Full text of "Trial of Franz Muller"

See other formats

Iff)

Iflotable £ngltsb flrtate

Franz Muller

NOTABLE
ENGLISH TRIALS.

The Stauntons. Edited by J. B.
Allay, M.A., Barrister-at-Law.

Franz Muller. Edited by H. B.
Irving, M.A.(Oxon).

Lord Lovat. Edited by David N.
Mackay, Solicitor.

William Palmer. Edited by
Geo. H. Knott, Barrister-at-Law.

The Annesley Case. Edited by
Andrew Lang.

Dr. Lams on. Edited by H. L.
Adam.

Mrs. Maybricfc. Edited by H. B.
Irving, M.A.(Oxon).

Lord Chief Baron Pollock
(From a Photograph by Maull & Fox, London).

Trial of

Franz Muller

Edited by

H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon)

Author of "The Life of Judge Jeffreys," "French Criminals of the
Nineteenth Century," "Occasional Papers"

EDINBURGH AND LONDON

WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY

PRINTED BY

WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY

GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH

1911

TO THE BIGHT HONOURABLE

THE EARL OF HALSBURY,

SOME TIME LORD CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND,

THE ONLY SITRVIVOR, AND THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS

OF THE MANY DISTINGUISHED LAWYERS

WHO TOOK PART IN THIS TRIAL,

THIS VOLUME IS

BY KIND PERMISSION

RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED

BY
THE EDITOR.

PREFACE.

THE present report of the trial of Franz Muller is taken from
that published in the Daily Telegraph, which has been care-
fully collated with the report of the evidence as given in the
" Central Criminal Court Sessions Paper," vol. lix., part 360.

There is a fairly full report of the trial, and the summing
up of the Lord Chief Baron in the " Annual Register " for 1864,
vol. cvi. References to Miiller's case will be found in Major
Arthur Griffiths' " Chronicles in Newgate," vol. ii., pp. 417
and 448, and " Mysteries of Police and Crime," vol. i., p. 402.
The murder of Mr. Briggs and other railway outrages are
dealt with in volume ii., chapter 25, of Pendleton's "Our
Railways " (1896). There is an account of Muller in a
little volume, " Celebrated Crimes and Criminals," published
in 1890, under the signature "W. M." I am at liberty to
divulge the fact that " W. M." is my friend Mr. Willoughby
Maycock, C.M.G., and to his kindness I owe the copy of the
correspondence given in Appendix IV. relating to Miiller's
confession on the scaffold.

I am indebted to the courtesy of friends in preparing the
illustrations for this volume; to Mr. Ernest Pollock, K.C.,
M.P., for helping me to obtain a photograph of Chief Baron
Pollock; to the Hon. Malcolm Nacnaghten, who kindly got
me Lord Macnaghten's permission to have the portrait of
Baron Martin photographed for this volume ; to Judge Parry
for lending me a photograph of his father; and to Mr. Hairy
Furniss for his sketch of the " Muller hat." I would thank,
too, the Hon. John Collier for his courtesy in allowing me the
use of a photograph of his father, Lord Monkswell, for repro-
duction, and Professor Harvey Littlejohn, of Edinburgh, who
has permitted the reproduction of the police bill for the
apprehension of Lefroy.

The account of Dickman's trial has been taken from the
Newcastle Daily Chronicle reports of the various proceedings
in the case.

PREFACE.

If justification were needed for the publication of the reports
of these famous trials it would be found in the words of
Edmund Burke, quoted by George Borrow, in the edition of
" Celebrated Trials," of which he was the author. But,
apart from their historical or psychological interest, to which
Burke does ample justice, the full and accurate reports of great
criminal trials must be of some practical value to any student
who would acquaint himself with actual examples of forensic
eloquence, the examination and cross-examination of witnesses,
the conduct of a case, the function of judge and counsel, and
the administration of our criminal law. H. B. I.

LONDON, May, 1911.

CONTENTS.

Introduction, -
Table of Dates,

The Trial—

FIRST DAY— THURSDAY, 2?TH OCTOBER, 1864.

PAGE

xiii
xlvii

The Solicitor-General's Opening

Speech, ....

Evidence

for the Prosecution.

David Buchan, -

George Greenwood, -

- 26

Mrs. Buchan, -

Lewis Lambert,

- 26

T. Fishbourne, -

Walter Kerressey, -

- 26

Henry Vernez, -

Dr. Henry Letheby,

- 28

Sydney Jones, -

John Death,

Benjamin Ames,

Mrs. Blyth,

William Timms,

George Blyth, -

Alfred Ekin, - - :

Mrs. Repsch, -

Edward Dougan, ...

Godfrey F. Repsch, -

- 39

Dr. Francis Toulmin,

John Haifa,

- 40

Dr. Alfred H. Brereton, -

George Death, -

- 42

Dr. Vincent M. Cooper, -

SECOND DAY — FRIDAY, 28iH OCTOBER, 1864.
Evidence for the Prosecution (continued}.

John Henry Glass, 44

Henry Smith, ... 45

Alfred Wey, ... 45

Charles Young, - 45

Jonathan Matthews, - - 45

Mrs. Matthews, 60
Godfrey F. Repsch (recalled), - 62

Mrs. Repsch (recalled), - - 62

Joseph Hennaquart, 62

Edward Watson, - - 63

Thomas H. Walker,- - - 63

W. H. Tiddy, - 64

James Gifford, - - 64

Jacob Weist, - - 65

George Clarke, - 66, 69

Inspector Tanner, - 67, 72

Thomas J. Briggs, 70

Samuel Tidmarsh, 70

Daniel Digance, 70

Frederick W. Thorn, - - 72

Mrs. Blyth (recalled), - 72

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Speech for the Defence,

CONTENTS.

THIKD DAY— SATURDAY, 29-ra OCTOBBB, 1864.
Evidence for the Defence.

PAGE

Thomas Lee, .... 95

George Byers, 99

William Lee, ... - 99

Alfred C. Woodward, - - 100

Mrs. Jones, .... 101

Mary Ann Eldred, - - - 106

Thomas Beard, - - - - 108

Charles Foreman, - - - 109

The Solicitor-General's Reply, ... 110

The Judge's Summing-up, - - * 131

The Verdict, - 145

The Sentence, 145

APPENDICES.

I. Extradition Proceedings at New York, 151

II. Memorial presented by the German Legal Protection Society, - 161

III. An Account of the Execution of Miiller, 169

IV. Correspondence relating to Miiller's Confession on the Scaffold, - 179
V. Short Account of the Judges and Counsel engaged in the case, - 188

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Lord Chief Baron Pollock, Frontispiece

X" A " Muller " Hat, - - facing page xvi

Handbill in Lefroy Case, ... - ,, xxxii

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, » 16

Mr. James Hannen, ,,

Sir R. P. Collier, - - „ 109

Mr. Hardinge Giffard, - „ 64

Mr. Serjeant Parry, - - ,,72

Franz Muller, • ,>

Mr. Baron Martin, - ,, 144

Franz Muller, • » 169

FRANZ MULLER.

INTRODUCTION.

ON the night of Saturday, the 9th of July, 1864, a suburban
train on the North London Railway left Fenchurch Street station
for Chalk Farm at 9.50. It left the next station, Bow, at
10.1; Hackney Wick or Victoria Park, at 10.5; and arrived
at Hackney about six minutes later. At the last station two
bank clerks, who had taken tickets for Highbury, opened the
door of a compartment of a first-class carriage. The carriage
was empty. The two men got in and sat down. They had
hardly done so when one called the other's attention to some
blood on his hand. They alighted immediately from the
carriage, and called the guard of the train. He examined the
compartment, and discovered stains of blood on the cushions of
the seat which backed to the engine on the left-hand side of the
train going from London. There was blood on the glass by the
cushion, some marks of blood on the cushion opposite, and on
the offside handle of the carriage door. In the carriage the
guard found a hat, stick, and bag. These he took out, the
carriage was locked up, taken to Chalk Farm station, and later
brought back to Bow.

About twenty minutes past ten on the same night the driver
of a train of empty carriages from Hackney Wick to Fenchurch
Street noticed a dark object lying on the 6-foot way between
the Hackney Wick and Bow stations. He stopped the train,
alighted from the engine, and found that the dark object was
the body of a man. He was lying on his back between the up
and down lines, his feet towards London and his head towards
Hackney, at a spot about two-thirds of the distance — 1 mile
414 yards — between Bow and Hackney stations. The body was
taken to a neighbouring public-house, and a doctor summoned.
He found that the unfortunate man was alive, but completely
unconscious, that his skull had been fractured, and several

Franz Muller.

wounds inflicted on his head, presumably by some blunt instru-
ment, while there were a number of jagged wounds near the
left ear.

The victim of this apparently atrocious assault was soon
identified as Mr. Thomas Briggs, chief clerk in the bank of
Messrs. Kobarts & Co., of Lombard Street. Mr. Briggs
remained unconscious until late the following night, when he
expired. At the time of his death he was close on seventy
years of age, a gentleman greatly trusted and respected by
his employers, and held in high esteem by a large circle of
friends. He resided at Victoria Park, and was a frequent
traveller between Fen church Street and Hackney Wick, or
Viotoria Park, station. On the evening of 9th July Mr. Briggs
had dined with some relations, and left their house at Peckham,
carrying a black bag and walking stick, about half-past eight.
He had walked from there to the Old Kent Road, where he had
taken an omnibus to King William Street for the purpose of
getting to Fenchurch Street station. At Fenchurch Street Mr.
Briggs was seen and spoken to by the ticket collector, who knew
him well, as he passed through with his ticket to enter the
9.60 train for Hackney Wick. From that moment Mr. Briggs
had been seen by no one until he was found insensible on the
railway.

In the blood-stained carriage a bag, a stick, and a hat had
been found. The bag and stick were both recognised as having
belonged to Mr. Briggs, and been in his possession when he
quitted his friend's house, but the hat was not his. The tall
hat worn by Mr. Briggs had disappeared ; the hat found in the
carriage was a black beaver hat, but lower in the crown than
the ordinary high hat such as Mr. Briggs was in the habit of
wearing. Inside the hat was the name of the maker, " Mr.
J. H. Walker, 49 Crawford Street, Marylebone."

This hat seemed to be the only possible clue to the identity
of the assailant, for that Mr. Briggs had been the victim of a
foul murder there could be no reasonable doubt. No weapon
capable of inflicting the injuries on the head of the murdered
man had been found; but it was thought possible, though by
no means certain, that, wielded by a powerful arm, these
might have been inflicted by Mr. Briggs's walking stick, which
was large, heavy, and stained with blood. From the appear-

Introduction.

ance of the compartment it seemed likely that Mr. Briggs had
been attacked while dozing, with his head against the corner
of the carriage. Though nearly seventy years of age, he was
described as a stout, stalwart man, who, had he been fully
alert, would no doubt have made a desperate resistance.
Whether he had been thrown on the line by his assailant or
had struggled and fallen from the carriage in his endeavour to
escape was a matter of conjecture, though here, again, the
probability was that he had been flung on the line. Robbery
had been the motive of the crime; though some £5 in money
had been left in the pockets of the murdered man, his gold
watch and chain, and gold eye-glasses were missing, only the
gold fastening of the watch chain being left attached to the
waistcoat.

Great public interest and indignation were aroused by the
crime. It was the first murder on an English railway, of a char-
acter very alarming to a public less inured to such crimes than
we are to-day. The Government and Messrs. Robarts' Bank
offered each a reward of £100 for the discovery of the murderer,
and these offers were followed shortly after by another £100 from
the North London Railway. The first clue to the identity of
the murderer was furnished by a jeweller of the not inappro-
priate name of Death. He stated that on the morning of
Monday, the llth of July, a man of about thirty years of age,
of sallow complexion and thin in feature, apparently a German,
but speaking good English, had called at his shop in Cheapside,
and had exchanged for a gold chain and a ring to the total
value of £3 10s., a gold albert chain, which Death recognised
from the published description as the chain worn by Mr. Brigga
on the night of his murder. He described the man as having
been perfectly self-possessed during the quarter of an hour he
was in his shop, but noticed that he placed himself all the time
in such a position as not to be exposed to a full view.

For another six days rumour was busy and speculation rife
as to the nature of the crime and the identity of the murderer.
Some suggested that the crime had been an act of revenge on
the part of an employee of Messrs. Robarts' Bank whom Mr.
Briggs had, in the course of his duty, seen fit to discharge.
But on the 18th of July a cabman named Jonathan Matthews
made a statement to the police, which seemed to indicate clearly

Franz Muller.

the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. Matthews, who
appears to have been a man of very moderate intelligence,
and certainly no great reader, had, according to his own
account, heard nothing of the murder that was agitating all
London, until talking of the crime with a man on the cab
rank, his attention was arrested by the name of the jeweller
Death. He then recollected that he had seen in his own house
a few days previously a jeweller's cardboard box bearing the
rather singular name of Death. This box had been given to
his little girl by a young German of the name of Franz Muller.
Muller had been at one time engaged to one of Matthews'
daughters, but, owing to his unreasonable jealousy, the engage-
ment had been broken off.

Muller was a native of Saxe-Weimar, twenty-five years
of age. Apprenticed as a gunsmith in his native country,
he had come over to England about two years' before
the murder of Mr. Briggs. Failing to get work as a
gunsmith, he had turned tailor, and had been working up to
the 2nd of July in the employment of a Mr. Hodgkinson. Muller
was not satisfied, however, with the conditions of work in
England, and had declared his intention of going away to seek
his fortune in America. In accordance with this intention he
had left England on Friday, the 15th of July, by the sailing ship
"Victoria," bound from the London Docks for New York.

The cabman Matthews supplied the police with another link
in the chain of evidence against Muller. He identified the hat
found in the railway carriage as a hat which he had himself
purchased for Muller at the shop of a Mr. Walker in Crawford
Street, Marylebone. He was able to supply the police with a
photograph of Muller, and the address of the house in which
Muller had been lodging immediately before his departure for
America. The photograph was shown to Death, who at once
identified it as that of the man who on Monday, the llth of
July, had visited his shop and exchanged Mr. Briggs 's gold
chain for another.

Muller had been lodging last with a Mr. and Mrs. Blyth at
16 Park Terrace, Bow, so that he had been in the habit of
travelling on the same railway line, to and from Fenchurch
Street, as the late Mr. Briggs. Mrs. Blyth gave her lodger
an excellent character. " He was," she said, " a quiet, well-

Introduction*

behaved, inoffensive young man, of a humane and affectionate
disposition." She stated that on Saturday, the 9th of July, the
day of the murder, Miiller had gone out as usual in the morning,
but had not returned home when she and her husband went to
bed at eleven o'clock. On the following day, Sunday, she
said that he had been in the best of spirits, laughing, chatting,
and enjoying his meals. On the Monday evening Miiller had
shown Mrs. Blyth the gold chain which he had got from Death
in exchange for that taken from Mr. Brigge. Since his
departure for America Mrs. Blyth had received a letter from
Miiller, posted from Worthing. It ran as follows : —

On the sea, July 16th, in the morning. Dear friends, I am glad to
confess that I cannot have a better time as I have, for the sun shines nice
and the wind blows fair as it is at present moment, everything will go
well. I cannot write any more only I have no postage, you will be so kind
as to take that letter in.

Besides this letter Mrs. Blyth showed the police a hatbox
which Miiller had brought with him when he first came to lodge
at her house. It bore on it the name of Walker, Crawford
Street, Marylebone, the name of the shop from which Matthews
had stated that he had bought the hat for Miiller.

The police lost no time in getting on the track of the young
German tailor. Matthews made his statement at ten o'clock
on the night of the 18th of July. At half -past six the following
morning the officers called on Mrs. Blyth, and the same night
Inspector Tanner and Detective-Sergeant Clarke, taking with
them the jeweller Death, the cabman Matthews, and a warrant
granted by Mr. Henry, chief magistrate at Bow Street,
for Muller's arrest, left Euston station for Liverpool. They
sailed from there for New York on Tuesday, 20th July, by the
New York and Philadelphia Company's steamship " City of
Manchester." The steamer was timed to arrive at New York
some two or three weeks before the sailing ship that was
carrying Miiller. The proceedings of the police in this case
bear some resemblance to those employed recently in the capture
of Crippen, save that in 1864 there was no wireless telegraphy
to assure the police officers that the " Victoria " had their man
on board. Inspector Tanner and his companions reached New
York on the 5th of August. They had to wait twenty days
before the " Victoria " came into port. By that time New York
had become as excited as London over the expected arrival of

a xvii

Franz Muller.

Miiller, and in their excitement some foolish persons all but pre-
vented the police from taking Muller alive. As the " Victoria "
was waiting in harbour for the pilot boat containing the officers
to come out to her, a party of excursionists passing near the
vessel shouted out, "How are you, Muller the murderer ?" For-
tunately Muller, who was on deck, did not hear them. Had he
done so, he might have evaded capture by timely suicide. As
soon as the officers came on board the captain ordered all the
steerage passengers aft for medical examination. Muller was
called into the cabin. He was charged with the murder of
Mr. Briggs on the North London Railway on the night of the 9th
of July. He turned very pale, but said that he had never been
on that line. His keys were taken from him, his box searched,
and in it were found the watch and what was believed to be
the hat of the late Mr. Briggs. Muller said that they were both
his property, that he had had the watch for two years and the
hat for about twelve months.

Muller on landing in New York was an object of great interest
to the public. He is described as short, with light hair and
" small grey, inexpressible eyes." He had behaved fairly well
on the voyage out, but had got into trouble once or twice on
account of his overbearing manner. On one occasion he received
a black eye for calling a fellow-passenger a liar and a robber.
He had no money with him, but tried to raise some by offering
to eat 5 Ibs. of German sausage. He failed in this laudable
endeavour, and was compelled to stand porter all round, a
penalty he could only fulfil by parting with two of his shirts.

On the 26th of August extradition proceedings were com-
menced before Commissioner Newton, and concluded the follow-
ing day. Death, Matthews, and the police officers gave evidence.
Muller was represented by a Mr. Chauncey Schafier. In addressing
the Commissioner on behalf of his client, Mr. Schaffer made no
reference to the charge against him. He indulged in a harangue
in the true "Jefferson Brick " vein, punctuated by loud applause,
in which he denounced the British for their flagrant iniquity in
regard to the ship " Alabama," which had been destroyed in
the previous June, and said that by our own treachery and gross
misconduct we had made any Extradition Treaty a dead letter.
The Commissioner, while tactfully complimenting Mr. Schaffer
on his address, did not yield to his singular arguments. He
xviii

Introduction.

granted Miiller's extradition, and on the 3rd of September Miiller
and his captors left for England on the steamship " Etna " of
the Inman Line.

In England Miiller's arrival was no less eagerly awaited than
that of Dr. Crippen some months ago. The dramatic flight
and capture of the young German had given the case a degree
of interest which it had failed to awaken at the outset. Even
the Times accorded large headings to the news of Miiller which
was coming from America, and gave to his arrival a journalistic
importance which in recent years it has denied to occurrences
of this nature. For the moment the news of Miiller seemed
almost to eclipse in importance that of the Civil War then
raging in the United States between North and South. It
was pointed out by some English newspapers that had Miiller
possessed $3000 or $4000 at the time of his arrest in New York,
he might have procured bail from the Commissioner, and been
quietly spirited away into the ranks of the Federal Army.
According to these newspapers, American law at this time
allowed bail to all accused persons, whatever the nature of
their offence. But Miiller was penniless and without friends.
There was to be no military career for him — he was not to lose
his life upon the field of battle.

During his absence from England the question of Miiller's
guilt had been widely discussed. The weight of the evidence
against him, especially that of the cabman Matthews, had
been made a subject of newspaper correspondence. To such
lengths had this improper discussion been carried that the
Daily Telegraph published a leading article warning the public
against forming a premature judgment of the case against
Miiller. To help him to secure the best assistance at his trial
the German Legal Protection Society announced that they had
undertaken his defence.

The " Etna " arrived at Queenstown on the evening of the
15th, of September. A representative of the Daily Telegraph
visited Miiller in his cabin, and found him quiet and cheerful. On
his undertaking, willingly given, that he would cause no trouble,
the officers had dispensed with the use of handcuffs. The
young man seemed greatly interested in a shoal of porpoises,
and pointed out some cows on the Irish coast which could only
have been descried by a man with extremely good sight. Miiller

zix

Franz Muller.

was reading " David Copperfield." He had been given " Pick-
wick " at the commencement of the voyage, and had enjoyed
the book so well, especially the account of the trial of Bardell
v. Pickwick, that he had asked for another work by the same
author. His conduct during the voyage had been exemplary;
he alluded with evident pleasure to the fact that as a prisoner
on the " Etna " he was enjoying much better food than had been
supplied to the steerage passengers on the " Victoria."

Liverpool was reached on the night of Friday, the 16th,
There a strange incident occurred. A well-dressed and
apparently gentlemanly person walked into the room where
Muller was waiting, and, going up to him, said, " And you
are Franz Muller. Well, I am glad to see you and shake
hands with you. Do you think you will be able to prove your
innocence? " To which Muller replied " I do." " You know,
Muller," said the gentleman in a loud voice, "this is a very
serious charge." Here one of the detectives interposed and
told the man to leave the room, which he did, but with some
reluctance. His fatuous conduct was made the theme of a
stinging rebuke in Punch, under the heading of " An Awful
Snob at Liverpool." At nine o'clock on the Saturday morn-
ing Muller left for London, reaching Euston at a quarter to
three. A large crowd greeted him with hoots and groans.
He was taken at once to Bow Street, and charged, after which
he was removed to Hollo way Prison.

On the following Monday the magisterial hearing commenced
at the Bow Street Police Court before Mr. Flowers. Mr.
Hardinge Giffard — now Lord Halsbury — appeared to prosecute
for the Crown, and Muller was defended by a well-known
solicitor, Mr. Thomas Beard, who had been instructed by the
German Legal Protection Society. The evidence, which was
substantially that given afterwards at the trial, need not be
recapitulated here. One important new piece of evidence was
that of the hatter Digance and his assistant, who had been
in the habit of making Mr. Briggs's hats. They declared that
the hat found in Muller's box was a hat made by them; that
it had been cut down an inch and a half and sewn together
again, but not in such a way as a hatter would have done it;
a hatter, they said, would have used gum. They stated that
it was their custom to write the name of the customer for

Introduction.

whom the hat had been made on the band of the hat inside
the lining. This part of the hat had been cut away from the
hat found in Miiller's box. Muller was remanded from Monday,
the 19th, to Monday, the 26th of September. That day, at
eight o'clock in the morning, he attended the last sitting of
the coroner's inquest at the Hackney Town Hall, when the jury
returned a verdict of wilful murder against him. From
Hackney he was taken to Bow Street at eleven o'clock, and
at the end of the day's hearing Mr. Flowers committed him for
trial at the Central Criminal Court. No evidence was called
on behalf of the prisoner. The magistrate asked Muller if he
had anything to say. He answered, " No, sir, I have nothing
to say now." Throughout the proceedings Muller had appeared
cool and collected, only betraying anger on one occasion during
the evidence of Matthews, the cabman.

