The Barrow Herald and Furness Advertiser. — 1866-06-16 (Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, England)

THE CANNON-STREET MURDER.—The sittings of the Central Criminal Court were resumed. on Monday morning before the Lord Mayor, the recorder, Alderman Sir J. Duke, Alderman Sir F. G. Moon, Alderman Sir R. Carden, and Alderman Dal:in, the sheriffs, under sheriffs, &c.—The Recorder, if: his charge to the grand jury, expressed his regret that the calendar was not only unusually heavy with regard to the number, but also as regarded the character and nature of the offences with which the prisoners were charged. The first case to which he must call the attention of the grand jury was that Of William Smith, who was charged with the offence of the wilful murder of a woman who had lived as housekeeper in the service of Messrs. Bevington, in Cannonstreet, City, on the night of the 11th of April last. After recapitulatine the circumstances of the murder, which are already well known, the learned liecorder observed that to connect the prisoner with the offence, the evidence which would be submitted to them would be directed to the points. It seemed that after the murder had been committed there had been found in a box belonging to the deceased a letter which had been ascertained to be in the handwriting of the prisoner, demanding money from the deceased Mrs. Millson, in payment of a loan which had been advanced to her by a person named Terry, who would be called as a witness, and who would prove that he saw the prisoner go to the house of Messrs. Bevington and deliver the letter. After this the prisoner joined Terry, who inquired what amount of money he had received, when the prison & handed him 13s. or 145., of which Terry returned him ss. for his trouble, but it had since been ascertained tlrat the prisoner had on that occasion 'received £2 or £2 10s. The next piece of evidence would be that of a person who would prove that , on the 11th of April he saw the prisoner at Eton, and he told him he was goinc, to London and back that night, and that he could not stay to play a game of dominoes with him. It would also be proved that the n ir soner was seen proceeding from Eton to the Slough station in time to catch the train, which reached London about half-past eight o'clock p.m., and other evidence would show that on the same night the prisoner was seen about twelve o'clock returning from the Windsor station in the direction of Eton, so that it seemed the [prisoner had probably travelled the distance he had stated. The next piece of evidence was that of a female living in service a few doors from the house of Messrs. Bevington, and who would proie tnat she was ringing for admission into her master's house she had her . attention attracted by the violent slamming of the front door of Messrs. Bevington's at ten minutes after ten on the night of the murder. ..Thus attracted, she saw a man leave Messrs. IBevington's premises and run away at a rapid pace, a circumstance witness mentioned to her fellow servant on being admitted by her. The witness, on a subsequent day picked out from a body of twenty men assembled at the police, station the prisoner as the man whom she had seen leave the premises of Messrs. Bevington on the night in question. If the grand jury entertained any doubt on this evidence, it would. be better to throw out the bill, the more particularly as the prisoner could be again brought to trial if additional evidence should at any future time be . discovered against him. which could not be the case if he were tried: and acquitted on the charge as it stood, for no man can be put twice in jeopardy on the same charge.  A