Suspicion fell upon some young men in the neighbourhood—the brothers Habron. The police, when once they have fixed their minds upon any theory as to the guilt of a person or persons, cling to it with the utmost pertinacity.
The Habrons were aroused from their beds on the fatal night, soon after the commission of the crime of murder.
They slept in a cottage or shed which stood on the grounds, where they worked as gardeners or agricultural labourers, the brothers being in the service of a Mr. Deakin.
William Habron, it was suggested, had threatened to shoot Policeman Cock if he did anything to either him or his brothers; and it was moreover alleged that he had on many occasions displayed great animosity towards the deceased. So the police were under the impression that he was the guilty person.
The trial took place in August, 1876.
The principal, perhaps the only, points condemnatory of William Habron when tried were—firstly, his threats uttered against the unfortunate officer; secondly, his going to the shop of Mr. Moore in order to ask the price of a revolver, and of some ball cartridges; thirdly, that a man wearing a certain shaped coat and hat, similar to those worn by Habron, was seen by two persons near the scene of the murder; and, lastly, the footprint which corresponded with Habron’s left boot.
These facts, though circumstantially bearing upon the case in the eyes and minds of the police authorities—eyes that were absolutely prepared, before a single examination took place, to look upon the brothers Habron as the guilty parties—were still too flimsy to any unprejudiced mind to form any solid foundation for placing a man’s life in jeopardy, unless well supported by far more grave and weighty evidence.
Indeed, Mr. Justice Lopes, in his charge to the grand jury, pointed out that no firearms had been found in possession of the prisoners, that there was no evidence against John Habron at all, and the only evidence that could be adduced against William was that of wearing a dress similar to that seen, on a dark night, by some persons near the spot, his having used threats, the footprints, and his inquiry for cartridges which he did not purchase.
Mr. Justice Lopes would evidently have not been astonished had the grand jury ignored the bill.
Before commenting on the evidence brought forward under the supervision of Superintendent Bent, it would be just as well to mention one important speech of that officer’s, which forms a key at once to his whole working of the case.