The Sessions at the Central Criminal Court opened on
Monday, 24th October, when the Recorder, Mr. Russell Gurney,
advised the jury to bring in a true bill against Franz Muller.
This they returned on the following Wednesday, and on the
next day, Thursday, the 27th, Muller was put upon his trial.
The presiding judges were the Lord Chief Baron, Sir Frederick
Pollock, and his son-in-law, Mr. Baron Martin — two of the most
distinguished judges on the bench. In these more leisurely
days a law officer of the Crown did not disdain to conduct the
prosecution in a sensational trial for murder. On this occasion
Sir Robert Collier, Solicitor-General, led for the Crown with
a very strong team of assistants at his back. First and fore-
most among them was Serjeant Ballantine, one of the most
popular advocates of the day, noted more particularly for his
great skill as a cross-examiner. His juniors were Mr. Hardinge
Giffard, Mr. Hannen, and Mr. Beasley. The first of these is
now Ihe Earl of Halsbury, ex-Lord Chancellor of England,
and the only survivor amongst the distinguished lawyers who
took part in Miiller's trial. Mr. Hannen had been appointed
recently junior counsel to the Treasury, or, in legal slang,
" Attorney -General's devil." He was soon to be raised to high
judicial office, and is best known to history as President of the
Divorce Court for more than twenty-five years, and of the
Parnell Commission in 1888.

Serjeant Parry led for the defence. His tact and skill as

Franz Muller.

a verdict getter, his great powers of persuasion with a jury,
made Parry one of the most popular and successful advocates
of his time, whilst his kind and genial nature had rendered
him no less popular as a man. Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Besley
were his juniors, the latter, until a few years ago, a well-
known member of the Old Bailey bar.

Needless to say, the Court was crowded throughout the
trial. The Lord Mayor Lawrence accompanied the judges on
the bench. Muller is described as pale and anxious, following
the proceedings closely and communicating frequently with
his solicitor, Mr. Beard. Sir Robert Collier opened the case
for the Crown in a short and business-like speech. He sug-
gested that Mr. Briggs had been attacked while dozing in the
corner of the carriage, and that the weapon with which the
deed had been done had been undoubtedly Mr. Briggs 's walking
stick — " a formidable weapon, large, heavy, with a handle at
one end." As motive for the crime the Solicitor-General
suggested a sudden desire that had come over the murderer
to possess the gold watch and chain which stood out conspicu-
ously on the waistcoat of his victim. He attached great
importance to the hat found in the railway carriage — " If you
discover with certainty," he said, " the person who wore that
hat on that night, you will have the murderer, and the case
is proved almost as clearly against him as if he was seen to
do it." He showed how by his dealings with pawnbrokers
and others, commencing from the exchange of Mr. Briggs 's
watch chain with Death, the prisoner had become possessed of
about £4 5s. in cash with which, on the Wednesday following
the murder, he had bought his passage to America. He
dealt with the evidence as regards the two hats, the one found
in the carriage, which he would prove to have belonged to Muller,
and the other found in Muller 's box in New York, which he
would prove to have belonged to Mr. Briggs. " Mr. Briggs,"
concluded the Solicitor-General, " is robbed and murdered in
a railway carriage ; the murderer takes from him his watch
and chain, and takes from him his hat. All the articles taken
are found on Muller ; he gives a false statement of how he got
them, and the hat left behind is the hat of Muller." If these
circumstances were proved by witnesses, then, in the opinion of
the Solicitor-General, a stronger case of circumstantial evidence
had rarely, if ever, been submitted to a jury,
xzii

Introduction.

The first witnesses called were those concerned in the finding
of Mr. Briggs and the medical gentlemen who had examined
his body. It was with the appearance of Death, the jeweller,
that the real interest of the case began. Death was clear
that it was Miiller who had brought him Mr. Briggs's
chain on the llth of July, which he had valued at £3 10s.
Miiller said that he would prefer to take another chain in
exchange instead of money, upon which Death gave him a gold
chain worth £3 5s. and a 5s. ring to make up the balance. The
chain he had put into a box identical with that which the
prisoner had given to Matthews' little girl. In cross-examina-
tion it was suggested to Death that Miiller had been to his
shop in the previous year, but Death and his brother were
positive that they had neither of them seen the prisoner
before the llth of July.

Mrs. Blyth, Miiller's landlady, gave evidence as to the
prisoner's movements at the time of the murder. In cross-
examination she bore testimony to the quiet and inoffensive
disposition of the prisoner. She said that owing to an injury
to his foot, Miiller was wearing a slipper on one foot the day
of the murder, and she admitted that he had spoken of going
to America some fortnight before the murder of Mr. Briggs.
Her evidence was supported by that of her husband. •

Mrs. Repsch, the wife of a German tailor, a fellow-workman
with Miiller, gave important evidence. Miiller had been at
their house the evening of the murder, and had left them about
half -past seven or eight o'clock. On Monday, the llth,
Miiller had shown Mrs. Repsch the chain which Death had
given him in exchange for that of Mr. Briggs. He had told
her what was not true : that he had bought it in the docks.
She noticed that he was wearing a different hat. Miiller said
he had bought it for 14s. 6d., upon which her husband had
remarked that it looked more like a guinea hat. She recol-
lected the hat which Miiller had been wearing previous to
thia. To the best of her belief it was the hat found in the
railway carriage. Cross-examined, Mrs. Repsch said that she
particular!/ remembered this hat because of its peculiar
lining.

John Haffa, a journeyman tailor, and friend of the prisoner,
deposed to having pawned his own coat on the Wednesday before

Franz Muller.

Miiller sailed for America in order to help his friend to buy
his passage ; but in cross-examination he admitted that before
the 9th of July he had seen Muller in possession of a sum of
money sufficient to have paid for his passage.

On the second day of the trial the Crown commenced by
calling evidence as to the exact financial position of Muller
immediately before and after the murder. It then appeared
that in June Muller had raised £3 by pawning a gold watch
and chain at the shop of a Mrs. Barker, in Houndsditch. On
Monday, the 1 1th of July, he got from Death in exchange for
Mr. Briggs's chain a gold chain valued at £3 5s. This he
pawned on the Tuesday for £1 10s., and with the money so
obtained he took his own watch out of pawn from Mrs.
Barker's. By borrowing £1 from a man of the name of
Glass he redeemed his own chain also, which he had left with
Mrs. Barker. Glass and he then pawned this watch and chain
a second time with Messrs. Cox, of Princes Street, Leicester
Square, for a sum of £4. This pawn ticket Muller sold to
Glass for 5s. ; thus Muller had altogether £4 5s., and it was
with this sum that he had purchased his passage to America.
If Muller were the murderer of Mr. Briggs, he had perjured
his soul for the paltry sum of 30s.

The evidence of Jonathan Matthews, cabman, was awaited
with some excitement. His severe cross-examination at the
Police Court by Mr. Beard had led to the expectation that the
defence might seek to prove Muller's innocence of the murder
by suggesting Matthews as having been the guilty man. But
Serjeant Parry was wise enough not to adopt so dangerous a
course. His cross-examination was directed entirely to damage
the credit of Matthews as a trustworthy witness. Matthews
identified the hat found in the carriage as one with a peculiar
striped lining, which he had bought for Muller at his own
request at Mr. Walker's, in Crawford Street. Serjeant Parry
showed that on the question of his purchases of hats Matthews'
statements at the trial differed materially from those he had
made before the coroner and the magistrate, and he questioned
him pointedly as to what had become of his own old hats,
particularly the one which he had bought at Mr. Walker's,
the one to which Muller had taken such a fancy that he had
asked him to get him another like it. At the Police Court

Introduction.

Matthews could give no account of his movements on the night
of Mr. Briggs's murder. Now he said he had made inquiries,
and had found that he had been on the cab-stand at Paddington
station from seven to eleven o'clock. Matthews adhered to the
statement that he knew nothing of the murder until the 18th
of July when he saw near his cab-stand the bill offering a
reward for the apprehension of the murderer. He denied that
it was a desire to receive the .£300 reward that had prompted
him to give his evidence against Miiller.

A new fact Serjeant Parry elicited as damaging to Matthews'
good character, though it cannot be said that it told very
heavily against his credibility as a witness in this particular
instance. In 1850, at the age of nineteen, Matthews had
undergone twenty-one days' imprisonment for theft. He had
been at that time conductor of a coach at Norwich, and had
absconded from his situation, taking with him in his box a
bit, a spur, and a padlock belonging to his employer.
Matthews preferred to describe this incident as a " spree,"
which, he said, had been construed harshly into an act of
theft, and he protested that the things had been put into his
box " unbeknown " to him. He had never been in trouble
since. Severe as was the cross-examination of Matthews, in
the judgment of those who heard it, it had not shaken the
weight of his evidence in any material degree.

Mrs. Matthews gave evidence as to the jewellers' box given
by Miiller to her little daughter. In cross-examination she
admitted that she had known of Mr. Briggs's murder on the
Monday following, though her husband would appear to have
known nothing of it until the 18th of July.

One fact came out unexpectedly in the evidence of Walker,
the hatter, and his foreman. They stated that the lining in
Muller's hat, which Matthews had bought for him at their shop,
was very peculiar in character, and had not been used by them
in the lining of more than two, or, at most, three or four
hats.

The evidence of the police officers who had arrested Miiller
in New York was followed by that of Mr. Briggs's son and
his hatter, Digance. Mr. Thomas Briggs identified both the
watch and hat found in Muller's box as having belonged to his
father. Digance said that as Mr. Briggs had found his last

Franz Muller.

hat a little too easy on the head, he had placed a piece of
tissue paper inside the lining ; some small fragments of this
tissue paper were remaining in the band of the hat when found
in Muller's box.

It was half-past two when Serjeant Parry rose to make his
speech for the defence. He spoke for two hours and a half.
It was the only speech then allowed by law, and the Serjeant
complained with some reason that, though he was about to
call evidence for the defence, he was forbidden to sum up his
case to the jury, a privilege that would have been accorded
him if he had been engaged at nisi prius " in some miserable
squabble between a hackney cab and a dust cart." By the
Act 28 Viet. cap. 18, section 2, " Denman's Act," passed in the
following year, the grievance alluded to by the learned Serjeant
was removed.

The Serjeant commenced by dealing with the evidence that
had been called for the Crown. He warned the jury that,
though they might be satisfied that Muller had had a hat
similar to that found in the carriage, they must not therefore
assume that the hat found in the carriage had necessarily
belonged to Muller. He deprecated warmly any intention of
accusing Matthews of the murder. At the same time, he
suggested that the hat found in the carriage might just as
well have been Matthews' as Muller's. Matthews he described
as an entirely unreliable witness, actuated solely by the desire
to obtain the £300 reward, and proved in one instance to have
lied deliberately before both magistrate and coroner.

As regards Mr. Briggs's hat, he commented on the fact that
the prosecution had called no witness to prove that, on the
day of his death, Mr. Briggs was wearing such a hat as that
found on Muller. Muller's false statement as to the way he
had become possessed of the watch and chain he attributed to
the fact that the prisoner had bought them at the docks under
circumstances which must have convinced him that he was
buying them from some person who had obtained possession
of them in a suspicious way. He pointed out, and very justly,
that no blood-stained clothes had been found on Muller, and
that the evidence given to prove that he had changed or got
rid of some of his clothes after the murder was highly incon-
clusive. He scouted the idea that a slight and by no means

Introduction.

muscular young man such as the prisoner could in three minutes,
the time taken by the train to go from Bow to Hackney Wick
station, have murdered, robbed, and thrown out of the carriage
a man 5 feet 9 inches in height and weighing 12 stone. The
crime, he contended, and he was going to call evidence to prove
it, must have been the work of two men. Nor would he accept
the Solicitor-General's suggestion that Mr. Briggs'a stick had
been the weapon with which the crime had been committed.
"A pair of shears," he said, "had been taken out of the
pocket of the prisoner; he did not suppose that even now the
Solicitor-General would suggest that the murder was com-
mitted with them." A curious comment on this statement is
contained in a letter written to the Times two days after
Muller's execution by Mr. Toulmin, the surgeon who had made
the post-mortem on Mr. Briggs. In this letter Mr. Toulmin
expressed the opinion that the " tailor's shears found on Muller,
some 13 inches or 14 inches long, and weighing about 2 Ibs.,
was the only instrument he knew of that might have inflicted
the wounds found on Mr. Briggs," and he quoted the statement
of a journeyman tailor to the effect that a tailor who did not
take away his shears every day from his workshop would very
quickly lose them.

Serjeant Parry said that he should call as the first witness
for the defence a Mr. Lee, a respectable gentleman who had
given evidence at the inquest, but for some reason had not
been called by the Crown. Mr. Lee would say that he had
seen Mr. Briggs in a compartment of a first-class carriage at
Fenchurch Street station on the night of the 9th July; that,
knowing him, he had said "Good-night" to him, and that
he had then seen two men sitting in the carriage with him.
The Serjeant said that he should further prove an alibi; he
would prove that between nine and ten o'clock on the night
of Mr. Briggs's murder Muller had been at a house in James
Street, Camberwell. He would also call an omnibus conductor,
who would swear that about ten minutes to ten on the Saturday
night a passenger had got on to his omnibus at Camberwell
Gate, wearing a carpet slipper on one foot. He was not
prepared to swear that the passenger was Muller, but it had
been proved by the prosecution that, owing to the injury to
his foot, Muller was wearing a slipper on that night, and, if

Franz Muller.

he were at Camberwell Gate at ten minutes to ten, it was
clear that he could not have left Fenchurch Street by the 9.60
train.

At the conclusion of the learned Serjeant's speech the Court
adjourned until nine o'clock on Saturday, the 29th November,
when Mr. Thomas Lee, the first witness for the defence, was
called. Mr. Lee swore that he had seen Mr. Briggs sitting
with two other men in a first-class compartment of the 9.50
train from Fenchurch Street on the night of the murder. He
swore that he had said " Good-night, Mr. Briggs," to which
Mr. Briggs had replied, "Good-night, Tom." He could not
swear to the prisoner being either of the men. Mr. Lee was
positive and unshaken on the main point of his evidence, in
spite of severe cross-examination. When asked why he had
not made his statement to the police until more than a week
after the murder, he answered that it was because he thought
it unimportant, and knew what a bother it would be. " I
have something to do," he said; " I collect my own rents " —
a frame of mind which the Chief Baron, with some reason,
declared threw general discredit upon Mr. Lee's views and
motives.

After some evidence that the cutting down and stitching of
hats was a usual method of procedure in the second-hand hat
trade, the defence proceeded with the proof of the prisoner's
alibi. This rested on the evidence of a girl of the unfortunate
class, and that of the man and woman in whose house she
lived. Muller had formed an intimacy with the girl Eldred,
and, according to the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Jones, with
whom the poor girl lodged, Muller had called at their house
in Camberwell at half-past nine o'clock on the night of the
9th July. The girl Eldred was out, and Muller had remained
talking to Mrs Jones for five or ten minutes, after which he
had left. If the evidence of Mrs. Jones was absolutely correct,
then Muller could not have reached Fenchurch Street from
Camberwell in time to have caught the 9.50 train. But the
prosecution suggested that her evidence was not strictly correct.
It had been proved that Muller had left his friend Haffa at
Jewry Street at eight o'clock that night. If he had gone
straight from there to Camberwell he would have reached there
about nine, the hour at which he must have known the girl

Introduction.

Eldred was in the habit of going out. If that were so, he
would then have had plenty of time to get on an omnibus to
Fenchurch Street, possibly arriving at that station at the same
time as Mr. Briggs. The character of Mr. and Mrs. Jones did
not help their credibility, and the Solicitor-General dwelt with
almost undue vehemence on the little reliance that was to be
placed on the clock of a brothel; it is difficult to see why the
veracity of a clock should vary according to the character of
the house in which it stands. The girl Eldred, whom the Chief
Baron described as a pathetic figure, heard and seen with great
compassion, had evidently done her best to save the life of the
young man, and, as* she left the Court, Miiller looked at her
with an expression of sincere gratitude.

The evidence of the omnibus conductor as to his passenger
wearing slippers was quite valueless.

The Solicitor-General exercised his right to reply. He
dealt very severely with the evidence that had been called
for the defence, and reiterated the great strength of the case
that had been made out by the Crown. At half-past one the
Chief Baron commenced his charge to the jury. It occupied
a little more than an hour and a quarter. Though scrupulously
fair and dignified in tone, it was decidedly unfavourable to
the prisoner. It was clear that the learned judge was power-
fully impressed by the strength of the circumstantial evidence
against the prisoner. Miiller listened to the charge with
painful anxiety. The jury, who declined the offer of the Chief
Baron to read through to them the whole of the evidence,
were only absent from the Court a quarter of an hour, when
they returned with a verdict of guilty. Baron Martin, as the
junior judge, passed sentence of death. " I have no more
doubt," he said to Muller, " that you committed this murder
than I have with reference to the occurrence of any other event
of which I am certain, but which I did not see with my own
eyes." At the conclusion of the sentence the prisoner was
understood to say, "I should like to say something; I am
satisfied with the sentence which your lordship has passed. I
know very well that it is what the law of the country pre-
scribes. What I have to say is, that I have not been con-
victed on a true statement of the facts, but on a false state-
ment." As he left the dock his firmness gave way, and he
burst into tears.

Franz Muller.

No sooner had Muller been condemned to die than the
German Society, which had defended him, made strenuous
efforts to obtain a remission of the sentence. A memorial was
prepared for presentation to the Home Secretary, Sir George
Grey. Even the King of Prussia and some of the minor German
potentates had telegraphed to the Queen asking her to inter-
vene and save Miiller's life.

Certain German newspapers had gone the length of suggesting
that it was the war in Schleswig-Holstein, and the impotent
rage of the English aristocracy arising from that nefarious
transaction, that were tying the noose round Muller's neck.
Punch waxed very sarcastic over these insinuations, and made
them the subject of the following verses : —

MULLER AND ms MBN.

The German who clapped when the Diet dared draw

Execution to deal on the Duchies,
Howl against execution awarded by law

To Muller in Calcraft's stern clutches.
Can the reason that Vaterland thus makes black white,

Prom applause to abuse shifts its song,
Be that our execution was provably right

And their own as demonstrably wrong?

The execution had been fixed for Tuesday, the 14th of
November. On the 10th of November the German Society
presented their memorial to Sir George Grey. They relied,
among other things, on a story of a parcel which had been
thrown from a cab into the bedroom of a Mr. Poole at
Edmonton, breaking his window at two o'clock in the morning
of Sunday, the 10th of July. Mr. Poole had followed the cab
with a view to obtaining compensation for the damage done to
his window. There were four men inside the cab, one without
a hat, and wearing a handkerchief round his head. The
parcel that had been thrown contained blood-stained trousers.
But the matter resolved itself into nothing more than a
foolish spree. The memorial also included a statement of a
Baron de Camin, ^ho said that he had seen a blood-stained
man on the Embankment between Bow and Hackney Wick
station on the night of the 9th of July. Muller had,

Introduction.

since hie confinement, made a statement to the effect that
he had bought the hat found on him at Mr. Digance's shop, but
Digance and his shopman, when confronted with Miiller in
Newgate, failed to recognise him. On the 8th of November
Mr. and Mrs. Blyth, with whom Miiller had lodged, and who had
evidently become rather attached to the young man, made a
declaration at Worship Street Police Court that Miiller had been
wearing the same hat on the Sunday as he had been wearing on
the Saturday, the day of the crime. They said that they had
not seen the hat produced at the trial, but were sure that it was
not his hat. These efforts to save Miiller were not allowed to go
without reply. An attempt was made, but fruitlessly, to
connect Miiller with the murder, in 1863, of Emma Jackson,
a woman of light character, killed in a house of ill-fame in
George Street, Bloomsbury. The unfortunate girl had been
found dead about four o'clock on the afternoon of the 10th of
April. No clue was ever obtained to the murderer, though
there were people living in an adjoining room, and almost
immediately below, at the time the crime must have been
committed. One or two Germans wrote to the newspapers
protesting against any reflections that had been made on
English justice in connection with Miiller's trial, and saying
that they were perfectly satisfied that he had been fairly tried,
and had no wish to interfere with his punishment.

Mr. Beard received Sir George Grey's reply to the memorial
on Saturday, the llth of November. In it Sir George Grey
stated that, after carefully comparing the statements contained
in the memorial with the evidence given at the trial, and, after
communicating fully with the two judges who had tried the case,
he could see no ground for advising Her Majesty to remit the
death penalty. At three o'clock in the afternoon Mr. Beard
called at Newgate and acquainted Miiller with the Home
Secretary's decision. Miiller received the news with calmness
and composure, and expressed his gratitude for the efforts that
had been made to save his life. In spite of the efforts of Dr.
Cappel, the German Lutheran minister attending upon him,
Miiller refused to make any statement by way of confession,
and appeared to be perfectly prepared to meet his fate. His
public execution on the 14th of November furnished a scene
more disgraceful than usual. The crowd, consisting of a mob of

xxxi

Franz Muller.

the lowest kind, kept up their spirits during the night by shout-
ing and singing doggerel verses alluding to the murderer. On
the evening of the 13th Muller was visited by one of the Sheriffs,
who again exhorted him to confess, but Muller obstinately
declared his innocence. As the Sheriff left he turned to one
of the warders and said, " Man has no power to forgive sins,
and there is no use in confessing them to him." He was
equally obdurate on the morning of his execution while Dr.
Cappel was praying with him. He mounted the scaffold
calmly, looked with curiosity at the beam above his head, and,
though trembling a little, showed no sign of fear. Immediately
before the drop fell Dr. Cappel once again besought Muller to
admit his guilt, when the following conversation took place
between them : —

Dr. Cappel — Muller, in a few moments you will stand before
God. I ask you again, and for the last time, are you guilty
or not guilty?

Muller — Not guilty.
Dr. Cappel — You are not guilty?
Muller — God knows what I have done.

Dr. Cappel — God knows what you have done. Does he also
know that you have committed this crime?

Muller — Yes, I have done it. (Jah, ich habe es gethan.)
Though some doubt was afterwards cast as to the actual
words used on this occasion, the correspondence printed in an
Appendix to this volume shows conclusively that Muller did
confess his crime immediately before he was launched into
eternity.

It is difficult at this distance of time to quite appreciate
the extraordinary interest that the case of Muller aroused.
There is nothing very remarkable either in the crime or in the
criminal. The trial itself is interesting as showing the con-
clusive weight of circumstantial evidence. That it did create
extraordinary interest at the time there can be no doubt.
It was the first railway murder, and the circumstances of the
flight and capture of the murderer were calculated to excite the
public mind. The character of Muller is a little difficult to
understand. He would seem to have been a young man who
could make friends among both men and women ; all the
witnesses at his trial spoke of his humane and gentle disposi-
xxxii

MURDER.

WHEREAS, on Monday, June 27th, ISAAC FREDERICK GOULD waa murdered on the London Brighton and Sooth Ooast
Railway, between Three Bridges and Balcombe. in East Sussex

AND WHEREAS a Verdict of WILFUL MURDER has been returned by a Coroner's Jury against

PERCY LEFROY MAPLETON,

whoso Poruait and Handwriting are given hereoo, —

S*~*~*~*jt.

and who is described as being 22 years of age, height 5 ft 8 or 9 in., very thin, hair (cut short) dark, email dark whiskers ; dress.
dark frock coat.ju 1 shoes, and auupoaud low black hai (worn at back of head), had scratches from fingers on throat, several
wounds on he» i. the dressing of which involved the cutting of hair, recently lodged at 4, Cathcart Road, Wallington, was seen
at 9.311 a.m. 2Slb ult., with uis head bandaged, at the Fever Hospital, Liverpool Road, Islington. Had a gold open-faced watch
(which he Is likely to pledge). " Maker. Griffiths, Mile End Road, No 1G261."

