The Sun. — 1862-07-29 (London, England)

THE ROYDEN HALL MURDER. The public will remember that a barbarous murder was committed on the night of the 22d of January last at Royden Hall, the residence of Major Cook, one of his keepers, named James Grey, having been deliberately shot dead by one of a gang of poachers, eight er nine in number, and two prisoners, named Alfred Burr Luck and Stephen Eversfield, stand committed to take their trial for the murder at the present assizes. It appears that although it was known at the time that there were at least seven or eight, if not more, persons concerned in the outrage, the whole of them contrived to keep out of the way, but in consequence of information that was received on Tuesday evening by Superintendent Hulse, a very active and useful officer belonging to the Kent constabulary stationed at Mailing, about six miles from Royden Hall, he started at a late hour, accompanied by some of his constables, for the purpose of apprehending several men, who there seems to be very little doubt were part of the gang of poachers by whom the murder was committed, and all of whom have the character of being notorious poachers. After one of the prisoners, who goes by the name of " Happy Jack," had been secured, the officer told him that the charge he had to make against him was that of being concerned in the Royden Hall affair. The reply he made was that he was not surprised at it, and had expected that the police would have been after him before. He then voluntarily made a statement to the effect that the gang of poachers consisted of nine persons, but that they were not all provided with guns. He said that after they had been in the wood some time they were met by the keeper, Grey, who was shot, and seven or eight other men, and a scuffle immediately took place, and he saw him shot and fall to the ground. He then gave further information upon the subject of the murder, but declared that Eversfield, one of the men now under charge, was not with the party. The other prisoners who had been taken were confronted with this man, and he repeated the statement he had previously made in their presence, and it appears that several of them admitted they were there, but denied that either had fired the gun. In consequence of this important discovery it was expected that the trial of the two prisoners who are in custody would not take place at the present assizes, and that one, if not more, of tne prisoners, who have since been apprehended, will be admitted as witnesses for the Crown. In the course of the day Mr. F. Russell, who was instructed to conduct the prosecution, made an application to the Court to postpone the trial of the two prisoners now under charge in the gaol to the next assizes, and he did so upon an affidavit which embodied the above facts. He also applied that the recognisances of all the witnesses might be respited, and that no bill should be preferred before the grand jury at the present assizes, as he said that the interests of justice were much more likely to be carried out by all the parties being tried together, when the whole of the facts would be laid before the jury. The learned counsel added, that from certain fresh facts that had come to the knowledge of the prosecution, he should not object to ore of the prisoners (Eversfield) being admitted to bail. Mr. Ribton and Mr. Francis, who were instructed to defend the prisoners, opposed the application, and said they Were most anxious to take their trial. They added that it would be a great injustice to keep them for several months with such a serious charge hanging over them. Mr. Baron Bramwell said he fully felt the force of the argument used by the learned counsel, and he should be most unwilling to detain the prisoners in custody, if elicit a course could be taken without detriment to the interests of justice. He would, however, coneult Mr. Baron Martin on the subject. His lordship accordingly left the court for that purpose, end on his return he said that his learned brother was of ophtion that, under the circumstances, he had no alternative but to grant the application that had been made by Mr. Russell, and postpone the trial of the two prisoners who were already committed. He added that if the counsel. for the prosecution, from his knowledge of the facts, consented to Eversfield being admitted to bail, the Court would not object to sanction the proceeding, although, tndoubtedly, in cases of murder bail was very rarely taken.