acquitted.

The case against William Habron depended to a great extent on the
fact that he, as well as his brother, had been heard to threaten
to "do for" the murdered man, to shoot the "little bobby." Cock
was a zealous young officer of twenty-three years of age, rather
too eager perhaps in the discharge of his duty. In July of 1876
he had taken out summonses against John and William Habron, young
fellows who had been several years in the employment of a
nurseryman in Whalley Range, for being drunk and disorderly. On
July 27 William was fined five shillings, and on August 1, the
day of Cock's murder, John had been fined half a sovereign.
Between these two dates the Habrons had been heard to threaten to
"do for" Cock if he were not more careful. Other facts relied
upon by the prosecution were that William Habron had inquired
from a gunsmith the price of some cartridges a day or two before
the murder; that two cartridge percussion caps had been found in
the pocket of a waistcoat given to William Habron by his
employer, who swore that they could not have been there while it
was in his possession; that the other constable on duty with Cock
stated that a man he had seen lurking near the house about twelve
o'clock on the night of the murder appeared to be William
Habron's age, height and complexion, and resembled him in general
appearance; and that the boot on Habron's left foot, which was
"wet and sludgy" at the time of his arrest, corresponded in
certain respects with the footprints of the murderer. The
prisoner did not help himself by an ineffective attempt to prove
an alibi. The Judge was clearly not impressed by the strength of
the case for the prosecution. He pointed out to the jury that
neither the evidence of identification nor that of the footprint