One Half of the above Reward will be paid by Her Majesty's Government, and One Half by the Directors of the
London Brighton and South Const Railway to any person (other than a person belonging to a Police Force in the United Kingdom)
who shall give such information as shall lead to the discovery and apprehension of the said PERCY LEFRQY MAPLETON, or
others, the Murderer, or Murd-jrers, upon his 01 their conviction ; and the Secretary of State for the Home Department will advis*
the Kraut of Her Majesty's gracious PARDON to any accomplice, not being the person who actually committed the Murder, who
•hall give such evidence as shall lead to a like result.

Information to be given to the Chief Constable of Bast Sussex, Lewes, w any Police Station, or to

JULY 4». 1881.

The Director of Criminal Inuestigations, Gt Scotland Yard.

(i81t) Jlamsou and Sou, Printers in Ordinary to Her Mqesty, St. Martin's Lane.

Reproduction of Handbill in the Lefroy case.

Introduction.

tion. He was, however, at times overbearing and inclined to
violence. He was vain, and in the habit of making boastful
and untrue statements about himself and his doings. He seems
to have been fond of jewellery, and it is probably correct to
surmise, as Baron Martin said in sentencing him to death,
that, "moved by the devil in the shape of Mr. Briggs's gold
watch and albert chain, the young man was overcome with a
sudden impulse of greed," to which he yielded the more readily
owing to his desire to obtain sufficient money to take him to
America, where he seems to have thought that he would be
more successful than in England.

Though Miiller's was the first railway murder in England,
his crime is not to be compared with the exploits of a train
murderer in France, named Jud, four years earlier. This man
Jud murdered a Russian Army doctor on a railway in Alsace;
and three months later he was more than suspected of the
murder of Monsieur Poinsot, a distinguished judge, on the
railway between Troyes and Paris. Though the guilt of Jud
was clearly established, he was never captured.

England had to wait for nearly twenty years before Miiller's
melancholy success was repeated. On the 27th of June, 1881,
Mr. Gold, a respectable gentleman living in a suburb of
Brighton, sixty-four years of age, was murdered on the London,
Brighton & South Coast Railway by a man of the name of
Lefroy. The murder occurred in a first-class carriage between
Croydon and Horley. Mr. Gold was returning by the two o'clock
train from London Bridge to his house at Preston. When the
train drew up at Preston Park station, Lefroy was found in the
carriage dishevelled and covered with blood. He said that he
had been attacked and robbed. A watch chain was hanging
from his shoe, which he said he had placed there for safety.
His statements were accepted, and he was allowed to go on his
way. The credulity of the officials on this occasion exposed
them to a great deal of ridicule, which found highly humorous
expression in some satirical verses by the late H. D. Traill.
During the same afternoon the body of Mr. Gold was found near
the entrance to Balcombe Tunnel. There was a bullet wound
in his neck, and further wounds on his body, apparently
inflicted with a knife. Lefroy, after his release by the police,
disappeared. It was not until a week after the murder that

Franz Muller.

he was discovered in some lodgings in Smith Street, Stepney.
Lefroy was tried at the Maidstone Assizes before Lord Chief
Justice Coleridge on the 5th November, 1881. Sir Henry
James, then Attorney-General, now Lord James of Hereford,
led for the prosecution, and the prisoner was defended by Mr.
Montagu Williams. He was convicted on the fourth day of his
trial, sentenced to death, and executed at Lewes. Lefroy,
whose real name was Percy Lefroy Mapleton, was a journalist.
He was a vain, weak creature, with literary ambitions which he
had not the necessary talent to fulfil. He was desperate for
want of money, and had apparently gone to the London Bridge
station with the intention of robbing some passenger, and, if
necessary, taking life. He hoped to have travelled with a lady,
whom he could have robbed by merely threatening her, with-
out being driven to the necessity of murder. He was not suc-
cessful in finding a lady who answered his dismal requirements,
and, finally, entered a carriage that was occupied by a solitary
gentleman. That gentleman was the unfortunate Mr. Gold. It
was Lefroy's portrait, published in the Daily Telegraph and seen
by his landlady, that led to his arrest. This was, I believe,
the first occasion on which the portrait of a " wanted man "
appeared in a newspaper.

The next crime of this character was the murder in the year
1897 of Elizabeth Camp. She was a woman of thirty -three
years of age, at the time of her death a barmaid at the " Good
Intent," a small tavern in Walworth. On the afternoon of
the llth of February she left Walworth for Hammersmith, and
stayed there at the house of a friend for about two hours. She
then went on to Hounslow to visit a married sister. She left
Hounslow by the 7.43 train for Waterloo, entering an empty
second-class carriage. As soon as the train reached Waterloo
at 8.25 her body was found on the floor of the carriage. Her
head had been battered in by some heavy instrument, and
her pockets had been rifled. There had evidently been a
desperate struggle in the carriage. The only possible clue
in the case was a " Wedgwood " pestle, similar to that used by
chemists, which was found covered with blood and hair a short
distance from Wandsworth station. It was probable, therefore,
that the murder had been committed before the train reached
Vauxhall. Certain persons were suspected of the crime, but

Introduction.

no arrest was ever made, and after a prolonged inquest the
jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person
or persons unknown.

The fourth railway murder occurred on Thursday, the 17th of
January, 1901, on the London & South- Western Railway. As
the 1.29 train from Southampton was entering Vauxhall
station a man sprang from a third-class carriage and fled down
the platform at a desperate speed. A woman, wounded and
bleeding, appeared at the door of the carriage, and called out
to the officials to stop the man. He was pursued and captured.
It then appeared that the murderer had got into the train at
Eastleigh. At that time there were in the carriage a farmer
of the name of Pearson, living near Winchester, and a lady,
Mrs. King. As the train passed Winchester station the man
rose, shot Mr. Pearson dead, and began to rifle his pockets.
He threatened to serve the woman in the same way, fired at
her, and wounded her in the jaw. He said that he would not
do her any further injury, if she said nothing about it. On the
evening of his arrest George Henry Parker — for that was the
name of the man — made a full confession of the crime. He
had been drinking heavily, and had formed the acquaintance
of a woman who, he said, had told him that she was unhappy
at home, and had asked him to take her away with him. It was
to effect this purpose that he had committed the crime. Parker
was twenty-three years of age, a tall, good-looking man, who
had been in the Army. He said that he must have been mad
when he committed the crime, and from the first was resigned
to his fate. He was convicted at the Central Criminal Court
on the 7th of March, and executed three weeks later.

On the night of Sunday, the 24th September, 1905, the body
of Mary Sophia Money, aged twenty-one, a book-keeper at a
dairy at Lavender Hill, Clapham Junction, was discovered in
Merstham Tunnel on the London, Brighton & South Coast
Railway. In her mouth was a long piece of silk veil, her skull
was smashed, one of her legs severed; she had apparently been
thrown from a train. There were marks of her hands on the
side of the tunnel, and her gloves were covered with soot. On
the 16th of October the coroner's jury found that Miss Money
had met her death by severe injuries1 brought about by a train,
but that the evidence was insufficient to show whether she fell

Franz Muller.

or was thrown from the train. It is impossible to say whether
Miss Money met her death by murder, suicide, or mischance.

The last railway murder that aroused a very considerable
degree of interest was that committed on the North-Eastern
Railway by John Dickman, of Newcastle. It is a remarkable
case, from many points of view, and calls for more than passing
comment. In this case the murderer had not acted as Muller,
on a sudden impulse; he had not left the choice of his victim
to chance, as Lefroy ; he had carefully planned, deliberately
executed his crime, and met the consequences' with fearless
determination.

It was a little after twelve o'clock on Friday, 18th March,
1910, that the 10.27 a.m. slow train from Newcastle to Berwick
steamed into Alnmouth station. Sleet was falling heavily at
the time. A porter opened the door of a third-class compart-
ment in the carriage next to the engine, in order to close the
window. He saw to his horror that the carriage was smothered
in blood and, lying face downwards, pushed under the seat,
was the body of a man. It was removed at once to a waiting-
room, and the carriage placed in a siding. The body was found
to be that of John Innes Nisbet, cashier and book-keeper to a
Newcastle firm, owning the Stobswood Colliery, near Wid-
drington, some 24 miles from Newcastle. Nisbet was in the
habit of travelling every alternate Friday by this 10.27 train
from Newcastle, due at Widdrington at 11.31, carrying with
him the money for the miners' wages. In good times he
might carry as much as £1000 in cash, but, owing to the coal
strike, on the morning he met his death, he was carrying in
a black bag £370 9s. 6d., in sovereigns, half-sovereigns, silver,
and coppers. It was clear that the unfortunate man had met
with foul play ; there were five bullet wounds in his head.
Four of the bullets were found, but they were of different
calibre. The assassin, or assassins, must have used two
pistols, but no weapon was found in the carriage.

Nisbet was forty-four years of age, short and slight in build,
married, and had two children. He had been twenty-two
years in the service of the colliery firm, and bore an excellent
character. Mrs. Nisbet had been in the habit of meeting the
10.27 train on the Fridays on which her husband was travelling
by it, at Heaton station, some seven minutes by rail from

Introduction.

Newcastle. On the day of her husband's murder she had met
the train as usual, and had seen that there was another man
in the carriage, sitting opposite to Nisbet, but she could not
give any description of him. Nisbet had been last seen alive
at Stannington, the station immediately before Morpeth, by
two colliery clerks, who knew him well. As they left the
train at the station they had greeted Nisbet, and one of them
had noticed that there was another man in the carriage, sitting
on the opposite side to the deceased, reading a newspaper.
Nisbet was not seen by any of the railway officials at Morpeth,
to whom he was well known as a regular traveller on the line ;
and at Widdrington station, where he should have alighted,
some surprise was expressed at his absence. It was not
until the train reached Alnmouth, half an hour later, that his
body was discovered. It seemed almost certain that the
unfortunate man had been murdered between Stannington and
Morpeth, a non-stop run of ten minutes, the longest on the
journey. By alighting at Morpeth, which is a busy station,
the murderer would have had a much better chance of escaping
unobserved than at any of the smaller stations at which the
train stopped.

The day after the murder the owners of the Stobswood
Colliery offered a reward of £100 for the detection of the
murderer, of whom a description was issued, based on the
statement of the two clerks who had left the train at Stanning-
ton. One of them had seen a man get with the deceased into
a compartment in the front of the train immediately behind
that in which he and his friend were sitting, before the train
left Newcastle; the other had seen a man sitting opposite
Nisbet, as he was leaving the train at Stannington.

A rumour spread that, on the Saturday following the
murder, a man answering the description of the wanted man
had been seen by the conductor of an omnibus between London
Bridge and Hackney. But a statement made to the police in
Newcastle led to the arrest on Monday evening, the 21st of
March, of John Alexander Dickman, a bookmaker in that city.
He had known the murdered man. He had been at one time a
clerk on the quayside, Newcastle; later, secretary to a colliery
company near Morpeth ; and since then had been earning
a precarious and insufficient living by betting operations,

Franz Muller.

Dickman was forty-three years of age, and married. He is
described as a short, rather thick-set man, having a heavy
moustache and short, curly hair, spruce and well-dressed in
appearance. On Monday evening a police officer called at his
house, and invited Dickman to accompany him to the Central
Police Station. Dickman consented without reluctance or
betraying any sign of nervousness, and, on arriving at the
station, made a voluntary statement in which he admitted travel-
ling by the 10.27 train from Newcastle on the 18th of March.
He said that he had seen Nisbet at the booking office, but not
again after that, and that he had entered a compartment alone
near the hinder end of the train. He had, he said, taken a
ticket to Stannington in order to keep an appointment with a
Mr. Hogg, a colliery owner, but that he was so absorbed in a
newspaper he was reading that he had missed his station, and
had got out at Morpeth with the intention of walking back to
Stannington. On the way he had been seized with an attack
of diarrhoea, and after some delay had returned to Morpeth,
from which station he had caught the 1.40 train back to
Newcastle. On being placed under arrest and charged with
the murder of Nisbet, Dickman said — " I don't understand the
proceedings ; it is absurd for me to deny the charge, because
it is absurd to make it. I only say I absolutely deny it."

Dickman 's account of his movements on the day of the
murder was in one respect inconsistent with a statement which
had been made to the police by Wilson Hepple, an artist living
near Newcastle. He had known Dickman for some twenty years,
and was travelling by the 10.27 train from Newcastle on the
morning of the 18th of March. He stated that he had seen
Dickman at the booking office as he was taking his ticket, and
had then gone to a carriage in the middle of the train. As he was
standing by the carriage Dickman passed him in company with
another man, whom, he did not know, and went to the engine
end of the train. He then, as he was walking up and down
the platform, saw one of the two men place his hand on the
door of a carriage at the higher end of the train, and, when
he turned round again in his walk, the two men had dis-
appeared. About a minute later, Hepple got into his carriage
and the train started. If Hepple was not mistaken and was
telling the truth — and his character made any other supposition
xxxviii

Introduction.

impossible — then Dickman had given a false account of his
movements when he stated that, after seeing Nisbet at the
booking office, he had walked alone to a carriage at the hinder
end of the train.

On Tuesday, 22nd March, Dickman was charged before a
magistrate at Gosforth Police Court, but it was not until the 14th
of April that the case was gone into fully before the Newcastle
magistrates. In addition to the evidence of Mrs. Nisbet and
Hepple, Hall, one of the colliery clerks travelling by the 10.27
train, said that he had seen Nisbet and a man he believed to
be the prisoner, get into a compartment immediately behind
his, which was the second compartment from the engine in the
carriage next to the engine. When asked to point out
Nisbet's companion from among nine men at the police station,
Hall pointed out Dickman and said, " I won't swear that the
man I pointed out was the man I saw get in with Mr. Nisbet,
but, if I could be assured that the murderer was there, I
would have no hesitation in pointing the prisoner out." His
companion, Spink, swore that, as he passed Nisbet at Stan-
nington station, he had seen another man in the carriage with
him, but was unable to identify Dickman as the man.

Evidence was given as to Dickman's financial position at
the time of the murder. It was clear from a letter of his
wife's that the Dickmans were sorely in need of money, and
that the husband had practically no money at all, the wife some
£20 in a co-operative society and the Post Office Savings Bank.
On the day before the murder Dickman had pawned a pair of
field-glasses for 15s., and a fortnight earlier had pawned
another pair for 12s. At the time of his arrest he had on him
£17 9s. lid. in cash, fifteen sovereigns of which were in a
" Lambton's Bank " canvas bag, the remainder loose in his
pockets. The clerk at Lloyd's Bank in Newcastle, with which
Lambton's Bank had been amalgamated, stated that the
sovereigns and half-sovereigns of the £370 paid out to Nisbet
on the morning of the 18th March had been contained in
canvas bags similar to that found on Dickman. At the same
time it was proved that Dickman had had an account at
Lloyd's Bank, which had been closed at the end of the year
1909.

Some evidence was given of Dickman having received a parcel

Franz Muller.

containing a gun at a shop in Newcastle in the name of " Fred.
Black " ; and a gunsmith's assistant stated that according to
his register he had, in the year 1907, sold an automatic pistol
to a " J. A. Dickson," giving an address at Lily Avenue,
Jesmond, the street in which Dickman was living at the time
of his arrest. Another gunsmith stated that two of the bullet
wounds in the head of the deceased might have been inflicted
with a pistol of such a character.

At the second hearing in the Police Court, Mr. Hogg was
called. He was the contractor whom Dickman said he had gone
to see on the morning of 18th March about some sinking opera-
tions at Stannington. Hogg said that he had made no
appointment with Dickman on that morning, and had, in fact,
been in Newcastle all day ; that the prisoner had been to see
him at Stannington a fortnight before the murder, arriving
by the same 10.27 train from Newcastle as that by which he
had travelled on the day of Nisbet's murder. Hogg further
stated that the visit had been in a purely friendly way, and
not on any matter of business ; that he had on one occasion
lent Dickman <£2, and that, as far as he knew, the prisoner
had never had anything to do with any sinking operations.

Medical evidence was called as to the nature of the five bullet
wounds found in the head of the murdered man, one of which,
entering the brain, had caused death. At the conclusion of
the evidence the magistrates decided that a prima facie case
had been made out against Dickman, but remanded him until
21st April, when the depositions would be read over and the
prisoner committed for trial.

That day an unlooked-for incident occurred. Dickman had
no sooner entered the Court than Mrs. Nisbet went into the
witness-box, and asked to be allowed to make a statement.
At the conclusion of her evidence at the previous hearing she
had fainted away, and had to be assisted from the Court. At
the time her collapse was attributed to emotion natural in so
painful a situation as hers. Now, however, with the permis-
sion of the Court, she wished to explain the cause of her
distress. She had, she said, seen but little of the man seated
opposite to her husband in the railway carriage when she met
the train at Heaton station on the fatal morning ; " he had got
his collar up, and had partly covered his face. I recognised

Introduction.

the same part of the face in the dock the other day, and that
is how I lost my senses." At this point Mrs. Nisbet almost
broke down again. As soon as she had recovered herself
sufficiently she was cross-examined by the prisoner's solicitor,
but she persisted that she recognised the side of the face that
she had seen in the dock as the side of the face that she had
seen in the railway carriage at Heaton station. The man in
the train, she said, resembled the prisoner; "he turned in
the dock as I saw him in the train." The evidence was read
over, and Dickman committed for trial to the Newcastle
Assizes.

On the 9th of June, between the magisterial investigation
and the trial, the leather bag in which Nisbet had carried the
money on the 18th of March was found, slit open and emptied
of the greater part of its contents, at the bottom of the shaft of
the Isabella pit at Hepscott. This pit lies If miles to the south-
east of Morpeth station. The bag contained some coppers,
and other coppers were found near it, amounting altogether to
19s. 8d. Dickman, it was proved, knew of the existence of
this particular shaft. Arriving at Morpeth at 11.16 the
murderer, whoever he was, would have had ample time and
to spare to visit the shaft and to return by the 1.40 train to
Newcastle.

The trial of Dickman commenced on the 4th of July before
Mr. Justice Coleridge. Mr. Tindal Atkinson, K.C., led for the
Crown, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Mitchell Innes,
K.C. In opening the case, Mr. Tindal Atkinson emphasised
the fact that four persons had seen Dickman in the company
of the deceased on the morning of 18th March. A man named
Raven had seen both men walking together at Newcastle
station on their way to No. 5 platform, from which the 10.27
train started. Hepple had sworn to seeing the prisoner get
into the front part of the train with a man of a build corres-
ponding with the deceased. Hall had identified Dickman as
the man he had seen with Nisbet on the platform at Newcastle.
And Mrs. Nisbet had identified him under the circumstances
already described. Of these witnesses, Hepple's was the most
serious evidence against the prisoner, and remained unshaken
in spite of earnest cross-examination.

As further evidence of the prisoner's guilt there were pro-

xli

Franz Muller.

duced a pair of suede gloves belonging to Dickman, one of
which, the left-hand glove, was smeared with blood ; and a
pair of his trousers, in the left-hand pocket of which were spots
of blood. It was suggested that the stains had been produced
by the glove, still wet with blood, having been put into the
trousers pocket, whilst it was still on the murderer's hand. In
regard to the impecuniosity of Dickman at the time of the
murder it was proved that both Dickman' s banking accounts
had been closed in 1909, and that apparently some £20 of
savings of Mrs. Dickman 's was the sum of their fortune on the
18th of March, 1910.

Dickman went into the witness-box. He repeated in sub-
stance the statement he had already made to the police. He
had passed Stannington station because, as a betting man, he
was engrossed in reading in the newspaper about the Grand
National Steeplechase that was to be run that day. He said
that the £17 found on him on his arrest was part of a reserve
fund, belonging to his betting account and known only to
himself. In cros'e-examination, Dickman maintained that
he had entered the last carriage but one at the back of the
train. There were, he said, other people in the carriage, but
he could not describe any of them, nor recollect whether any
of them had got out before the train reached Morpeth. About
ten minutes after he left Morpeth, Dickman said that he was
seized with illness, and had spent half an hour in a field. He
returned home about a quarter-past four that afternoon, and
went to the Pavilion Music Hall in Newcastle that evening.
The blood steins on his glove he attributed to his nose bleeding
or cutting his corns.

No fairer account of the case can be given than the masterly
summing up of Mr. Justice Coleridge. It is a model of what
such a thing should be. It cannot be said to have been
favourable to the prisoner. At the same time, it never
emphasised unduly the strength of the circumstantial evidence
against him. The learned judge commenced by dealing with
the evidence that showed Nisbet and Dickman to have been
together in the train on the day of the murder. It resulted

I in this, the deceased was proved to have been in the third
compartment of the front coach, " and there was one man,
and one man alone with him in that carriage." The
xlii

Introduction.

prisoner was seen with the deceased at the railway station,
and was seen getting, with a companion, into a compartment
approximate to the one in which the deceased had travelled.
Then there was the evidence of Mrs. Nisbet. It was clearly
proved that on that morning the prisoner had a companion.
He said that he had not. "If he said that he had no com-
panion, when they knew that he had, then who was that
companion? "

The judge commented on the prisoner's account of his move-
ments after reaching Morpeth. Why did he not go back at
once to Stannington station, where he should have got out?
The story of his seizure of illness was uncorroborated ; and
two men who had met him near Morpeth station, about
twenty minutes past one, had found him cool, collected, and
with no sign of suffering. The prisoner's explanation of the
blood on his gloves and in his trousers pocket was vague and
unsatisfactory.

In dealing with the circumstantial character of the evidence
against the prisoner, such evidence, Lord Coleridge said, " One
may describe as a network of facts cast around the accused
man. That network may be a mere gossamer thread as light
and insubstantial as the air itself, which would vanish at a
touch. It may be strong in parts, but leave great gaps and
rents through which the accused is entitled to pass with safety.
It may be so close, so stringent, so coherent in its texture,
that no efforts on the part of the accused could break it."

The jury, after an absence of half an hour, returned a
verdict of " guilty " against Dickman, who was sentenced
to death. The prisoner, whose firmness had never deserted
him from the first moment of his arrest, protested his inno-
cence. Notice of appeal was given on Dickman's behalf.
At the same time a brother of the prisoner wrote a letter to
the Newcastle Daily Chronicle, in which he asked if anybody,
after reviewing Dickman's own evidence, could, unless he
looked through smoked glasses, say that Dickman was an
innocent man. He wrote, he said, in the hope of stopping
people writing foolish letters to the papers protesting against
the verdict. He said that, if his brother had taken his
advice, he would not have been where he was. In spite of
this singular fraternal intervention, a petition for a reprieve

was prepared and sent to the Home Secretary.

xliii

Franz Muller.

Dickman's appeal was held before the Court of Criminal
Appeal, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone,
and Justices Lawrance and Phillimore, on Friday, 22nd July.
Mr. Mitchell Innes, who appeared for Dickman, dealt chiefly
with the unsatisfactory character of Hall's identification of the
prisoner, and the fact that Mr. Tindal Atkinson, in his con-
cluding speech for the Crown, had commented on the fact that
Mrs. Dickman had not been called as a witness for the defence.
Hall was called before the Court, and examined by Mr. Mitchell
Innes, when it appeared that he had been assisted rather
improperly by the police in his identification of the prisoner.
But the Court held that this identification had so little bearing
on the real merits of the case that it was impossible to inter-
fere with the verdict of the jury on the ground of anything
that had happened at the police station. As to Mrs. Dick-
man's evidence, Mr. Justice Coleridge had told the jury, before
the foreman had delivered their verdict, that, if Mr. Tindal
Atkinson's comment had in any way affected their minds,
they must re-consider their verdict ; but the foreman had replied
that the subject had never been mentioned amongst them.
Without calling on Mr. Tindal Atkinson, the Court dismissed
the appeal.

