The inquest on the horrible Islington murder has produced no
fresh evidence against the lad charged with it, William Henry Clarke, and we almost wonder that the Clerkenwell magistrate, Mr. Barker, granted the remand. The only evidence against him is the peculiar pork-pie hat with ribbons to which both his master and the sister of the murdered child swear ;—for the rest the evidence of the sister is entirely favourable to the prisoner, as she thinks that the man who led the child away in the dark was as old as her father. If Mr. Rowe's evidence is trustworthy Clarke was guilty of an intent to assault a chihl indecently previously to this murder, which was confessed, it is said, to his master,—but no crime was committed. He was also, Mr. Rowe (or Roe) says, guilty of embezzlement subsequently, for which he was dismissed. But a mystery hangs over Mr. Rowe's name and previous occupations which rather tends to invalidate his evidence, and there is no other. The lad's mother says he spent the night of the murder at home.