice. We strongly urged that there should be an " open inquiry," and that Government shoulJ aid the Crown lawyers with the help of Mr. BREWSTER, or Mr. NAPIER, or Mr. WHITESIDE, or Mr. M`DoNoon, or Mr. Burr. With the last news from Dublin before us, we see more reasons than one for believing that there was miscarriage of justice in the previous inquiry. Against the person now accused we say nothing, but enough has transpired (without discussing the guilt or innocence of SPOLLEN) to warrant us in charging the authorities with mismanagement of the investigation in November.