On August the 5th the Home Secretary wrote that he was
unable to advise any interference with the due course of the
law in Dickman's case, and on the 9th of August Dickman was
executed in Newcastle Gaol. He met his death unflinchingly,
and made no confession. From the moment that Dickman
contemplated the murder of Nisbet he seems to have set about
it with a method and determination that were unfaltering.

!His journey to Stannington on 4th March was, no doubt, as
the judge suggested, in the nature of a rehearsal for the actual
deed itself. Dickman, at the end of his resources, had come
to the deliberate resolution of refilling his pockets by the
murder of a man who would, he knew, be carrying with him
on the 18th of March a very considerable sum of money.

The People newspaper, after his execution, stated that Dick-
man was strongly suspected by the police of having been
connected with the murder of a Jewish moneylender, which
had occurred in Sunderland on the evening of the 8th March,
1909. It would seem that Dickman had undoubtedly had some
xliv

Introduction.

dealings with the murdered man. Prior to Dickman's arrest,
a number of assaults and robberies had taken place in Jesmond,
in the neighbourhood of Dickman's house. The perpetrator
had never been discovered. It was said that one of the
victims of this mysterious assailant, who had been present at
Dickman's trial, had recognised the prisoner in the dock as
the man who had attacked and robbed him. Among the
articles found in Dickman's house at the time of his arrest
was a life preserver. Mrs. Dickman wrote to the People
protesting strongly against these insinuations, and challenging
proof of them.

Two mysteries in connection with the Dickman case are to
this day unsolved. What became of the weapons used by
the murderer? What has become of the greater part of the
£370 taken from the murdered man? Does the money still
lie concealed in some hiding place where the murderer had
secreted it, in the hope of recovering it when the excitement
caused by his crime had died down? or has some unscrupulous
person found it and preferred to say nothing of the discovery?

I have given the outline of this case at some length, as
it is perhaps the most remarkable of the crimes perpetrated
on our English railways. Happily these crimes have been
few, in spite of the facilities offered to the criminal by the
construction of our English railway carriages. In Pendleton's
" Our Railways," published in 1896, statistics are given which
show that we then compared very favourably with other
European countries in the number of such crimes. France
heads the list by a long way. In the thirty years previous,
there were in France twenty-eight murders or attempted murders
on the railway. In Russia and Turkey there were seven each,
in Italy five, in England four, in Spain two, and in Austria
one. Germany, Switzerland, Holland, and Belgium had none.
With the coming of the corridor carriages we may hope that
these crimes will come to be matters of ancient history.

xlv

Leading Dates in the Muller Case.

1864.
Saturday,

July 9. — The body of Mr. Briggs found on the North London
railway between Bow and Hackney Wick stations.

11. — Inquest opened by Mr. Humphreys, coroner, at the
Prince of Wales' Tavern, Bow, afterwards ad-
journed to the Hackney Town Hall.

Muller visits Death's shop in Cheapside, exchanges
Mr. Briggs's watch chain for another, and gives
to Matthews' little girl the jeweller's box bearing
Death's name.

13. — Muller books passage at the London Docks by the
sailing ship " Victoria " for New York.

15. — "Victoria" sails for New York.

18. — The cabman Matthews makes a statement to the
police as to the identity of the hat left in the
railway carriage.

20. — Inspector Tanner, Sergeant Clarke, Death, and
Matthews leave Liverpool for New York by the
New York and Philadelphia Company's steamship
" City of Manchester."

Aug. 5. — " City of Manchester " arrives at New York.

25. — " Victoria " reaches New York. Muller is arrested.
27. — Commissioner Newton grants Muller's extradition.

Sept. 3. — Muller sails for England by steamship " Etna,"
Inman Line.

16. — " Etna " reaches Liverpool.

xlvii

Franz Muller.

1864.

Sept. 17. — Muller is brought to London and charged at Bow
Street.

19. — Magisterial hearing commences before Mr. Flowers
at Bow Street Police Court.

26. — Coroner's jury return verdict of " wilful murder "
against Muller. Magisterial hearing concluded,
and Muller committed for trial at Central Criminal
Court.

Oct. 26. — Grand jury at Central Criminal Court return a true
bill against Muller.

27. — His trial commences at the Old Bailey before Chief
Baron Pollock and Mr. Baron Martin.

29. — The jury return a verdict of "Guilty," and Muller
is sentenced to death.

Nov. 10. — The German Legal Protection Society present
memorial to the Home Secretary praying for a
commutation of the sentence.

12. — Letter from the Home Secretary declining to inter-
fere with the sentence.

14. — Muller executed before Newgate, after confessing his
guilt.

xlviii

THE TRIAL.

On the Queen's Commission of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol
Delivery for the City of London and Gaol Delivery for the
County of Middlesex and the parts of the Counties of Essex,
Kent, and Surrey within the jurisdiction of the Central
Criminal Court.

THURSDAY, 27-ra OCTOBER, 1864.
The Court met at Ten o'clock.

Judges —

THE LORD CHIEF BARON (Sir Frederick Pollock).
MR. BARON MARTIN.

Counsel for the Crown —

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. P. Collier, Q.C., M.P.).
Mr. SERJEANT BALLANTINE.
Mr. JAMES HANNEN.
Mr. HARDINGE GIFFARD.
Mr. BEASLEY.

Instructed by Mr. A. W. POLLARD, on behalf of the Treasury.

Counsel for the Prisoner —
Mr. SERJEANT PARRY.
Mr. METCALFE.
Mr. EDWARD BESLEY.

Instructed by Mr. THOMAS BEARD, Solicitor to the German
Legal Protection Society.

FRANZ MULLER (23) was indicted for the wilful
murder of Thomas Briggs.

CLERK OP THE COURT — Franz Muller, you are indicted that
.you did, on the 9th of July, in the present year, maliciously,
wilfully, and of malice aforethought, kill and murder Thomas
JBriggs. Are you guilty or not guilty?

The PRISONER — Not guilty.

CLERK OF THE COURT — You are entitled to be tried by a
.jury partly composed of foreigners.

SERJEANT PARRY (for the prisoner) — He wishes to be tried
by twelve Englishmen.

CLERK OP THE COURT — Prisoner at the bar, if you wish to
•object to any of the gentlemen of the jury you must do so as
they come into the box to be sworn.

SERJEANT PARRY — I understand that a ballot of all the jury-
men takes place at the beginning of the sessions, and that they
are divided into classes or pannels, and that these classes
consist of fourteen jurymen each.

CLBRK OF THE COURT — Yes.

SERJEANT PARRY — I ask your lordship that the whole of the
names of the gentlemen of the jury be placed in a box, and
that they should be taken out indifferently.

BARON MARTIN — You are entitled to have the jury sworn
according to Act of Parliament.

CLERK OP THE COURT — Send into the other Courts, and tell
them to send in all the jurymen in waiting.

(Messengers were sent, and while they were away the prisoner
held a long conversation with his solicitor, Mr. Beard, over
the front of the dock. Upon the entry of the jurymen from
the other Courts those gentlemen who had already taken their
•seats in the jury-box were requested to retire, which they did.)

CLERK OF THE COURT — The gentlemen who are summoned as
-a foreign jury need not stay any longer.

(Several jurymen were then called, but Mr. Serjeant Parry
•exercised his privilege of objecting to several.)

SERJEANT PARRY — I ask that the names of the jury be put
>into a box and drawn.

Franz Muller.

BARON MARTIN — There is no such Act of Parliament.

SERJEANT PARRY — I ask that the names be put in the box
and drawn.

BARON MARTIN — I shall proceed according to law.

(The learned baron then directed that the Act of Parliament
be handed to Serjeant Parry.)

The LORD CHIEF BARON — Mr. Avory was calling the names
of the gentlemen of the jury who had been summoned from
Middlesex. I propose that, as counties send prisoners for
trial to the Old Bailey, and there are pannels from each of
those counties, some jurymen should be cited from each pannel.

SERJEANT PARRY — I am quite satisfied with the proposal, and
thank your lordship for the suggestion.

The jury having been duly empannelled and sworn,

The CLERK OP THE COURT said — Gentlemen, the prisoner,.
Franz Muller, is indicted for that he did feloniously, wilfully,
and with malice aforethought, kill and murder Thomas Briggs,
and it is your duty to say whether he is guilty or not guilty.

Solicitor- The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — Gentlemen of the jury, it is my
General

duty to state to you the circumstances of a most extraordinary

murder, and to inform you of the evidence which will be laid
before you, warranting the conclusion that that murder wa&
committed by the prisoner at the bar. Gentlemen, this is a
case which has excited unusual and painful interest. It is,
one which, as we all know, has been canvassed and discussed in
almost every newspaper, I might say almost every house, in
the kingdom; and it is one on which some persons might
be inclined already to form an opinion. I must entreat you,
gentlemen, in approaching this most solemn inquiry, to discard
from your minds anything that you may have heard, everything
that you may have read upon the subject. I appear on the part
of the prosecution with a true desire to do justice to the
prisoner. You will try him upon the evidence, and upon the
evidence alone. It gives me great satisfaction to know that
the prisoner has been enabled to avail himself of the services.
of the distinguished counsel who are on his side, for I am
convinced they will present to your consideration in the most,
4

The Solicitor-General's Opening.

favourable manner every argument that can be made in his
favour. I shall now give you a plain statement of the facts
which will be presented before you.

Gentlemen, we have to inquire into the circumstances attend-
ing the death of a Mr. Thomas Briggs. Mr. Briggs was one of
the chief clerks of the well-known banking house of Messrs.
Roberts & Co. He was a gentleman, I understand, very highly
respected and esteemed by all who were acquainted with him.
Mr. Briggs had a house in Clapton Square, which is near to the
Hackney or Hackney Wick station of the North London rail-
way, and he frequently — almost habitually, I believe — went to
and fro between his place of business and his house by that
railway. I have now to call your particular attention to
Saturday, the 9th of July last. On Saturday, the 9th of
July, Mr. Briggs dined with a Mr. and Mrs. Buchan, who
lived in Nelson Square, Peckham, Mrs. Buchan being a niece
of Mr. Briggs. Mr. Briggs left Mr. Buchan's about half-past
nine o'clock at night with the intention of returning to his
home at Clapton Square. Mr. Buchan walked with him as
far as the omnibus which went to King William Street, where
he would get out and walk to the Fenchurch Street station. Mr.
Briggs had on that occasion with him a black bag. He had
a stick, which will be shown to you, and he had a watch and
chain. The watch was an old-fashioned, large, gold lever
watch, and, I believe, a valuable one. The chain was also
of some value, and was one he had had for some time. Attached*
to the chain was a ring, partly broken, which will be presently
shown to you and identified. It is clear that Mr. Briggs had
the watch and chain upon him at the time, for Mr. Buchan will
tell you that on his way to the omnibus he once or twice took
out his watch to see the time. Gentlemen, Mr. Briggs arrived
at the Fenchurch Street station in time to go by the train
which starts at a quarter before ten. He had taken a first-
-lass return ticket in the morning, and he went into a first-
class carriage with the intention of returning home. Now,
gentlemen, it will be proved to you beyond all doubt or con-
troversy that Mr. Briggs was robbed and murdered on that
night in that railway carriage. The murder was consum-
mated. His body was thrown out of the door of the carriage
between two stations, the one the Bow station and the other

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- the Hackney Wick station — rather nearer the Hackney Wick
than the Bow, at a spot which will be pointed out. The
murder was first discovered in this way. Two gentlemen,
clerks in the same banking establishment as Mr. Briggs,
happened to be getting into the same train at the Hackney
station. On getting in they felt something wet on the cushion,
and upon examination they found it to be blood. One or
two other persons got into the carriage, and they called the
attention of the guard. The guard examined the carriage ,.
and '.found a quantity of blood in it. He found also the black
bag, the stick, and a hat, in respect of which I may have-
some remarks to make by and by. The guard, of course,
caused all the passengers to leave the carriage, locked it up.,
and sent it on to the Chalk Farm station, where it was received
by Mr. Greenwood, and sent to Bow station, where it remained
from that time to this, and where it is now in the same state
as that in which it was on that night. In the meantime the
guard of an up train — an empty train — passing between the
Hackney Wick station and the Bow station, observed a dark
object on the ground between the two lines of railway. He
called the attention of the driver to it ; it proved to be the
body of a man, who was still breathing, but insensible. He
was taken to the Mitford Castle Inn, and it was then discovered
that this person was Mr. Briggs. Gentlemen, Mr. Briggs
never recovered his consciousness, but lingered in that state
until the next evening, when he died, having been conveyed
in the meantime to his own house.

It is proper that I should describe to you the state
in which Mr. Briggs was at the time he was found.
I am informed he had several severe wounds, appar-
ently inflicted by a blunt instrument, used with great force.
The skull had been fractured in several places. There were
also other bruises and contusions, which the medical men
who attended him are inclined to admit might be caused by
the fall from the carriage ; but I believe the medical men will
think that those injuries which were not done by the fall were
inflicted by a blunt instrument. The blood in the carriage
would indicate that violence was there used. The dress of
Mr. Briggs was disordered to such an extent as to indicate that
a serious struggle had taken place. He had been robbed of
6

The Solicitor-General's Opening.

his watch and chain. They had been taken forcibly from his Soiieitor-

. , , . , ., General

person, because there was subsequently found in the railway

carriage the broken link of the chain. But he had not been
robbed beyond this. He had four sovereigns in one of his
trousers pockets when he was found. He had also in the other
pocket a silver snuffbox, and he had a diamond ring on one
of his fingers. These articles had not been taken. That
is the description of the state of Mr. Briggs at the time he was
found.

Now, it would be well for me to describe a little more
particularly the state of the carriage. If you take this
to be the carriage — (referring to a model) — Mr. Briggs would
appear to be sitting on the "near" side, as it is called. A
large quantity of blood was found on this side, which appears
to have flowed profusely from the corner seat. There is also
a good deal of blood on the other part of the seat. I should
state to you the carriage is not divided, as some carriages
are, into compartments. It is a large and spacious carriage,
and has a small partition between some of the seats. There
was a small quantity of blood on the window where Mr. Briggs
sat. There was also blood on other parts of the carriage,
on the handle, and, I believe, on some of the door steps, which
would be produced by his falling out of the carriage, and not
by his being struck in the train. This blood in the carriage
has been examined by Dr. Letheby, a very careful and efficient
chemist, and he will show that it was no doubt human blood.
This would lead to the inference that Mr. Briggs was sitting
in this corner and had fallen asleep, dozing and resting his
head against the brass rail, and that he had been struck by
somebody on the opposite side on the left temple. Possibly
then he fell on this seat, where the blood would flow. Then
appearances would indicate that the murderer, whoever he
was, had taken Mr. Briggs to the window opposite the door
and thrown him out. It would be more convenient to throw
him out at that side, because he would fall between the rails,
where he would not so soon be discovered. This, however,
is not a matter of proof. It may possibly be that Mr. Briggs,
although bruised and stunned, may have had sense enough to
move himself, with a view to getting up or out. The doors,
I am told, are not locked on either side.

Franz Muller.

solicitor- Now, gentlemen, you may be disposed to ask me if I can
. . .

inform you whether this murder was committed by one

person only or by more than one person. It would
appear, I think, more probable that the violence was
committed by one person. If it was committed by a
number of thieves Mr. Briggs's pockets would have
been rifled, and his snuffbox would have been taken out;
whereas if the murder was committed by one man alone he
would take the watch and chain and leave the body, and the
marvel is that he did it in so short a time. You may ask
with what weapon the blows were inflicted, for, beyond all
doubt, the blows were inflicted by some blunt instrument.
I have been shown the stick of Mr. Briggs. It is a formidable
weapon — a large, heavy stick, with a handle at one end. The
stick was covered with blood, and it is now covered with blood.
It is possible that the stick might have become blooded in the
carriage without having been used as a weapon ; but you will
see it, and you will judge, assuming the murderer to have
been on the opposite side, whether the wounds might
have been produced by that weapon. But whether produced
by that weapon, or a life-preserver, or other weapon, it is a
matter on which I am not able to give you any distinct infor-
mation. Gentlemen, you may be disposed to ask w~hether,
on the part of the Crown, we are disposed to represent this
as a premeditated murder or a fortuitous one. On that point,
again, I cannot offer any distinct information, but it would
appear to me that the murder was the result of some sudden
determination. It may be that the murderer, seeing Mr. Briggs
in the carriage, and being able to get in, or being in that
carriage alone with him, he might have been seized with the
sudden impulse to possess his watch. I am told a person
with a second-class ticket might have got into that carriage,
because, the train being late, the tickets were not examined.
Any one with a second-class ticket might have got in and might
have got out without his ticket being examined at Bow. How-
ever, these are matters into which it is not requisite for me
to enter. I have described to you the state of Mr. Briggs's
person. I have described to you the state of the carriage,
and I have told you what was found in the carriage. There
was found Mr. Briggs's bag, and there was found Mr. Briggs's
8

The Solicitor-General's Opening.

-stick. There was also found in that carriage a hat, and that Solieitor-

General

is a circumstance of the utmost possible significance. Gentle-
men, that that hat was not Mr. Briggs's is beyond all doubt.
The hat was crushed, apparently as if it had been trod upon
in a struggle, and Mr. Briggs's hat was not found. The con-
clusion appears to me inevitable that the murderer, in the
hurry and excitement of the moment, took the wrong hat.
He took Mr. Briggs's hat with him and left his own. I
venture to think that one point in this case which may not be
disputed is this, that the man, whoever he was, who robbed
and murdered Mr. Briggs left his hat in that carriage. If
you discover with certainty the person who wore that hat on
that night you will have the murderer, and the case is proved
almost as clearly against him as if he was seen to do it.

It is now proper for me to give some description of the prisoner
at the bar, and to state the circumstances which point to his
guilt. The prisoner, Franz Miiller, is a German. He came
to England about two years ago, and worked as a tailor for
aeveral employers, the last being Mr. Hodgkinson, Great Queen
Street. Miiller had been out of employment for about a week
before the murder, and he appeared to have been very poor.
He wished to make his fortune in America, and had no means
to pay his passage, which amounted, I am told, to about £4.
It is fair to state, however, that before the murder Miiller
•contemplated going to America, and therefore the fact of his
going there is not the slightest evidence against him. Miiller
had a watch and chain of his own, which he was very fond of
displaying, but his necessities were such that he was obliged
to pawn this watch and chain. He pawned the watch for
£3 and the chain for £1. Miiller lodged at the house of a
Mrs. Blyth in the Victoria Park, and it is a fact not altogether
undeserving of consideration that the railway station would
be on his way home — or, at all events, would not be out of
his way home. Now, what were his whereabouts on the
Saturday night of the murder? After he left his employer,
Mr. Hodgkinson, he was in the habit of passing a good deal
of time at the house of Mr. Repsch, a tailor living in Old
Jewry Street ; and on this night he was at Mr. Repsch's. He
left there about half-past seven o'clock, saying he was going

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- to see some girl of the town with whom he was acquainted.
He did not return to his lodgings until late at night. The
landlady sat up until one o'clock, and he had not returned then.
But he afterwards went home, and let himself in. He re-
mained all the Sunday at his lodgings. On Monday morning
at ten o'clock Muller was in possession of Briggs's chain. Of
that there is no question whatever. At ten o'clock on the
Monday morning he took this chain to the~shop of a jeweller
in Cneapside, of the name of Death. He asked Mr. Death
what he would give in exchange. Mr. Death valued the
chain at =£3 10s., and he gave Muller another chain, which he
valued at £3 5s. Muller said he would take a ring for the
difference, and he took a gold ring with a white stone in it
of the value of 5s. Muller then left Mr. Death with the
chain and ring, the chain he took being in a small box, with
the name of Mr. Death inside, which was a circumstance of
some importance 'uf'EnTs case. Muller went to Mr. and Mrs.
Repsch's with the chain. He was asked where he had got
it, and he said he had bought the chain off a man at the
London Docks that morning, and had given £3 15s. for it.
Now, that was clearly an untruth, for he had got it in ex-
change. He also said he had bought a ring, which was like-
wise untrue. On the same day he goes to Mr. and Mrs.
Matthews, friends of his, and shows them the chain, and give?
them an account of it. He shows the ring, and says it had
been sent to him by his father from abroad. This is the
account he gives of it, and, at the same time, having no further
use for the box in which Mr. Death had put the chain, he left
the boi, and gave it to Mrs. Matthews 's little girl.

Now, gentlemen, Muller therefore clearly had Mr. Briggs's
chain on Monday morning at ten o'clock, and exchanged it for
another. It may be proper for me to state to you what he did
with the chain which he got, and what further transactions took
place with reference to this murder. The next thing he
appears to have done was to pawn this chain that he had got
at Death's. He pawned it for 30s., and he contrived to raise
10s. more; he borrowed 6s. off Mrs. Repsch, he received 4s. 6d.
from Mrs. Matthews in payment of a debt she owed him;
and with that, making £2 10s. 6d., he goes to the pawn-
broker and redeems his own watch. The next thing to do
10

The Solicitor-General's Opening.

is to get his chain out of pawn, which, as I have told you, he Soliettor-

General
pawned for <£!. He does that by borrowing the money. What

he does subsequently is this. Having got his own watch
and chain out of pawn for £3, he takes them to another pawn-
broker's, of the name of Cox, who will advance more than
that — who will advance £4. At the same time he sells the
ticket to a man of the name of Glass, in whose name he had
pawned the watch and chain. By this means he makes about
£4: 5s. What does he do with this? Why, having got this
money, he goes to the London Docks — that was on Wednesday
— he secures a passage by a vessel which was to start next
day, but did not start till Friday. Now, that is the account
I have to give you of Muller before he left this country, with
respect to Mr. Briggs's chain. And, gentlemen, I think you
will be satisfied that at this time, before he left the country,
Muller had not only Mr. Briggs's chain, but Mr. Briggs's watch.
The watch is never seen in England. He says nothing about
the wateh to anybody. When he got it what he did with it
does not appear, but when he was arrested in America the
watch of Mr. Briggs was found in his trunk, sewed up in a
piece of canvas. The account Muller gives 'of the watch is
this, that he had the watch for two years. Therefore it can
hardly, I suppose, be suggested that he had taken this watch
on the passage. That is not his own suggestion. He said he
had had it two years. I think, therefore, you will come to
the conclusion that Muller had the watch and chain before he
left England. Now, gentlemen, how did he get them? Of
course, on the part of the prosecution, I am willing to try any
supposition that is consistent with innocence. He may say
he bought the chain which he exchanged with Mr. Death at the
docks on the Monday morning. He may say that he bought
the original chain, which belonged to Mr. Briggs. Then it
will be a matter for consideration whether Muller was in
possession of Mr. Briggs's chain, and gave £3 for it. The
evidence will satisfy you that Muller was in great distress,
and, if he was unable to raise the money for his passage,
where was he to get the money to buy a chain ? Would he not
have got his own watch out of pawn? And if he could buy
a chain, where could he have got money to buy a valuable
watch? This, I think, will be one of the greatest difficulties

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- my learned friends will have to contend with in this part of
General

the case.

Before I pass to another part of the case let me
remind you that the stolen property is found on Muller shortly
after the robbery, and that Muller gives a false account of the
manner in which he came into possession of it. Now, in
ordinary cases of felony such evidence, I think, you will hear
from the learned judges, is submitted to juries, and forms
evidence which makes a strong case against the prisoner. If
Mr. Briggs had been robbed and not murdered it would have
been a strong case. I am not aware that the law requires
stronger evidence in a case that is attended with violence than
in a case that is not attended with violence ; but I can quite
understand that juries may require stronger evidence to satisfy
them. Gentlemen, that strong evidence I mean to give you.
I now refer to the hat which was left in the railway carriage
(hat produced). Gentlemen, this is the hat which was left
in the railway carriage, and beyond all doubt it is not Mr.
Briggs's hat. The hat bears the name of " H. Walker, 49
Crawford Street, corner of Seymour Street, Marylebone."
The lining is a peculiar one, which you will have the oppor-
tunity of examining. We have got, then, as far as this, that
the murderer, whoever he was, wore a hat of this kind on the
night in question, which was left in the carriage. Now, gentle-

Smen, I believe I shall be in a position to satisfy you that this
was the hat of Muller, and that he wore this hat on that very
night. I will very shortly state to you the evidence which
will be laid before you on that subject. I believe I shall be
able to show you under what circumstances this hat was bought.
The circumstances are these. Muller was acquainted with a
cabman of the name of Matthews. He became acquainted
with him, having worked some time with Mr. Waugh, who was
a relation of the cabman's wife. He observed the hat which
the cabman wore, and said, "That is a nice hat; where did
you get it? " And he said, " I got it at Walker's, in Craw-
ford Street." He tried it on, and found it would not fit
him. So he said to Matthews, " I will be much obliged if you
will get me a hat a size larger, and then it will fit me." It
was more convenient for the cabman to buy this hat, the street
being in his beat, than for Muller to buy it himself. The
12

The Solicitor-General's Opening.

cabman bought this hat for him for 8s. 6d., and Miiller paid Solicitor-
him in kind by giving him a waistcoat and some other clothes.
That is the account Matthews gives of this hat. It came out
in this way. It appeared, as I before said, that Miiller on the
Monday, not wanting the box, gave it to Matthews's little
child. Matthews observed on it the name of Death. He
saw a placard' announcing that the murderer of Mr. Briggs had
exchanged Mr. Briggs's chain with one Death. He then
gave information to the police about the hat, and said, "You
will probably find the hat to be Mliller's," and he gave a
description of it. One side of the brim was worn slightly
down; he had seen it often; and he will identify this hat as
clearly as it is possible to identify a hat. But the evidence
of the identity of this hat does not rest upon the cabman
alone. I shall call Mr. and Mrs. Repsch, and Mrs. Repsch
will tell you she observed the prisoner wearing this hat. She
observed him several times put off this hat, and put letters
in the lining. This was the hat he wore on the Saturday
night. In Muller's room after he left was found a hatbox
with the name " Walker & Co." on it, so it is quite manifest
he had a hatbox of Walker's. Now, the counsel for the
defence may say that Walker may make hats for some other
men than Miiller, and the murderer may not have had a hat of
Walker's. Gentlemen, Miiller had a hat of Walker's, and if
not in the box, where is this hat of Walker's? This will be
a question the defence will have to answer.

Gentlemen, the case does not rest here. The murderer,
whoever he was, not only left his own hat behind, blrtrhe took
away Mr. Briggs's hat. Tou would therefore expect to find Mr.
Briggs's hat in his possession. Gentlemen, I believe I shall be
able to show you by evidence peculiarly striking that Mr.
Briggs's hat was found in Muller's possession. It was found in
his possession when he was apprehended in America. Miiller
himself told Mrs. Repsch that Matthews had made him a
present of the hat. The hat was found in Muller's box in the
ship in which he was apprehended in America. Gentlemen,
Mr. Briggs dealt, and dealt only, with hatters of the name of
Digance & Co., and there was the name of " Digance & Co.,
Royal Exchange," in the hat. When young Mr. Briggs saw
this hat first he expressed doubts of its identity, because he

Franz Muller.

Solicitor-! said, " My father's hat was higher in the crown than this."
j He was perfectly right. This hat has been cut down an inch
I or an inch and a half. I will call before you the man who
I made this hat, and, as Mr. Briggs was in the habit of ordering
his hats, it would be made to order. This hat was ordered in
September, 1863, and it has been well worn since then. Mr.
Briggs wore what is called a bell-crowned hat. I will call the
man who made it, and he will say this is the hat he made. I
will further say that Mr. Briggs complained that this hat was
too large for him, and some silver paper was put in under the
lining. Now, some of that paper has been taken away, but
not completely taken away, and you will see pieces of silver
paper still remaining there. The man who made this hat will
tell you it has been cut down an inch or an inch and a half,
and he will further tell you it has not been cut down by a
hatter. He will say that a hatter would have used varnish
and a hot iron, and he will tell you that this has merely been
pasted on and sewed — and sewed very neatly and regularly.
It has therefore been cut down, not by a hatter, but by one
who understood sewing. In fact, it has been cut down
by a tailor, and not a hatter. Now, you may ask, why did
Muller cut down the hat? Had he a fancy for a low-crowned
hat? Why, no; for his own hat was not low crowned, and
he wore that. The maker of the hat, a man of the name of
Thorn, will tell you when he made this hat he wrote the name
of Mr. Briggs inside the lining, as it was the rule to do with
all customers. That part of the hat on which Mr. Briggs's
name was written is that part which has been taken away.
That Muller had this hat in his possession is beyond all doubt.
Then, gentlemen, you will say whether the evidence leads you
to the conclusion that on finding the name of Mr. Briggs in
the hat Muller made this alteration. Muller, on being ques-
tioned, said he had this hat a year. This hat is clearly found
in Miiller's possession when he is apprehended in America, and
I think the evidence will lead you to the conclusion that he
wore it on the Monday morning after the murder, and not
before that, because Mr. and Mrs. Repsch will tell you that
upon his coming to them on the Monday morning after he had
exchanged Mr. Briggs's chain for another, which he got from
Mr. Death, they observed that Muller had a new hat, clearly

The Solicitor-General's Opening.

different from the one he had on Saturday. They called Solicitor-
attention to it, and said, "You have got a new hat." He
said he had had it two months. " Why," Mr. Repsch said,
" this is a guinea hat." "No," Miiller said, " I gave
14s. 6d. for it." You, gentlemen, will judge of the value of
this evidence. I will further observe that, on Miiller 's effects
being examined, a portion of his dress was missing. A portion
of the trousers he wore on that Saturday night, and some
other clothes, were missing. I have before told you the
watch was found in the box. These, then, are the principal
facts.

Undoubtedly the evidence in this case is what is called
circumstantial evidence chiefly, but I may remind you that
it is" "by circumstantial evidence that great crimes are most
frequently detected. Murders are not committed in the
presence of witnesses, and to reject circumstantial evidence
would be to proclaim immunity to crime. There is a descrip-
tion of evidence which I may be allowed to call evidence of
facts. Such is the evidence of the watch and chain, such is
the evidence of the hat cut down, and such is the evidence
of the box with Mr. Death's name on it. There are circum-
stances which give evidence which cannot be false and which
cannot be mistaken. Gentlemen, without again repeating the
many details of this case, the main facts may be summed up
thus — Mr. Briggs is robbed and murdered in a railway carriage ;
the murderer takes from him his watch and chain, and takes
from him his hat ; all the articles taken are found on Miiller ;
he gives a false statement of how he got them, and the hat
left behind is the hat of Miiller. Gentlemen, I venture to
think that if these circumstances are proved to you by wit-
nesses, a stronger case of circumstantial evidence has rarely, if
ever, been submitted to a jury. If, indeed, after hearing the
whole case, you can entertain a reasonable doubt of his guilt
you will acquit him, but if, on the other hand, the evidence
amounts — I will not say to demonstration, for demonstration
is a species of proof not to be found in cases of murder — but
if the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt of the prisoner's
guilt, I am sure you will not hesitate to perform the duty which
is cast upon you.

Franz Muller.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.

David Buchan DAVID BucHAN, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL —
I reside at 23 Nelson Square, Peckham. Mr. Briggs, the
deceased, was a relative of my wife. His age was about sixty-
nine, his height 5 feet 9 inches. I remember his coming to
visit us on the 9th of July. He came about five o'clock. He
had a black bag with him. He dined at my house that day,
and left about half-past eight. I accompanied him as far as
the Lord Nelson in the Old Kent Road, and saw him to an
omnibus, which would take him to King William Street, for
the purpose of going to Fenchurch Street railway station.
When I parted with him he was in his usual health and spirits.
I knew that he wore a watch and chain, the watch in his
waistcoat pocket, the chain being attached to his buttonhole.
He had a small seal and two keys attached to his watch. He
had the watch that night; he referred to it to see whether he
was in time for his train. The next morning I went to the
railway, and then to Mr. Briggs's house between ten and
eleven. I saw him, but he was at that time insensible, and
did not recover up to the time of his death. I left before he
died.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — Was he perfectly
sober? — Yes.

Was he in good spirits? — Yes.

He was in perfect self-control? — Yes.

You are quite sure of that? — Yes; I am quite certain of that.

Is your wife here? — Yes.

Was she examined before the coroner? — Yes.

Do you know whether he had more than one hat? — I should
think he had.

Was he a gentleman well off in the world? — I believe so.

And lived in a fair and reasonable style? — Yes.

You say that this omnibus that he got into goes up the Old
Kent Road? — Yes; through the Borough and over London
Bridge.

And from London Bridge to King William Street? — Yes.

Where did you part with him? — At the Lord Nelson, Old
Kent Road. The 'bus started from there.
16

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine.

Evidence for Prosecution.

Are you aware that any threats had been held out against David Buchan
Mr. Briggs? — Not to my personal knowledge.

Not to your personal knowledge? Have you heard some say
BO? — I heard my wife say so.

I believe your wife was examined before the coroner? — Yes.

But not before the magistrates? — No.

Mrs. BUCHAN, examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINB — I am the Mrs. Buchan
wife of the last witness. I am a relative of Mr. Briggs. He
was at our house at dinner on the 9th of July. He was in
his usual health and spirits. He was perfectly sober. I
never saw him again alive.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — I was examined before
the coroner, but not before the magistrate. I believe that
my evidence was not considered of any importance ; it was
simply corroborating my husband's statement.

Have you ever heard any one use any threats towards Mr.
Briggs ? — Not personally.

What do you mean by not personally? — Not from any one's
lips, but I have from a third person's lips. The coroner
asked me that question.

Was it a person to whom he objected to send money?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the question.

SERJEANT PARRY — I am only in the exercise of my rights in
asking it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would not press his objection if his
friend wished to put the question.

SERJEANT PARRY — I don't want the slightest favour, but only
my right, and especially in a case of this kind.

The question was not repeated, and the witness retired.

THOMAS FISHBODRNB, examined by Mr. HANNBN — I am a ticket T. Fishbourae
collector at Fenchurch Street station on the North London
railway. It is my duty to mark the tickets. I stand at the
bottom of the stairs leading to the platform. There is a
considerable flight of stairs up to the platform which passengers
have to pass after they leave me. I knew the late Mr. Briggs
o 17

Franz Muller.

T.Fishbourne by Bight. He was in the habit of travelling by the North
London railway. On the night of the 9th of July last I saw
him. He presented his ticket in the ordinary way. It was
a quarter to ten o'clock. There was a train to start about
that time. He presented his ticket in time to start by that
train. It was to start at 9.45, or about that time. I
don't know whether it was a minute or so late. He spoke
to me, and I answered him; I marked his ticket. I heard
of his death about twelve o'clock the next day. I went to
his house and recognised him.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — I only look at the
tickets to " nip " them. I " nip " all for the North London
railway.

Henry Vernez HENRY VERNEZ, examined by Mr. BEASLEY — I am a clerk in
the employment of Messrs. Robarts <fe Co. On Saturday, the
9th of July last, I went to the Hackney station of the North
London railway. It was about ten o'clock. I was in com-
pany with Mr. Jones, a clerk in the same employment as
myself. I took a first-class ticket for Highbury. Upon the
arrival of the train from Fenchurch Street I went to the door
of a first-class carriage. I opened the door of the carriage,
which was empty. I and Mr. Jones got into it. I sat on
the right-hand side going in, and about the centre of the
carriage ; that is, with my face to the engine. Before the
train started Mr. Jones called my attention to something —
to some blood on his hand. I immediately called the guard,
and the guard got a light. Then we got out. Two other
persons besides us, who had got into the carriage, also got out.
I saw a stick, hat, and a black bag in the carriage when the
guard brought a light. The guard then locked up the
carriage, leaving the articles in it. I got into another carriage.

SERJEANT PARRY — I have no questions to ask the witness.

Sydney Jones SYDNEY JONES, examined by Mr. BEASLEY — I live at 10 Barns-
bury Park, Islington. I am also a clerk in the employment
of Messrs. Robarts <fe Co. I went to the Hackney station on
the evening of the 9th July with the last witness. It was
about ten o'clock. I had a first-class ticket for the train
18

Evidence for Prosecution.

going to Highbury. I won't say that I took it, or my friend. Sydney Jones
I got into a first-class carriage with the last witness. He
opened the door. On entering it I saw a black bag on the
left-hand side on the seat nearest the door. I put it on the
•opposite side.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — I knew Mr. Briggs
very well. I was in the same bank with him as a clerk. I
had seen him daily for the last twelve months. I had known
him about four years.

BBNJAJGN AMES, examined by the SOLICTTOR-GENBRAL — I am B. Ames
a, guard on the North London railway, and was guard of the
train which left Fenchurch Street at 9.50 p.m. on the 9th of
July. It was five minutes after its time. As we were late
in arriving at Fenchurch Street I had not time to examine the
tickets or shut the doors. I knew Mr. Briggs as a passenger.
I did not observe him that night. When the train arrived at
the Hackney station my attention was called by Mr. Vernez to
No. 69, first-class carriage. I noticed something was the
matter. I went back to the brake van and procured my hand-
lamp, and then examined the carriage. On the near side
cushion there were marks of blood — that is, the cushion
nearest the engine — and on the quarter-lights on the near side
there were marks of blood. The quarter-light is a square
of glass that shows light into the carriage even with the seat.
After examining that part of the carriage I found the hat,
stick, and bag. (The hat and stick were shown to the witness,
and he said that they were like those he saw.) There were
marks of blood upon the hat, which was crumpled up, and also
on the stick and bag. I pulled up the windows of the carriage
and locked the doors. There were no passengers in the
carriage when I went to inspect it. I locked up the carriage
as it was, with the hat, stick, and bag in it. I telegraphed
on to Chalk Farm. Mr. Greenwood is stationmaster there.
When we arrived at Chalk Farm he examined the carriage,
and locked it up, and it was brought to Bow station. It
has not been used since. It stands in the shed there now. Mr.
Greenwood took charge of the hat, stick, and bag as lost
property.

Franz Muller.

B. Ames Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — There was a good deat

of blood, as there were a great many spots on the cushions. I
did not notice any blood on the floor. On the opposite cushion
there was a finger mark, as though a person's hand had been
wiped there. The blood was in a liquid state when I saw it.
There was blood on the glass of the window — blood about the
size of a crown piece, and it was trickling down the glass.

Was it a large pool of blood that you saw? — I should think
about the size of a sixpenny piece or a little more. That was
on the cushion. There was more than one spot — there were
two or three. I cannot give the time I arrived at Hackney.
I can give the time we left. We left Fenchurch Street station
at 9.50. We left Hackney at 10.15, and Bow at one minute-
past ten o'clock. There is a station between Bow and
Hackney — Victoria Park station, sometimes called Hackney
Wick. I left Victoria at 10.15. I have not measured the-
distance between Bow station and Hackney. I did not see-
Mr. Briggs that night. I did not see him at Bow station.
We left Hackney Wick at 10.5, and Hackney at 10.15. We
stayed there about four minutes. We differ in the length of
time going the journey. It differs sometimes owing to the-
state of the weather acting on the rails — as slippery weather.

On that night how long were you going from Bow to Hackney
Wick? — From three minutes to three and a half minutes. T
had nothing to do with the discovery of the body.

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I discovered blood
on the quarter-light and offside cushion on the same side of
the carriage. It was about the size of a fourpenny piece.
I examined the door on the other side — there was blood there-
on the handle on the offside.

Wm. Timms WILLIAM Tnocs, examined by SERJEANT. BALLANTINE — I am-
a guard on North London railway. I brought a train of
empty carriages from Hackney Wick station on 9th July. It
left about twenty minutes past ten. We have to go over the
canal bridge at that point. The driver called my attention
to something in the six-foot way. I put on the brake, and
stopped the train as soon as possible. Upon examination we
found the body of a man lying in the six-foot way. He was
20

Evidence for Prosecution.

lying on his back, with his head towards Hackney. He was Wm. Ttanms
lying straight about midway on the six-foot way between the
up and down lines. I picked the body up, and took it to a
neighbouring public-house. He was alive at the time.
Medical men were sent for directly.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — It took four or five
-of us to carry the body. No persons came to the place where
the body was till they were called upon. I went to the public-
house to get assistance. Several other persons came to help
besides those who carried the body. I should think there
might have been a dozen altogether.

By the CHIEF BARON — He was lying in the six-foot way
between the up and down lines, and with his head towards
Hackney.

ALFRED EKIN, examined by Mr. HANNBN — I was the engine- Alfred Ekln
driver of the train of which the last witness was guard. We
started from Victoria Park station about 10.20 p.m., and pro-
ceeded on the line towards Fenchurch Street. On my way
my attention was directed towards something on the line. It
was a black object, and was lying on the six-foot way about
half-way between the two stations. We were just entering
on the canal bridge when I saw it. I called the attention of
the last witness to what I saw. I stopped the engine as soon
as possible, and backed to the spot where the body was lying.
I did not take part in carrying it to the public-house. I
stopped with the engine. I did not see any more of the body
afterwards. When I first called the attention of the last
witness to it there was nobody else there but our fireman. No
one came to the spot before the last witness had gone to the
public-house.

Cross-examined by SBRJEANT PARRY — Where the body was
found do the rails run on an embankment? — Yes.
How high is that embankment? — About 8 or 9 yards.

EDWARD DOUOAN (Police Constable K71), examined by E. Dougan
Mr. BBASLEY — I was on duty in Wick Lane, Bow, about
twenty minutes past ten on the night of the 9th of July.

Franz Muller.

E. Dougran In consequence of a cry I heard on the line I went up the
embankment, about eight or nine steps up. There is a
kind of path made there by persons going up and down at
the corner of the bridge. I saw several persons carrying a
gentleman down off the line. I accompanied those persons to
the Mitford Castle public-house. I sent for a surgeon, seeing
the condition of the deceased. I searched his pockets, and
found four sovereigns and some keys in the left-hand side
trousers pocket, and in the vest pocket a florin and half of a
first-class railway ticket of the North London railway. In
the right-hand side trousers pocket there were 10s. 6d. in
silver and copper, some more keys, a silver snuffbox, and
a number of letters and papers, and a silk handkerchief, and
a diamond ring on the little finger, which I took away. There
was a gold fastening attached to his waistcoat, but I could
not undo it. I observed his dress, saw that his shirt was
rumpled, and that there was one black stud in the front, which
I took away, only one. I have measured the distance from
the Bow station to the spot where the body was found.
It was 1434 yards, and from the spot to Hackney Wick station
740 yards. The whole distance from Bow to Hackney Wick
is 1 mile and 414 yards. I have not measured from Hackney
Wick to Hackney.

P. Toulmin Mr. FRANCIS TOULMIN, examined by SERJEANT BALLAN-
TINS — I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, carry-
ing on my business in Lower Clapton. I was the usual medical
attendant of Mr. Briggs. I believe that he was in his seven-
tieth year. He enjoyed very good health until this spring,
when he was attacked with erysipelas, but from this he had
perfectly recovered, though in danger for some time. On
the morning of the 10th July I was sent for between two and
three o'clock. I arrived before three. I found that he was
still living, but groaning, and was perfectly unconscious. I
attended him from time to time till he died, which was at a
quarter before twelve o'clock on the Sunday night. It was
a hopeless case. After his death I made a careful post-
mortem examination. This was on the Tuesday following, and
in the presence of Mr. Brereton, Mr. Cooper, and others. I

Evidence for Prosecution.

made notes of it immediately after. The cartilage of the left F. Touimin

ear was severed by a jagged wound ; about an inch anterior

to the left ear was a deep wound, extending to the bone, if not

into it. Over the temporal muscle was a contused wound —

a superficial and grazed wound, not a deep wound. There

were several incised wounds on the scalp, as many as four, and

one other, near the crown of the head, behind the others,

3 inches long, behind the vertex. It was an incised wound.

The other wounds were about f inch in length, having a

direction all from before to behind. That applies to all

wounds on the top of the head. Those wounds all extended

to the pericranium, but had not divided it. On removing

the scalp the shell was found to be extremely fractured ; the

fissures extended in various directions, radiating from the

centre. I have some sketches here.

SERJEANT BALLANTINE — Thank you. We won't trouble
you for them now.

WITNESS — The fissures radiated, as it were, from a centre.

Does that imply one blow or more? — I cannot say. A
portion of the outer commencement of the parietal bone,
f inch long and \ inch wide, was perfectly separated, and fell
out. There was an effusion of blood between the neck and
the skull cap or calvarium. There was also a further effusion
of blood between the skull cap and the dura mater. The
temporal bone was driven in upon the brain.

In your opinion, were all or any of these wounds inflicted
by a sharp or a blunt instrument? — I cannot account for the
wounds on the top of the head except on the presumption that
they were inflicted by a blunt instrument, used with consider-
able force. I think that the wound on the left ear was also
inflicted by a blunt instrument; but of that I cannot speak so
certainly; that was my impression.

Are you able to say whether many blows were struck? —
There were four or five distinct wounds on the scalp which
would account for so many distinct blows.

Does the blunt instrument apply to all of these? — Yes. I
was especially guided to think that, because the pericranium
was not divided, which it would have been by a sharp instru-
ment.

Franz Muller.

F. Touimin Were there any wounds about the head which could be traced
to a sharp instrument? — No.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — There were five or
six wounds altogether.

Speaking with reference to all these wounds, must consider-
able force have been employed? — The contused wound on the
temple might have arisen from a fall.

You have said that the incised wounds on the crown of the
head were 3 inches long; how deep were they? — Not more
than £ inch — perhaps not quite so much.

How tall was Mr. Briggs? — About 5 feet 8 inches.

What weight was he ? — He had decreased in flesh.

I did not ask you that; be good enough to answer my ques-
tion?— Between 11 and 12 stones.

I do not suppose you weighed him. Was he more than
12 stones? — I should say not.

Alfred H. Mr. ALFRED HENRY BRERBTON, examined by the SOLICITOR-

Br ere ton *

GENERAL — I am a surgeon, residing at the Old Ford Road. I
was called to see Mr. Briggs about eleven o'clock on Saturday,
9th July, at the Mitford Castle public-house. I was the first
medical man that saw him. I found him in a lower room
near the bar. He was lying on a table, evidently suffering
from concussion of the brain. In consequence of the room
being close, I had him removed from the lower room to an
upper room, and laid on a mattress on a table. I attempted
to restore reaction by different methods, but could not succeed.

By BARON MARTIN — You failed? — Yes.

Examination resumed — Describe distinctly the injuries which
he had received? — There was a jagged cut wound across the
cartilage of the left ear. In front of that ear there was also
another jagged wound, and above the same ear there was also
a swelling, a scalp tumour. There were also two deep wounds
on the vertex of the head.

Could you judge how these wounds were inflicted? — I made
two distinctions at the time between those wounds on the
vertex of the head and those on the left side of the head. I
24

Evidence for Prosecution.

think that those on the left side of the head were owing to Alfred H.

Brereton
the fall from the carriage. Those above I attributed to some

blunt instrument.

Some of the injuries you refer to a fall and some to a blunt
instrument used with violence? — Yes.

He never recovered his consciousness? — No. I was with
him during the whole night until six o'clock the next morning,
when he was attended by Mr. Toulmin.

I believe you made some examination of the railway car-
riage?— That was at six o'clock on the Sunday morning. I
found there was blood on the carriage. On the offside there
was evidently blood spurted, on the outside lower panels of the
•carriage and the inside of the door. There was blood also on
the iron step, and on the footboard of the carriage and the
platform.

The wooden step? — Yes. There was some blood on the
hinder wheel of that division of the carriage. I did not
observe any on the door handle. I found a link of a chain in
the carriage, and gave it to the police. I found it on the near
side mat in front of the near side cushion.

SERJEANT PARRY — I have no questions to ask.

Mr. VINCENT MERTON COOPER, examined by Mr. HANNEN — I v- M- Coopep
am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons. I was called
in to see Mr. Briggs shortly after the accident. It was about
an hour afterwards. I made an examination with the other
witnesses. I have not been in Court while they were
examined, and have not heard their evidence. There were
some scalp wounds over the two parietal bones, a jagged
wound of the left ear, a few bruises' about the forehead, and a
large and deep wound in front of the ear. There was a tumour
over the left side of the left ear. The skull was fractured.

Were any of these wounds caused by a blunt instrument? — I
think that the wounds on the top of the head were caused by
a blunt instrument, but not the wounds over the left ear. I
think they were caused by coming into contact with a stone
on the railway.

SERJEANT PARRY — I have no questions to ask this witness.

Franz Muller.

G. Greenwood GEORGE GREENWOOD, examined by the SOLICITOR-GHNARAL,
— I am the stationmaster at the Chalk Farm station of the
North London railway. On Saturday, 9th July, Ames, at
10.30 p.m., drew my attention to the first-class compartment
of a carriage there. I took from it a hat, bag, and walking
stick (produced). I locked them up till next morning, and
then gave them to Lambert, the policeman.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — I took the hat out
of the carriage about 10.30. I took it to my own room and
locked it up for the night. I am sure of that, and on Sunday
morning I gave it to Lambert. It is now in exactly the same
condition as when I had it. The lining of the hat has been
torn a little since. The lining was pointing upwards when
I took it out, as if the hat had been pressed down hard on
the head and then pulled off and the lining taken out with
it.

L. Lambert LEWIS LAMBERT (Police Constable K311), examined by the
SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I am a police constable. I went, on the
afternoon of Sunday, 10th July, to the Chalk Farm station,
and the stationmaster there handed me a hat, stick, and bag.
(Articles produced and identified.) I took them to Mr.
Briggs's house in Clapton Square. The stick and bag were
owned by young Mr. Briggs, but the hat he knew nothing of.
I then took them to Bow station and gave them to Inspector
Kerressey. They were in my care till I gave them to him.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — Young Mr. Brigg&
would not own the hat. He said he did not know anything
of it — that it was not his father's. That was the hat found
in the carriage. I had nothing to do with the other hat (that
belonging to Mr. Briggs).

W. Kerressey WALTER KERRE8SEY (Police Inspector K), examined by Mr.
BEASLEY — I produce a hat, stick, and bag. (Articles identified.)
I received them from Lambert. I handed the hat over to
Inspector Tanner on the llth, and the stick and bag after
the last examination at Bow Street. Up to that time they
were in my care. On Sunday morning, 10th July, I went
26

Evidence for Prosecution.

to Bow station, about ten in the morning. I there saw in a w. Kerrassey
shed a railway carriage. The door handle on the offside
was bloody; that is the offside going towards Hackney.
There was blood also on the cushions, on the front part of
the carriage, and also on the near window. There was a little
blood on the off window, on the footboard outside, and step,
on the same side as the handle, and on the panel of the car-
riage outside, on the same side. I then went to Mr. Briggs's
house about eleven o'clock. I saw him; he was then alive,
but insensible. On Tuesday morning I observed on his waist-
coat a hook, which I produce. It was fastened to the waist-
coat at the third buttonhole. Mr. Thomas Briggs gave it to
me on the Tuesday. I saw him take it off the waistcoat. It is a
patent hook difficult to undo — he knew how to undo it. If
closed, there are not many persons who would know how to
open it. I produce also a ring which I received from Police
Sergeant Prescott. It is a small " jump " ring. Mr. Brere-
ton was present at the time I received it. I also produce a
gold chain, to which there were attached a swivel, seal, and two
keys. I received them from Mr. Death.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — I had directions
from Sir Richard Mayne to go to New York on the 22nd of
July. Up to that time I had been making inquiries with
respect to this case. I know Thomas Lee. He was not
examined before the coroner in my presence. I heard he was
examined.

Have you not, in the course of your inquiries in this case,
heard that Mr. Briggs was seen alive on the night of the
murder at the Bow station?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I object to that question. The
matter is not in evidence either on the part of the Crown or
of the prisoner.

SERJJEANT PARRY — I apprehend that if the witness heard a
fact of so important a character as this, and that fact is kept
from the jury, I have a right to ask a witness, whose special
duty it was to make inquiries, whether such a fact was not
heard of, on the ground that it goes to the credit of the witness.

BARON POLLOCK decided against the question being

Franz Muller.

W. Kerressey put, on the ground that if such questions were admitted they
would let in a flood of hearsay evidence that would take up
time without advancing the case.

Cross-examination resumed — On the llth July I first heard
of the reward of £200, viz., £100 by the Government and
£100 by the bank. The North London railway afterwards
offered another £100. It was offered within a week. I saw
it placarded at several stations and at Bow, my station, and
I have seen it advertised in the newspapers. I have no doubt
the placards were on the walls of London, but I did not notice
them. I am sure the handle of the door was bloody. There
was no blood on Mr. Briggs's hands.

Dr. H. Letheby Dr. HENRY LETHEBT, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I
am a professor of chemistry at the London Hospital. I made
a particular inspection of the railway carriage with a view to
ascertain if there was blood and the nature of the blood. I
examined the carriage on Tuesday, 26th July, at Bow. It
was No. 69. I examined the first compartment next to the
buffers; there were three or four compartments. This was
the end compartment. I observed, on the seat of the carriage,
blood was upon two of the cushions. I have measured the
globules of the blood, and I believe it to be human blood.
It had all the characteristics of human blood. It was the
first cushion on the left-hand side as we were facing the front
of the carriage, the cushion nearest the engine. The cushion
had been turned, the leather side uppermost, so that the blood
had been retained in the cushion. There was blood on the
glass immediately above the cushion. It had the charac-
teristics of human blood, and, from the coagulum in it, had
been living when it came on the glass. It contained particles
of brain matter. There were two spots like splashes. They
were about the size of sixpences. Such an effect would have
been produced by a blow if a person had been sitting on that
part of the carriage, and had been struck on the left side of
his head; as he was leaning against the glass that effect
might have been produced. There were about thirty spots of
blood on the opposite cushion, the one furthest from the
engine. There were two on the other cushion on the same
28

Evidence for Prosecution.

side. In fact there was blood on all four of the cushions. Dr. H.Letheby
There were spots of blood outside the door, and on the
carriage, which trailed in the direction of the hinder part. I
examined the stick ; there was blood on it. (Stick pro-
duced.) I see it there now. There is very little there,
though it covers nearly the whole of the stick, from the
bottom to the top. I did not see any blood on the top, or
for 6 inches downwards.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — I examined the carriage
on the 26th July, and the stick on the 6th October. There was
very little blood on it, but it is there now. It does not
require magnifying power to see it, but it requires magnifying
power to discover it to be blood. I used a microscope and
also chemical tests to determine the character of the stains.
I have not examined anything else at the request of the
prosecution, but the carriage and the stick.

JOHN DEATH, examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINE — I live at 55 John
Cheapside, and am a jeweller. I know the prisoner at the
bar very well. On Monday, llth July, he came into my
shop, just before ten in the morning. I was called into the
shop, and a chain was handed to me by my brother, saying
that the customer wished to part with it in exchange. (Mr.
Briggs's chain produced.) That is the chain. I examined
the chain closely with a magnifying glass, in presence of the
prisoner. Then I went to some scales behind him, and
weighed the chain. As I did so he turned round to see me
do it. I then told the prisoner that I would give him £3 10s.
for it. He silently accepted that price, and said he would
take a chain in exchange of the same cost. I produced a
chain at £3 15s. He made some objection to it, because it
had drop appendages. I persevered to sell that chain. He said
that he would take it if I would sell it at the same price, £3 10s.
I objected. I then found a chain worth £3 5s. I showed him
that, and he very shortly accepted that chain. I asked my
brother for a box, which was given to me. I put the chain
in the box, and made a parcel of it. (Box produced.) I
gave him the box, and, after a moment's pause, said, "What
will you take for the 5s.?" He immediately said, "A

Franz Muller.

John Death finger ring." I showed him about half a dozen on a card,
one of which was 5s., and he accepted the one worth 5s., after
putting it on his finger, instead of the 5s. in money. (Box
produced.) This is the same size, shape, and colour as the
box in which I packed the chain. I believe it to be the same
box.

Take the chain of Mr. Briggs, and tell me whether a jump
ring formed part of the chain? — There must have been a jump
ring to this chain at this junction to connect the two parts of
the chain and the hook together. There is now a piece of
wire to it. It is the same as when I examined it first. It
is a common pin without a head, bent round, which served
the same purpose as a jump ring. There was also a piece
of string holding together the two parts of chain, tied in such
a way that if the jump ring had given way the two parts of
the chain would still remain together. The piece of string
has been used for the purpose of attaching a gold key to the
chain, so that the chain would not part if the jump ring were
broken. It is in the same condition as when I first saw it.
I gave information to the police in this matter the same after-
noon as the prisoner had been there, and accompanied the
officers to New York. There was a white cornelian stone,
with an engraved head, in the ring which I sold to Muller.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — It is very common to
exchange goods in my business. My brother saw the prisoner,
and the prisoner saw me weigh the chain ; he was close to it,
only a show-case parting him. I don't know what passed
between the prisoner and my brother before I came into the
shop. The prisoner did not speak to me about the chain. It
was handed me by my brother. My brother is now minding
the shop, and can soon be here if required. I had never, to
my knowledge, seen the prisoner in my shop before. I am
mostly in the shop, but my brother is constantly there,
and might have dealings with which I was not personally
acquainted.

Take that chain (chain belonging to Muller, and referred

to as having been seen in his possession some time before

the murder.) Now, Mr. Death, tell me did not the prisoner,

in November, 1863, get a link put to that very chain at your

Mr. James Hannen
(From a Photograph by the London Stereoscopic and Photographic Co., Ltd.).

Evidence for Prosecution.

shop, and pay you Is. 6d. for it? — Certainly not, to my John Death
knowledge.

Did he not call two or three times after he had left the
chain to have the link put to it? — I never saw the prisoner
before the llth of July to my knowledge.

BAEON MARTIN suggested that as there were three chains in
question it would be best to distinguish Mr. Briggs's chain
as No. 1, the chain given by Mr. Death in exchange as No. 2,
and Muller's own chain as No. 3.

Cross-examination resumed — Now, look at that chain (No. 3)
carefully? — I don't think I ever saw it before. I could not swear
to my own workmanship in such a matter as putting in a link.

Do you recollect in June last the prisoner offering to
exchange another chain at your shop? — I do not. My
memory is very good for persons ; and if he had done so I
think I should have remembered him.

Look again at that chain (No. 3) and tell me whether a
link has been broken? — This chain has been mended. I
cannot say whether it is my work or not. I cannot remember
it ; in fact, I am sure I have never seen this chain before.

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR- GENERAL — As far as my
memory serves me, up to the morning of the llth of July I
had never seen the prisoner before.

The CHIEF BARON — Had you not better send for the brother
of Mr. Death?

SERJEANT BALLANTINB — We have sent for him, and he will
be here very shortly.

Mrs. ELLEN BLTTH, examined by Mr. HANNEN — I am the wife Mrs. Blyth
of George Blyth, a messenger, living at 16 Park Terrace, Old
Ford Road. I know the prisoner at the bar. He lodged
at our house for about seven weeks ending the 14th of July.
He occupied the first-floor back. He took his meals with us.
I knew he was a tailor. He usually left our house at half -past
seven in the morning, or from that till eight. I remember
the morning of Saturday, 9th July. I saw the prisoner at
eleven o'clock that morning. When he went out I did not
expect him home at any particular time at night. I sat up

Franz Muller.

Mrs. Blyth till eleven o'clock that night. He had not then come home.
He had a latchkey. I did not hear him come home. My
husband and myself went to bed at eleven o'clock. I saw
the prisoner next morning between eight and nine o' clock .
He breakfasted with us, and stopped at home all day. In the
evening we — my husband, myself, and the prisoner — went out
together and returned together. He spent the day with us
on Sunday. On Monday morning I saw him between seven
and eight o'clock. He breakfasted with us, and left the
house about eight o'clock. I saw him next between eight and
nine on the same evening. He spent some time with us, and
showed us a gold albert chain (chain No. 2, Mr. Death's, pro-
duced). I don't know whether that is the chain. I did not
examine it enough to know it again. It is something similar
to it. He said nothing about it. He remained Tuesday and
Wednesday, and left on the Thursday morning. When he
came to us he brought a hatbox and a long black box. This
hatbox (the one produced) has the same name, " Walker, 49
Crawford Street, Marylebone," upon it. I found that box
in the prisoner's room after he left, and gave it to the police-
constables when they came to make inquiries.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — He passed the day on
Sunday much the same as usual, and there was nothing
different in his manner. I have known the prisoner more
than twelve months, and have found him a quiet, inoffensive,
well-behaved young man. I have had plenty of opportunities
of judging of his temper, as he used to take his meals with
us. He took every meal with us on that Sunday. I consider
he was of a kind and humane disposition. We usually took
a Sunday walk together. He walked out with us on the
Sunday, and exhibited the same manner he usually exhibited.
My husband has not been examined either before the coroner
or before the magistrate. He has not been examined at all.

Did the prisoner wear the same dress on the Sunday that
he wore on the Saturday? — Yes.

Did he wear the same dress on the Monday as on the
Saturday and the Sunday? — I cannot recollect whether the
trousers he wore were light or dark ; but he wore the same
coat. I have seen the coat since, and have recognised it as the
one he wore. (Coat produced and handed to the witness.)
32

Evidence for Prosecution.

That is the coat he had on on the Saturday, Sunday, and Mrs. Blyth

Monday, but I am not sure as to the trousers. I am sure

that he wore the same trousers on Saturday and Sunday, but

I am not sure about Monday. He was lame, I think, of the

left foot. He wore a slipper on the Saturday, which I have

given up to the police. (Slipper produced.) That is the

slipper. I see it is for the right foot, but I am not quite

sure which foot was lame. I am quite sure he was lame,

and went out with a slipper on on the Saturday. This is the

slipper left at my house by the prisoner. I gave that slipper

to Inspector Tiddy with the hatbox. The prisoner got lame

on the Thursday. He was confidential with us, but I don't

know where he was going on the Monday. I did not know

then whether he had been to look after a ship at the docks.

I knew of his intention to go to America a fortnight previous

to the 14th of July. He told us when he left the name of

the ship he was going to New York in — the " Victoria." He

did not give us any address in New York. I recollect a letter

from him shortly after he left. (Letter produced.) That is

the letter. (Letter read.) It is from the prisoner, and the

envelope is directed to Mrs. Blyth, 16 Park Terrace, Old

Ford Road, Victoria Park, N.E., London (in pencil). It is

as follows : —

On the sea, July 16, in the morning.

Dear Friends, — I am glad to confess that I cannot have a better time,
as I have ; if the sun shines nice and the wind blows fair, as it is at
the present moment, everything will go well. I cannot write any
more, only I have no postage; you will be so kind to take that letter
in.

The postmark is Worthing, 16th July, 1864.

Do you know the prisoner's age? — I believe about twenty-
three or twenty-four. I never washed for the prisoner until
the last week, and then I washed six new shirts for him.

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — We were walking
from six to nine o'clock on the Sunday night.

By BARON MARTIN — The prisoner had a pair of slippers. He
took one slipper out with him on Saturday. This is the one
he wore on his bad foot, the one he took out with him. The
other slipper he left at Mrs. Repsch's.

D 33

Franz Muller.

George Blyth GEORGE BLTTH, examined by Mr. GIFFARD — I am husband
of the last witness. I walked out with the prisoner and my
wife on the Sunday. We usually left home together to go
to work between half-past seven and a quarter to eight. From
the 7th to 14th July we did not go from home together in
the morning. I left him at home every morning during that
time. I went to town at my ordinary time. On Sunday, the
10th, we walked in the Victoria Park, which is two minutes'
walk from my house. He returned with us, and I heard
him go upstairs to bed. On the Monday evening he got home
after I got home. It was between eight and nine. He and
a man named Haffa came in together. I noticed that he had
a new chain. I had not noticed whether he had been wearing
a chain for some time previously. He had not one for two
or three weeks. Before that two or three weeks I had seen
him wearing a chain, but the chain I saw on the Monday was
a different one.

Cross-examined by Mr. METCALPE — He ceased to go to work
with me on the 7th, which was about the time he hurt his
foot. A cart, he said, had run against it and hurt it. He
used to wear a slipper up to the Sunday. He wore a slipper
on Sunday morning. We walked all the time, I believe, in the
Victoria Park on the Sunday evening. I do not remember
sitting down, or whether he sat or not. His dress on Satur-
day and Sunday was the same. I don't know what he wore
on the Monday. I did not see him much on Monday. I
went out to my work. (Coat produced.) This is like the coat
he wore on Saturday and Sunday. To the best of my belief it
is the coat. I could not swear to it. He bore the character
of being a very well-conducted young man in. every respect.
He was, I should say, of a kind and humane disposition. I
never heard of his getting into rows or committing any
assaults. He bade me good-bye on Thursday morning. He
told me he was going by the " Victoria " from the London
Docks to New York. I had known for a fortnight that he
was going to New York. He had made it public to all his
friends.

By a JUROR — I left him about half-past seven on Saturday
morning and returned at seven in the evening. I did not
34

Evidence for Prosecution.

see Miiller change his coat at any time on Saturday or Sunday. George Blyth
I did not see him at all between Saturday morning and Sunday
morning.

Mrs. ELIZABETH SAKAH REPSCH, examined by the SOLICITOR- Mrs.lRepsch
GENERAL — I am wife of Mr. William Repsch, a tailor, 12 J
Jewry Street, Aldgate. I am an English woman born of
German parents. My husband is a German. I have known
the prisoner Miiller for some time. He worked as a tailor with
Mr. Hodgkinson up to the 2nd July. After that he was not
in any employment. He used to come to our house from time
to time after 2nd July. We were on friendly terms. He had
a watch and chain of his own. I have seen them. I saw him
wearing them last while working for Mr. Hodgkinson. He
said he had pledged watch and chain separately. On Saturday,
9th July, Muller had not got them out of pledge. He came
to our house on that day between twelve and one, or between
eleven and one, and remained till half -past seven in the
evening. He was at work there — I don't know whether for
himself or a friend. He met with an accident on the Thursday
previous, and wore a slipper on that day. I don't know whether
he came in the slipper on the Saturday, but he wore a slipper
during the day on the right foot — in fact, two slippers. He
used to wear slippers when at work. I don't know whether he
went away with a slipper on. I have here the slipper of the
left foot, which I found after he was gone. The right slipper
was gone. He had his boots — two boots — with him during the
day. I can't say whether he had two boots at our house on
Saturday. I don't know whether he came in them in the morning,
or whether he had them on when he went away. I was out when
he went away in the evening. But neither of the boots were
left behind, so that he had taken away both boots and one
slipper. When he came in on the Saturday morning he wore
green and black trousers, but he changed them for an older
pair of striped trousers to work in. He must have put on
the newer trousers when he went away, because the working
pair were left behind. I saw him next on the Monday morning
between ten and eleven o'clock. He then had on a pair of
light trousers, having left on Saturday in a pair of dark ones.

Franz Muller.

Mrs. Repseh On the Monday morning he came in both boots. He showed
me a chain on Monday morning. (Chain No. 2 handed to
witness.) I believe this to be the same chain. He said he
had bought it in the docks that morning, and had given
£3 15s. for it. He had also a plain gold ring, with a white
stone and a head engraved upon it, on his finger. He said
he had paid 7s. 6d. for that at the same place that he had
bought the chain. My husband saw him on Monday morning
as well as myself. On that morning I observed that he had a
new hat on which I had never seen before. I told him he
was very extravagant in having another new hat. He said
that his old one was smashed, and he had thrown it in the
dusthole. My husband asked him how much he had given for
it, and he said 14s. 6d. My husband said it looked more like
a guinea hat. Nothing more passed about it. I had not seen
that hat before. I had observed before what hat Muller wore.
The hat he wore before was a plain black beaver hat, with
merino rim inside and striped lining, broad brown stripes, and
broad blue stripe edged with black and white. My attention
was drawn to it by its lining being a peculiar lining. I had
never seen a hat lined with such lining before. I have had
the hat often in my hands. He was in the habit of putting
letters inside the lining. I have seen him do so. I gave
a description of the hat to the police before seeing it.
(Hat produced.) To the best of my belief that is the hat.
The merino and the lining are the same. As far as I can
judge, it corresponds. He said that Mr. Matthews, the cabman,
had made him a present of it. He must have told me that
either in November or December of the previous year. I
had never seen him wear any other hat than that. It was in
a hatbox when he brought it to our house in November or
December last. (Box produced.) That is the same description
of hatbox. He brought them to show me, and then took them
away. On Saturday, 9th July, to the best of my belief, he
wore that hat. On Monday he had a new one. Muller had a
single-breasted overcoat with a velvet collar. On Saturday he
had a morning coat on. (Two pairs of trousers found in Muller's
possession when arrested were here handed to the witness and
identified.) One pair of these trousers he wore on Saturday,
while at work; the other — the light pair — he came in on the
36

Evidence for Prosecution.

Monday morning to our house. Neither of them are the Mrs. Repseh
trousers that he left our house in on Saturday night. I have
never seen that pair of trousers since.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — I did not see him leave
our house on Saturday. I saw him last at half-past seven. I
left him and Haffa at my house together when I went out.
He had the slipper on the whole day on Saturday when I was
there, but I am not able to say whether he left in the slipper
or not. I produce a slipper which was left at my house on the
Saturday. He must have taken the right slipper with him. I
do not know of my own knowledge that he left in a slipper;
only from what I have heard Haffa say. I understood that
Miiller had been lame in his right foot since the Thursday.
The prisoner was rather fond of finery, and of showing the
things that he had. I can't say whether he used to romance
a little or not. He told us that he had told Mrs. Blyth that
Mr. Hodgkinson was sending him to New York. Of course
we knew better. He did not tell me that he had said he was
to have £150 a year. My husband wears a hat, but I don't
know the colour of the lining. I had Miiller's hat constantly
in my hand. If it was in my way, in my own place, I had
a right to move it. That is how I account for knowing it so
well. I saw it at the Police Court and at the inquest, and had
it in my hand on both occasions. I knew Haffa for about a
twelvemonth ; he was in the habit of coming to our house, but
not to work. He works for Mr. Hodgkinson. I had known
Miiller for nearly two years. Haffa used to come constantly
to my place. He wore a hat, but I don't know what sort of
lining it has, nor yet what sort of lining there is in any other
man's hat who comes to see my husband. It was the peculiarity
of the lining in Miiller's hat that took my attention. I may
have looked into it thirty or forty or fifty times. I can't say
how often. I cannot say whether I looked into it each time I
had it in my hands. I know Jonathan Matthews, the cabman.
My husband knows him. I have known him about six years.
I did not see him after the murder before he returned from
New York. I had not seen him for three years. I think I
have visited him twice. The prisoner bought a new pair of
trousers about a month before the murder.

Franz Muller.

Mrs. Repseb Did you ever ask the prisoner to lend you 5s. ? — No, sir.
(After some hesitation) — Yes, I did.

Did he not tell you that he could not do so because he was
going to buy a new hat? — That I can't say. I can't remember.

And did you not say, " Pooh, pooh ! you may as well lend me
the money ; you can buy a hat next week " ? — I don't think I
did. I can't swear to that. I don't remember his making
such an excuse, because he lent me the money. I did not say
that just now because I was not asked. I repaid the money
to him, and I believe that was the only time I ever borrowed
money from him, but I cannot swear to it. My husband was
not by when he gave me the 5s. He knew nothing about it. I
have only seen Mrs. Matthews at the Court; I am quite sure
of that. I don't expect to get any of the reward which is
offered. I cannot say, with the exception of the trousers,
whether Muller wore the same dress on the Monday as on the
Saturday, or whether he had the velvet-collared or morning
coat on.

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — Muller had not the
same hat on on the Monday that he wore on the Saturday. I
don't remember the date when I asked him to lend me the 5s.
It was repaid to him in the settling. To the best of my recol-
lection, he said nothing about a hat when I borrowed the 5s.
It was after he brought the hat and bandbox to our house
that I borrowed the 5s. I have frequently lent him a trifle
of money, and he has always paid me again. I don't remember
the last time that I lent him money. I never saw a lining
like that in Muller's hat until I saw his hat. I said, when
he took it brand-new out of the bandbox, " What peculiar
lining." I have seen him put letters behind the lining more
than once.

Re-cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — Did you pledge a
coat for Muller on the Wednesday before he left? — Yes.

Is that the coat which was identified by Mrs. Blyth? — That
is the coat.

By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — How came you to pawn a
coat for Muller? — Because he said he had not sufficient
money to pay his passage. He asked me to pawn it for him;
38

Evidence for Prosecution.

that was on Wednesday, the 13th, and I pawned it for 6s. Mrs. Repscb
at Mr. Annis's, 121 Minories. I gave the money to Miiller
the same day. He came in green and dark trousers on Satur-
day, and took them off while working, and put on another
pair. I did not see him put them on before going away; but
the old ones that he wore during the day were left behind,
and those he came in in the morning were gone.

GODFREY FERDINAND REPSCH, examined by SERJEANT BALLAN- G< F< R°Psch
TINE — I am husband of the last witness. I have
been acquainted with the prisoner some time. He
used to work at my shop. Miiller came to my house on
Saturday, 9th July. He had an old pair of trousers on when
he was working. They were his working trousers. When
he went away on Saturday evening those trousers were left
behind. I knew of a pair of trousers he had with green spots —
a new pair that he had a month or six weeks before. They
were a green mixture. I may have seen them the week before
he left England. I have never, to the best of my belief, seen
them since the murder of Mr. Briggs ; but I cannot say definitely
whether I have or not. He came to my shop on the Monday,
about ten o'clock, and said he had got a new hat, and he had a
chain and ring which he said he had bought in the docks. He
said he had bought the hat two months before, and had only
worn it three times, on Sundays. He took the chain daily
from his waistcoat pocket. The ring was not attached to the
chain ; it was on his finger. I said the hat was worth a guinea,
because he said he had only given 14s. 6d. for it.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — I had seen Miiller wear-
ing the dress before which he had on on Monday. My wife
made the observation about the new hat. When asked before
for the description of the trousers he wore on Saturday I
said they were brown, grey, and all sorts of colours, that they
were very old, and that they had brown stripes. 1 did not
see Miiller go out on Saturday night. He came between ten
and eleven on Monday, I believe. He had not been there
before that I know of. I was at home at eight o'clock. Haffa
wa» not there then. I do not remember asking him to come
early on Monday morning to fetch neckties for Haffa. That

Franz Muller.

G. F. Repsch was on Tuesday morning, I am sure. I knew for some time
that he was going to America, and gave him leave to work
up his clothes at my place for that purpose. I went with him
on board the " Victoria." Every one who knew him knew
where he was going. I have known Jonathan Matthews, the
cabman, about eight years. After the murder I saw him for
the first time at the inquest at Hackney, after he had given
information to the police. About two months before the
murder Muller bought some new clothes. I never used to see
Muller on Sundays. I never was at Mrs. Blyth's.

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I had seen him on
weekdays. I had not noticed the hat before which he wore
on the Monday morning. I should not have noticed it then
if my wife had not made a remark with respect to it. (A
pair of old trousers handed to the witness.) These are the
working trousers which he wore on the Saturday, and which
I described to the magistrate as being of all colours. I do
not know whether he came in those trousers. I did not see
him come in or go away. It is usual for tailors to change
their trousers when they come into the room and put on
slippers.

John Haffa JOHN HAFFA, examined by Mr. HANNEN — I am a journeyman
tailor and work at Messrs. Hodgkinson's. I have known the
prisoner about six months. I remember the 9th of July. I
was at Mr. Repsch's, and saw the prisoner between six and
seven in the evening. I came and found him there. I do
not remember if he was at work or not. He left before me;
he left between seven and eight — nearly at eight o'clock. He
said he was going to see his sweetheart. I had seen him work-
ing there before. I did not notice his clothes; it was too
dark. I saw him again on Monday at Mr. Repsch's about two
o'clock. I noticed a chain on him which I had not seen before.
He said he had bought it. I do not know if he said where.
He said he had given £3 15s. for it. I left him at Repsch's
and went to my work. When I returned in the evening he
was still there. We then left Repsch's together, and I went
with him to his lodgings. I remained there that night. I
40

Evidence for Prosecution.

afterwards lent him 12s. Mr. Repsch told me Mr. Franz John Haifa

Miiller had not sufficient money for his passage ticket; he

wanted 12s>. I gave Mr. Repsch a suit of my clothes to pawn

to raise the money. That was on Wednesday. The prisoner

gave me the duplicate of a chain pledged at a pawnbroker's

named Annis. He told me Mr. Repsch had the ticket for a

coat, which I could have for the money to pay the rent. I

got the ticket from Mr. Repsch. I got the coat out of pawn

the day before he came back to London from America, and

sent it to Scotland Yard.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — He was working for
me on one day only. I was well aware of his going to
America. He made up his mind to do so a fortnight before
he left. I knew that he was lame. I saw him in possession
of money before the 9th of July, both gold and silver. I
cannot say how much, but I believe it was enough to pay his
passage. I have known him for six months. He bore the
character and disposition of a humane, kind young man. I
lodged with him for the last three nights before he left. I had
not lodged with him longer, not for some weeks. He slept
with me once or twice.

When he said he was going to see his sweetheart, did he
say he was going to Camberwell? — No; I did not understand
that. He said his sweetheart's name was Eldred. This is
not the first time I have been asked these questions. When he
went out from Repsch's on Saturday night it was about a
quarter to eight or eight; he had a slipper on one foot. He
was lame of one foot, and had been so for two or three days.
He told me a letter-carrier's cart had run against his foot.
(Slipper shown to witness.) That is the slipper. I recognise
it again. It was a carpet slipper. I believe he had money
enough to pay his passage a week before this murder. After
that Monday I assisted him to make up the money for his
passage. He did not tell me what had become of his money
and I did not ask him. I only knew of his going to the docks
several times from what he told me. He did not tell me that
he had spent his money in purchasing a watch and chain in
the docks. He said he had bought a chain for £3 15s. He
might have said that he had been down to the docks on the

Franz Muller.

John Haffa Monday morning, but I do not remember. I only knew Death,
the jeweller, after this case came on. I do not know anything
about Muller having a gold chain repaired in November last.
I did not know him at that time. In June I gave him a chain
to get exchanged for another chain for myself, but he could
not do it. He returned it to me. He did not tell me whether
he had been anywhere to change it.

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — This transaction
about the chain might have been at the end of May or the
beginning of June. But nothing came of it. I gave him the
chain, but he brought it back to me. I saw him with some
money a week before he left, but I did not count it.

By a JUROR — You say that you could not see Muller 'a clothes
when he left Repsch's house on the Saturday between seven
and eight o'clock, because it was too dark. It is not dark at
that time in July, but quite light? — He left just before eight
o'clock. In the lodging where I lived it was rather dark,
because it is in a court. The prisoner did not sleep with
me on the Saturday night.

Georg* Death GEORGE DEATH, examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINH — I am
a brother of the jeweller in Cheapside. I remember some
one coming in on the morning of the llth of July with a chain
perfectly well. I believe the prisoner at the bar is the person.
I had never, to my recollection, seen him before.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — I have not the slightest
recollection of having seen him before. I have not the slightest
recollection of a person leaving a chain with me to be exchanged
in June last. (Chain No. 3 handed to witness.) I am positive
I have never seen this chain before. It is such a peculiar one
that I should remember it if I had. This chain appears to
have been mended; such a job we should send to a jobbing
jeweller, and it would be put down to the credit of that jeweller.

Do you remember the dress of the prisoner? — His coat was
dark, but I do not remember the particulars of his dress. My
first impression was that his trousers were light, but I was not
positive about it; it was a mere impression. We employ
eteveral jewellers. Our jobbing jeweller is Mr. Evans,, of
42

Evidence for Prosecution.

Bartholomew Square, No. 14. We often send chains to be George Death
repaired to the chainmakers.

Ke-examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINE — Any work of the kind
would pass through my hands or my brother's first. I am
certain I never saw this chain before.

The Court adjourned at a quarter to five o'clock.

Second Day— Friday, 28th October, 1864.

The Court met at ten o'clock.

John H. Glass JOHN HENRY GLASS — I am in the employ of Mr. Hodgkinson,
and have been for some time. I have known the prisoner
about four years. I do not know exactly how long the
prisoner was in Mr. Hodgkinson's employment. On Tuesday,
12th of July last, he came to me at Mr. Hodgkinson's shop
about four o'clock in the afternoon. He offered me a gold
watch. He said if I would not buy it he would not have
money enough to go to America. He said he had a gold chain
at a pawnbroker's, which he had pledged for £1. He did
not say how much he wanted to sell the watch for. He said
if he could pawn the watch and chain together he could get
£4: 10s. for them. The watch produced is the same. That
was his own watch, which he had been in the habit of wearing.
I told him to come again the next morning. He came the
next morning about nine o'clock. We both went together to
a pawnbroker's shop — Mr. Barker's. We both went into the
shop and took a chain out of pawn (No. 3). We paid £1.
We then went together to Mr. Cox's, Princes Street, Leicester
Square, and there pawned the watch he had offered me the
day before and the chain he had just redeemed. We got £4
on them. Muller took the money and I took the ticket.
(The ticket produced.) This is it. It was in my name.
I gave him 5s. for it. I gave the £1 for the chain. I paid
£1 5s. altogether. We then went back together in an omnibus
as far as the Bank, and when we got there we parted. He
told me he was going to the London Docks to get a ticket to
go to America.

Cross-examined — I have known the prisoner about four
years. He has been in this country during that time. He
is a native of Saxe-Weimar. I am a journeyman tailor.
During the four years I have known him he has borne a kind
and humane character. I have been in the habit of asso-
44

Evidence for Prosecution.

elating with him, and have had full opportunities of judging John H. Glass
his character for humanity and kindness. I don't know that
he was in the habit of pawning and exchanging his watch. I
did not see any money in his possession the week before the
9th of July. I don't know what wages he earned. I am a
pieceworker. I can earn 30s. or 36s. a week.

HENRT SMITH; — I am assistant to Mrs. Barker, a pawnbroker, Henry Smith
91 Houndsditch. On the 22nd of June I took in a gold albert
chain of the prisoner, and advanced £1 on it. The chain
produced is the same (Muller's chain No. 3). He had a new
ticket on the 12th July, his ticket having got damaged, and
it was redeemed on the 13th July. I think it was Muller
who redeemed it, but I did not deliver it myself.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — It was £1, not 30s.,
that was advanced.

ALFRED WET — I was formerly assistant to Mrs. Barker. On Alfred Wey
the 13th June last I took in a watch from the prisoner. This
is it. I advanced £2 upon it. It was redeemed on 12th
July by Muller, I believe.

CHARLES YOUNG — I am assistant to Mr. John Annis, pawn- c. Young
broker, of 121 Minories. On the 12th July I took in a
chain (the one produced) of a person who gave the name of
Miller, Christian name " John," and the address 22 Jewry
Street, Aldgate. I advanced £1 10s. on the chain. I after-
wards handed it to the police. This is the chain (No. 2).

Cross-examined — It is very common to supply the Christian
name for parties who come to pawn. "John" is the name
we mainly patronise.

JONATHAN MATTHEWS, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — J< Matthews
I think you are a cab-driver? — Yes.

Do you know Muller? — Yes.

How long had you known him before the day of the murder?
— Two years and some few weeks. I would not say exactly.

Franz Muller.

J. Matthews How did you come to be acquainted with him ? — He was
working for a brother-in-law, and so, being a stranger in the
country, came to dinner with him frequently.

And by that means you knew him? — Yes.

And from that period you have seen him from time to timet
— Yes ; twice or three times in a month.

He came to your house sometimes? — Yes.

Have you been to see him? — Yes, several times.

Do you remember anything passing between you and the
prisoner on the subject of a hat towards the end of last year?
—I do.

Can you tell me about what time? — About the latter end of
November or the beginning of December. I could not say
to a week.

Tell us about the hat? — I had a new hat, and he came to
dine with me on the Sunday after I bought it. He saw my
hat, and said that he would like to have one like it.

Did he look at it? — Yes ; he put it on his head, and said that
it was too small for him.

He looked at the hat, then ? — Yes ; he asked me what I
gave for it, and I said 10s. 6d.

Ten and sixpence ? — Yes ; he said that he should like one
like it, and I said that I would get him one if he wished it.

Yes, you said that you would get him one? — Yes.

He said that it was rather too small? — Yes.

Well, was anything said? — I put it on his head and said,
" What is too easy for me will suit you."

And in consequence of that you got one? — Yes.

At what shop? — At the same.

What same, what shop? — At the hatter's.

Of course, but where? — Mr. Walker's, Crawford Street,
Marylebone.

Can you remember the lining of that hat? — It appeared to
resemble " striped " lining.

Now, did you get it soon after this occasion when he asked
you? — I ordered it on the Friday, and said that I should want
one, and on the Saturday evening I bought one. My wife
was with me.

Did you take it away? — Yes.

In the hatbox? — Yes.
46

Evidence for Prosecution.

What did you do with it? — It remained at my house until j. Matthews
the Sunday week following.

When Muller came for it? — Yes.

Was it the Sunday week following? — Yes.

Muller came for it and took it away? — Yes.

Did he take away the box as well ? — Yes ; the hat and box.

Did you pay for the hat? — Yes.

What?— 10s. 6d.

Did Muller pay you again? — No.

Not at all?— No.

Did he settle with you in any way ? — Yes ; he made me a
waistcoat — the one that I now wear.

That was in return for it? — Yes.

After that, did you see him wear the hat? — Yes, frequently.

Frequently ? — Yes , frequently .

Very well; can you tell me about the latest time when you
saw him wearing it? — About a fortnight before the murder.

About a fortnight before? — Yes; a fortnight beforehand.

Now, Matthews, can you give me a description of the hat —
did you give a description of it to the police? — I did, sir.

Before you saw it? — Yes, I did.

Be good enough to look at it.

(Inspector Tanner here handed the hat which had been found
in the railway carriage to the witness, who looked at it.)

Examination resumed — What is your belief as to the hat?
Do you believe it to be the same? — Yes, I believe it to be the
hat I purchased. It corresponds exactly.

By the crease? — Yes.

In what way was it creased ? — I had it " turned up " a
little extra on one side. I said that I should like it to be
turned up a little more, and that was done while I waited
there.

Like the one you had? — Yes.

Was the brim the way that it is now? — I noticed there was
a little curl. I said to Muller, "Have you had it done up?"
and he said that it wore uncommonly well.

He said that to you? — Yes.

There seems something on the brim wanting. There is no
nap on the lower part? — Yes; there was merino on the lower

Franz Muller.

J. Matthews part. The under part of the brim is merino, same as mine.
(So the witness was understood, but he spoke in a very low-
tone.)

SERJEAKT PARRY — Speak up, sir, do.

Examination resumed — You remember seeing a box in your
house? — Yes, a small box.

And the name of Death on it? — Yes, I saw that.

(The box was handed to the witness) — Is that the same? —
That is like the box that he gave to my little girl.

When did you first see it? — On the Tuesday morning — the
Tuesday week following the murder. I noticed it, because I
put my foot on it that morning.

I think that, from what you subsequently saw, you gave
information to the police? — Yes, I did, sir. I saw a handbill.

SERJEANT PARRY — Allow me that hat, please. (The hat
was handed to the learned Serjeant.)

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — Now, if I understand
you, you identify this hat because the side portion of the rim
is turned up? — Yes, and not only by that, but

You are quite sure of that? — Yes.

That is one thing? — Yes.

You had this done in a shop? — Yes.

I believe that your own hat is like it? — As nearly as possible.
I got this like it.

As nearly as possible like it? — Yes.

SERJEANT PARRY here asked for the depositions of Matthews
before the coroner and magistrate.

The CLERK OP THE COURT produced the depositions.

SERJEANT PARRY — Now, sir, when you were before the magis-
trate did you not say that this was one of the means by which
you identified the hat? Did you not say this?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I think that the proper course would
be to read the evidence to the witness, and then to ask any
questions upon it. Read the depositions and ask

SERJEANT PARRY — No; because that might baffle my very
question. I apprehend that I have a right to take the
depositions — at least, so I submit — and ask him, is that your
48

Evidence for Prosecution.

signature, and then ask him a question. I wish to have it J. Matthews
from him, because my object is to discredit this witness. I do
not want him to know beforehand what I am going to ask.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I submit that the proper course is
to read that portion of the depositions which is referred to, and
then ask him any questions upon it.

BARON MARTIN — It is nothing more than asking the witness
whether he did not give a different account then to now. That
my brother Parry has a right to ask him.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I think the deposition should be read
first.

SERJEANT PARRY — He has sworn that, as one means of
identifying it

BARON MARTIN — Wait one moment. You must put in the
depositions.

SERJEANT PARRY — Certainly. (To Witness) — I ask you, sir,
did you not say before the magistrates, one of your means of
identifying the hat was this, that three weeks prior to the 9th
of July you saw the prisoner, and that the brim of his hat
was turned up in one part of it more than in another, and you
told the prisoner so? — I did so.

Did you ever mention before to-day that you had the two
edges turned round yourself while you waited at the shop while
it was being done? — No.

Did you not also, when before the coroner, say this — " I saw
him (the prisoner) frequently wearing the hat, and I had noticed
and remarked on its wearing so well. I fancied that one side
was turned up more than usual, and pointed that out to him.
I said it was altered in shape, and suggested that he might
have done that from lifting it off his head on that side ' ' ? Did
you say that before the coroner? — I did.

Now let me understand about this hat. Is it like your
own hat? Can you tell me how many hata you bought? — I
cannot.

Not throughout the whole of your life. I did not mean
that; you should have waited and let me finish my question.
Can you tell me how many hats you bought within six or twelve
months of the 9th of July? — I cannot tell you.

E 49

Franz Muller.

J. Matthews What has become of your last hat at the time of this one? —
I cannot say. I think I left it at a hatter's shop where I bought
another.

Where did you buy the hat that you now wear? — In Oxford
Street, at Mr. Mummery's.

Did you leave it there? — No, I did not.

Have you not stated that you left it at Mr. Downs' in Long
Acre three weeks before the 9th of July? — I said that I left
one there. I did not say the time I did so. I believe, at the
same time, that I did not state the time.

Did you not say this — " I purchased the hat at Downs', Long
Acre. I left my old one there, and that was about three weeks
before I bought one in Oxford Street"? — that you purchased
a hat in Long Acre, and left the old one there? — I did say so.

When did you buy the one in Oxford Street? — I bought it a
few days before I went to America.

In Oxford Street?— Yes.

When did you buy the one at Downs'? — I cannot say which
of the Downs' I bought it at, the one in the Strand or the one
in Long Acre. I find I am in error about my hats altogether.
I have had so many that I cannot remember.

Did you not say — " When I purchased the next it was about
June, at Downs', in Long Acre. It was a cheap one. I gave
5s. 6d. for it, and I left the other one at Downs' " ? — I did say
so.

That is not true? — No, it was not it exactly. It was longer
ago. I cannot remember exactly.

The CHEHF BARON — You said that you bought a hat a few
days before you went to America. When was that?

WITNBSS — I went from Liverpool with Mr. Inspector Tanner
on the 20th of July.

/ SERJEANT PARRY — Here is a passage of your evidence before
the coroner — " The next hat I purchased was about June,
at Downs', in Long Acre. It was a cheap one. I gave 5s. 6d.
for it. I left the other one at Downs' "? — I said so before the
coroner, but that was a mistake of mine.

A mistake? — I did not know how many hats I had had until
I got home.

Evidence for Prosecution.

Have you not found out that three weeks before you were J. Matthews
^examined before the coroner there was no such shop as Downs'
In Long Acre?— 7! made that inquiry.

And you found that there was not such a shop — that it had
been shut up for some time? — Yes.

Have you not altered your statement in consequence of that?
— When I came to examine my hats I was surprised to find
that I had so many.

When before the magistrates did you not also say — " Three
weeks before this job I bought a hat at Downs' "1 — I did
!say so.

And you found out that it was a mistake of yours? — Yes,
I have.

Did any one assist you in finding out that there was not
'such a shop as Downs' ? — Yes ; Mr. Clarke went with me.

Who is Mr. Clarke? — A detective officer.

You found out that? — I told Mr. Clarke at the time that
there was a mistake.

Sir, where do you believe the hat is now which you had
•like this one? — I have no idea whatever.

Did you ever throw your old hats into the dusthole? — Yes;
occasionally I do.

You said that before the coroner, did you not? — Yes.

I believe you were asked also whether you could swear to
"the colour of the lining of your hats, and you said no? — I
^cannot.

You cannot swear to your own hats? — No, not to all.

When did you first hear of this murder? — About Thursday
•or Friday in the week following.

That must be nearly eleven days ? — No ; it was in the week
after, on the Friday night after Saturday, the 9th.

Do you mean to say that you had not heard of it before! —
No, sir.

Had you been out with your cab? — Yes.

And did you not hear of the murder? — No.

Did you go to the cab-stand amongst your fellow-cabmen?
— Yes, occasionally, when I wanted something to eat.

And you never heard of it? — No.

Did you go into a public-house? — I am not a public-house
"visitor. Perhaps I may go there sometimes.

Franz Muller.

J. Matthews There is no harm in going into a public-house to have a
glass of ale. Did you go into a public-house for refreshment?
—Yes.

Every day? — Yes, sir.

Do you take in a newspaper? — Sometimes I do.

Any particular newspaper? — No.

A Sunday paper? — Yes, Lloyd's.

Do you buy a daily paper? — Sometimes.

Did you not see a paper from the 9th until the 14th of
July? — Not to bring the murder into my mind.

Did you not see it in large, conspicuous letters on the
placards before the Thursday? — No.

Where do you live? — No. 68 Earl Street, East Paddington.

Do you attend the station? — Yes.

Do you pass the police station every day — did you from the
9th until the 14th? — I cannot answer.

And you never saw a placard or a notice in any way ? — No ;
I saw placards, but did not read them.

You knew that Muller was going to America? — Yes.

(The examination was stopped for a moment for Mr. Baron
Martin to look at the deposition.)

You knew that Muller was going to America, you say? — Yes.

When did you give information to the police? — On Monday,
the 18th of July.

At that time did you know that Muller had gone out in the
"Victoria" sailing ship to New York? — I did.

Did you know that he sailed on the 14th? — I knew that he-
was going to sail.

He called to wish you and your family good-bye? — Yes.

Now, can you tell me what you were doing on Saturday, the
9th of July? — I was out in my cab, I find.

Did you not say this before the coroner, " It is impossible
for me to say where I was on the night of the 9th ; I was about
with my cab, and I cannot say where"? — I did say so. I
have made inquiries since.

So, since you were before the coroner, you have been
making inquiries with a view of giving evidence here? — I made
inquiries to see whether I was out, as I had lost my pocket-
book, but have found it since.

Did I not notice that you took a piece of paper out of your
52

Evidence for Prosecution.

pocket just now? — Yes, here it is. (The witness handed it in J. Matthews
to the Serjeant.)

It is dated 29th September. It is written to you by your
employer? — Yes, by my employer.

These inquiries were made by you since you were before
the coroner? — Yes. (The paper was not read.)

I believe your master failed, or was "sold up," to use your
own expression? — He sold off.

This is another mistake, then? — Yes.

Is it a mistake in the depositions? — Yes.

Were they not read over to you? — Yes.

Then why did you not correct it if it was " sold off " instead
of "sold up"?— I did not hear it.

What day was it that your master, Mr. Perfitt, sold off? —
I cannot say exactly.

When did you first see Repsch after you gave information
to the police? — At Bow Street.

And you did not see him before you gave information to
the police ? — No ; I am quite sure of that ; not for years
previous.

How long have you been a cabman? — I have been licensed for
«ight or nine years. I cannot say exactly.

Have you been anything else? — Yes.

What? — In a training stable.

When was that? — Twenty-two or twenty -three years ago.

Since then you have been a cabman? — Yes.

What, have you been a cabman ever since? — Sometimes I
have been in business.

What business? — In a small fly business.

Any other business? — I was foreman to Mr. Hubble, of
<?amberwell, and foreman to Mr. Langley, of Westminster.

Anything else but the cab and fly business ? — Yes ; I have
driven for the London and General Omnibus Company.

Anything else besides being a driver for the company? —
Yes; I have taken in horses.

Have you never been a coachman to a private gentleman? —
No.

Never ? — Never.

Did you know a gentleman of the name of Linklater? — Yes.

Were you his coachman? — No.

Did you live with him? — No.

Franz Muller.

J. Matthews How did you know him? — I lived in the neighbourhood.

Have you been insolvent? — No.

Were you in business at Brixton? — Yes.

Did you fail there? — No.

That you swear? — Yes.

When were you at Brixton? — Two years ago.

Did you compound with your creditors? — No.

Why did you give it up? — I was not making a living out
of it. I owed money, and I was not able to pay it.

Are you still in that position? — Yes.

Have you stated to your creditors that as soon as ever you
got a portion of the reward you will settle with them ? — No, sir.

You swear that? — Yes.

Never to any one of your creditors have you mentioned that?
—No.

Of course you expect a portion of the reward? — I don't
understand it.

You are the only person in the Court who does not, then.
Do you expect a portion of the £300? — I leave that entirely^
to my country, if it thinks that I have done my duty.

Then you do expect a portion of the reward? — If they are
only satisfied with my conduct.

If they are satisfied that you have done your duty, you da
expect a portion of the reward ? — If they think proper to give it.

What is passing in your mind about it, sir? If they are
satisfied that you have done your duty, you do expect a portion
of the reward? — I have no expectations of anything.

Do you mean to say that you did not see the bills offering-
the £300 reward? — Yes; but if it had been a "plain" bill
I should hare done my duty the same.

Do you expect a portion of the reward? — If I am entitled ta
it I should expect it.

Then you do expect it. Why did you not answer me beforef
Have you ever said this, that if you had kept your mouth
closed a little while longer there would have been £500 instead
of £300 reward? — I never said so.

Never anything like it? — No ; I said that I was given to-
understand when I was before the coroner that there were
bills offering £500. But if it had been a shilling I should
have done my duty the same.
54

Evidence for Prosecution.

I do not ask you to compliment yourself. J. Matthews

By BARON MARTIN — I said, my lord, if it had been a shilling
I should have done my duty the same as if it had been £300.

Cross-examination resumed — Were you ever in prison? — Yes,
for absconding.

Absconding? — Yes, leaving my situation without giving due
notice.

Absconding from a situation without giving notice! What
absconding was that, then? — I was conductor of a coach.

Why should you abscond from a coach? — Well, sir, I was
but a young man then. I made a little free — a spree. I got
out on the spree.

A spree was it? — Yes; I went away and left the coach with-
out any one.

And for that you were convicted? — I had twenty-one days
because I could not pay.

Were you ever at Norwich? — Yes.

Were you there in November, 1851? — No, sir.

Now, be very careful. Your name is Jonathan Matthews,
is it not? — Yes, sir.

When were you in Norwich? — I was there in 1860.

Not in 1851?— No.

You were there in 1850. Were you ever imprisoned there?
— Yes, for twenty-one days.

Anything else? — No, sir.

You say that was for the freak? — Yes, for the spree.

And they convicted you for absconding. Who convicted
you? — I cannot tell the gentleman's name.

Were you not tried before a jury? — Yes.

For a spree? — It was only a spree, but they brought it in
that I stole the things — that it was a theft. It was only
absconding, and not theft.

Did they not find things in your box? — They made it a theft,
but it was not.

Were you not convicted for having feloniously stolen a post-
ing boot, value 8s. ; a spur, value 2s. ; and a padlock, value
6d.? Was not that the conviction? — That was what they
brought in, because they found them in the box, unbeknown
to me. It was found on me after the box was taken away. I
did not know they were there.

Franz Muller.

J. Matthews One other question. You said that the lining of your hat
was the same as this? — Similar, I think.

The same, you said? — Similar, I believe.

Did you not say that the lining of both hats was the same, as
nearly as possible? — I cannot say exactly.

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — You were imprisoned
for twenty-one days? — Yes.

How old were you? — About nineteen \ or twenty. I am
thirty-seven or thirty-eight years of age now. I was born in
1829.

Have you ever been in any trouble of the kind since? — No.

Now, attend to me. You said that you gave information
to the police on Monday, the 18th of July? — Yes.

Just explain how you came to give the information? — I was
coming by the Great Western Hotel, and I took my horse
to drink at the stand, and I saw the bill respecting the murder.
I said to the waterman

SERJEANT PARRY — Not what you said to the waterman.
WITNESS — I made some inquiries.
SERJEANT PARRY again objected.

By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — You made some inquiries with
reference to this matter. Was your attention drawn to a
handbill? — It was on the wall.

You read it?— I did.

(The witness was proceeding to state some conversation he
held with the waterman.)

SERJEANT PARRY — You said to the waterman

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I object.
SERJEANT PARRY — I am quite proper

The CHIEF BARON — If you have a part you must have the
whole of the conversation.

SERJEANT PARRY — The witness was making some statement
of his own, and I believe that the jury heard the observation.
I understood him to say this — " I looked at the height on the
bill, and I asked the waterman what height he thought I
was." I understood him to say BO.
56

Evidence for Prosecution.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — That being so, I think he must give j. Matthews
•us the whole account of what took place.

SERJEANT PARRY — That I object to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — You cannot get a scrap. We must
have the whole if we have the part.

SERJEANT PARRY — I have not got it out; it is your own witness.
He dropped it. I did not get it. It is an incident.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I understand you to object to any-
thing he said to the waterman or the waterman to him.

SERJEANT PARRY — The witness gave it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — You must have the whole. It is not
fair that you should only have part.

BARON MARTIN — The Solicitor-General is quite right, if
Brother Parry will insist upon having a portion.

SERJEANT PARRY — I did not insist upon anything. The
witness said this.

The CHIEF BARON — You cannot ask the judge to take it down.
SERJEANT PARRY — I do not ask the judge to take it down.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — It is all very well to say that after
the jury heard it.

SERJEANT PARRY — Ask the jury if they heard it.

The CHIEF BARON — We cannot ask the jury any such question
at present.

SERJEANT PARRY — I did not put it before the jury, but the
witness inadvertently stated it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — It is only fair that the witness
should state the whole.

SERJEANT PARRY — I can assure my learned friend that he is
perfectly mistaken as regards the tenor of my cross-examination.

The CHIEF BARON — The witness has been under examination,
cross-examination, and now re-examination. You certainly
called attention, both to my Brother Martin and myself, to some
thing that fell from the witness, and begged that we would
take it down. If it is to be taken down, we must have the

Franz Muller.

J. Matthews whole of the conversation. I think that the Solicitor-General
is entitled to it.

SERJEANT PARRY — If your lordship so rules. -

The CHIEF BARON — We cannot take part of the conversation.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — Tell us all that took place.

SERJEANT PARRY — Subject to my objection.

BARON MARTIN — I did not hear it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I did, my lord, and so did my/
learned friend. (To the Witness) — Tell us all you said to the
waterman? — I asked the witness what height he was.

SERJEANT PARRY — Will your lordship take my objection to.
this?

The CHIEF BARON — I will take it down as part of the evi-
dence if it is given in full; but I cannot take down anything
that fell from the witness irregularly.

BARON MARTIN — The last I have got is — " I gave infor-
mation to the police on Monday, the 18th."

The CHIEF BARON — I have got to this — " While the horse was
standing and drinking I saw the bill and read it."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — The witness went on to speak of
the waterman.

SERJEANT PARRY — I object to receive this evidence.
The CHIEF BARON — If you do there is an end of it.

Re-examination resumed — Tell us, generally, did you read
the bill?— I did.

What did you do on reading it? — I took the waterman in my
cab, and went directly and fetched a small box.

Look at the box. (It was handed to the witness, who looked
at it.) Is it like the one you fetched? — Yes.

How came you to look at it? — By reading the bill I saw.

SERJEANT PARRY — There is nothing in the examination about
the box. I shall claim to re-cross upon it as fresh evidence.

Re-examination resumed — Your attention was directed to the
box? — Yes, my wife said that Muller came to the house and

Evidence for Prosecution.

gave the little girl the box. In consequence of some conversa- J. Matthews
tion with the waterman, I knew that Death was the jeweller.
I took it to the waterman, and he said that it was very much
like it.

What did you do then? — I took the waterman and went
to Hermitage Police iStation at Paddington.

And whom did you see there? — Sergeant Steers.

Did you give the box to him? — Yes; I took him to get a
small piece of paper left at my house by Muller, with an
address he had written on it.

Did you on that occasion give any description?

SERJEANT PABBY objected.

Re-examination resumed — Where is the piece of paper?
(It was handed in.)

It has the name and address of Mrs. Blyth, with whom the
prisoner lodged. You told me just now that you went to
America ? — Yes.

You were examined before the coroner soon after you came
back? — I think it was on the following Tuesday, as I came back
from New York on the previous Saturday.

On the Monday you went before the magistrate, and on the
Tuesday before the coroner? — Yes.

You say that at that time you were cross-examined as to
where you were on the day of the murder? — Yes.

Had you prepared yourself to answer the question? — No.

Did you recollect precisely where you were? — No; not till
I got home and made inquiries of the waterman. I had some
little idea myself.

You wrote to your employer, and got an answer? — Yes.

From subsequent inquiries that you made, and from com-
munications which you have received, are you enabled to tell
us where you were? — Yes; I was on the cab-stand from seven
o'clock until eleven o'clock.

Where? — At the Great Western railway.

Where did you go then? — I did not get a fare, and then I
went homewards. I bought a joint of meat and took it home.
I went to the stable yard, and left the cab in Lisson Grove.
I then went home.

With a leg of mutton? — Not a leg of mutton; it was an
edgebone of beef. I took it home for my Sunday dinner.

Franz Muller.

J. Matthews You were cross-examined respecting your hat? — Yes; a good
deal, and I was not prepared to answer questions about my
hats then.

You cabmen are exposed a good deal, and therefore wear
out a good many hats? — I should think that I bought nine or
ten hats in the year.

Subsequently did you make inquiries upon that subject? —
Yes.

And what you have told us to-day is correct? — Yes.

With respect to Muller's hat, was one brim turned up more
than another? — Yes.

Was that the fact ? — Yes ; more on one side than the other.

That is distinguishing from the statement that both brims
were turned up by the hatter? — Yes.

And you say, in addition to that, that one brim was a little
more turned up than another? — Yes; the right-hand brim as
he stood from me a trifle more than the other.

Do you recollect whether you ever called Muller's attention
to it? — I said, " I think you have had it turned up a little
more; it looks so well."

The depositions of this witness which were taken before the
coroner and the magistrate were then read.

Mrs. Matthews ELIZA MATTHEWS, examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINE — I am
the wife of Jonathan Matthews. I know the prisoner Muller.
I have known him rather more than two years. He has
occasionally come to my house. I was present when my
husband bought a hat — I think in November or December last
year. He bought it at Walker's, in Crawford Street. It
was turned up rather more than my husband's was. The hat
produced (found in the carriage) looks like the same hat. The
hat my husband bought he gave to Muller a fortnight after.
I have a family of four children. On the llth July the
prisoner came to see me between two and three in the after-
noon to wish me good-bye previous to going to New York.
He remained with me three or four hours. He said he was
going out for Mr. Hodgkinson. He said he was to get £150
a year, and that he had met with an accident on the Thursday.
A letter -cart ran over his foot on London Bridge. During
the time he was with me he showed me a chain. He took it
60

Evidence for Prosecution.

off the button-hole of his waistcoat. He put it in my hand. Mrs. Matthews
I told him I thought it was not a very good one. It looked
so pale, much lighter gold than his own watch and chain. I
did not say that to him, but I thought it. The chain pro-
duced is similar (Mr. Death's chain). The green box pro-
duced he took out of his pocket and gave to my little girl,
aged ten years. On the Monday week after, I recollect, my
husband came home to fetch it. My little girl had been
playing with it the same evening, and it was then put away
in a drawer from the Tuesday evening. It was taken out of
the drawer a week after. Miiller showed me a ring — a plain
gold one with a white cornelian head — which he said his
father had sent him from Germany. When he left he said
that he would call on the Tuesday or Wednesday to wish my
husband good-bye, but he did not.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — When he said that
Messrs. Hodgkinson were going to give him £150 a year, did
he not say that he should like to receive it half-yearly? — Yes.

As to this box, when did your husband first see it? — On the
Tuesday morning ; it was lying on the table.

Did you notice the name of Mr. Death ? — No ; I did not.

Did the prisoner say anything about Mr. Death? — Not a
word.

You are quite certain ? — Yes ; quite certain of that.

Did you not remark that Mr. Death was a very good
jeweller? — I remarked that Mr. Death was a good jeweller.

Did you know him? — No; I never saw him.

I suppose it was from the place where he lived — Cheapside?
— Yes.

Very naturally. Did you notice that afternoon that Miiller
had dark trousers on? — Yes.

He was there three or four hours? — Yes.

As he was going away did you remark that his hat had
worn very well? — Yes; as he took it off the drawers.

How well that hat had worn? — Yes ; and he said, "It is a
different hat."

I think that you heard of the murder on the Monday after-
noon, the llth of July? — Yes ; from a lodger.

Did you hear that it was a shocking murder in a railway
carriage ? — Yes.

Franz Muller.

Mrs. Matthews You have a penny paper that you read almost every day? —
He (my husband) did, but I did not.

He was in the habit of having it? — Sometimes.

Sometimes he brought it home? — Yes; sometimes I took
it out of his pocket.

Have you a weekly paper? — I always take one.

Had you one on the Sunday? — I might have had one, but
I do not remember.

Re-examined — I made the observation about Mr. Death when
Muller was showing me the chain. I had no conversation with
my husband about the murder. He leaves home about nine
in the morning, and sometimes I don't see him till one the
next morning.

Mr. Repscb Mr. REPSCH (recalled) said, in answer to a juror — I do not

know what day in the week Muller brought the new hat in the
hatbox. It might have been Sunday or Monday ; I could not
say which.

Mrs. Repsch Mrs. RBPSCH (recalled) said — I did not see Muller for three
or four weeks on a Sunday. I did not generally see him on
Sundays.

Mr. Repsch (A question being raised by Serjeant Parry whether Mr.

Repsch, in his evidence, had not stated that he was not in
the habit of seeing Muller on Sundays, that witness was
recalled, and, the question being put to him through the Chief
Baron, he replied, " I did not see him on Sundays for three
or four weeks," meaning prior to his leaving England.)

Joseph JOSEPH HENNAQTJART, examined by Mr. GIFPAKD — I am

Hennaquart . .

foreman to Mr. Hodgkinson, tailor, in Threadneedle Street.

The prisoner was in Mr. Hodgkinson's service for six weeks
before the 9th of July. He was engaged at 25s. a week
wages, and worked at those wages for nearly a month. I
then made an alteration, setting him to work at piecework,
because for very nearly two weeks he did not finish his work.
He worked at piecework for two weeks. I then intended to
put him back to 25s. a week ; but he said he could make more
62

Evidence for Prosecution.

at piecework, and discharged himself a week before the murder, Joseph

, i n j ,. T i TT i. •• Hennaquart

on the 2nd of July. He was not engaged to go to America in

Mr. Hodgkinson's service.

Cross-examined by Mr. MBTCALFE — He was in our employ-
ment six weeks altogether.

Did he bear the character while he was with you of a quiet,
inoffensive young man ? — He had always been very polite to me.

He was not quarrelsome? — No; we had a few words before
he left.

He thought he could do better at piecework than at 25s. a
week? — He said so.

EDWARD WATSON, examined by Mr. HANNEN — I was foreman E. Watson
in the employ of Mr. Walker* a hatter, of 49 Crawford Street,
Marylebone, for a period of four years. I have seen the hat in the
hands of the police before (the one left in the carriage). It is
one of Mr. Walker's manufacture. The lining in that hat was
not what Mr. Walker usually used. It did not belong to any
particular class of hats. I have not seen it used by any other
hatter. Judging from the appearance of the hat, I should
say that it was sold for 8s. 6d. We kept no record of hats
sold over the counter unless they were sent home.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — Did you say the lining
of that hat was peculiar to Mr. Walker's establishment? — It is
a peculiar lining. I do not think Mr. Walker ever had more
than three or four of that particular lining in the establish-
ment. I believe Mr. Walker is here himself.

By the CHIEF BARON — Do you mean three or four hats, or
three or four pieces of lining — We buy the lining already cut.
This lining was one of a lot of sample linings which Mr. Walker
bought, and I do not think there were more than three or four
of this particular pattern. I do not know from whom he bought
them.

THOMAS HENRY WALKBR, examined by the SOLIOITOR-GHNTOAL j. H. Walker
-I am a hatter in Marylebone. (Hat found in the railway
carriage handed to witness.) This hat is one of mine; it
was sold in my shop. The lining is peculiar, and I do not

Franz Muller.

T. H. Walker think we had more than two of this kind of lining. This
lining is one of about 500 sample linings, in which there were
scarcely more than two alike. It is a French lining. The
price of this hat was 8s. 6d. or 10s. 6d. I cannot tell which now.

W. H. Tiddy WILLIAM HENRY TiDDT, Inspector of Metropolitan Police,
examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINE — I produce a box with Mr.
Death's name upon it, a hatbox with Mr. Walker's name upon
it, and also a slipper, the right slipper, all of which were
handed over to me.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — The slipper you received
from Mrs*. Blyth ? — Yes ; I received it from Mrs. Blyth. It is
the slipper for the right foot.

James Gifford JAMES GIFFORD, examined by Mr. GIFFARD — I am an agent for
Messrs. Grinnell, the shipowners. We have an office on the
North Quay, London Docks, which we open at nine in the
morning. I recognise the prisoner. I saw him first on Wed-
nesday, the 13th July, about eleven o'clock in the morning.
He spoke to me and asked the price of a passage to New York.
I told him £4. He asked then when the ship sailed. I told
him to-morrow, which would be Thursday, the 14th. He then
went away, and came back about two o'clock in the afternoon.
He said, " I am come to pay my fare." He paid £4, and I
gave him a contract ticket. He then went away again. He
oame back, to the best of my belief, about half -past three
o'clock, and came into the office with three parcels, and one,
a larger one, done up in canvas. The larger one was about
18 inches long and 9 inches wide. I could not see the angles
of any hard substance outside the canvasi. I could not tell
what was inside. He asked me to take charge of them. I
said I could not, that he would have to leave them with the
foreman of the docks, under the shed. He then took them
with him out of the office. I did not see his trunk nor did I
notice the size of his small parcels. The canvas on the out-
side of the larger one was such as* I have seen inside the lining
of packs. I saw him on board the " Victoria." The ship
sailed on Friday morning at about 6.30, with the prisoner on
board.
64

Mr. Hardinge Giffard.

Evidence for Prosecution.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — The prisoner would have James Gitford
left his parcel with me if I would have taken charge of it. If
I had taken charge of it, it would have remained in the office
all night. So that if there had been anything suspicious in
it I should have had plenty of opportunity of looking at it.
I had no suspicion at all about it at the time. It is the custom
for poor German emigrants to carry little packages with them —
bacon, soap, and so on. The little packages might have been
such packages. Besides myself, there is a German porter
named Jacob Weist. He does not generally get to the docks
before me, and if he did he could not get into the office till I
open it. I open it when I reach the docks. My general time
for getting there is nine o'clock, but the docks open in the
summer at six a.m. Miiller gave me his right name. The
" Victoria " only took out four or five German passengers. I
have not got a contract ticket with me. The ordinary form of
such ticket gives the name of the vessel, tonnage, the date of
sailing, and the passenger's name and age. The prisoner gave
me his name, Franz Miiller, and his age, twenty-four years.

Re-examined by Mr. GIFFARD — Weist would attend. I
generally arrived at the office about nine o'clock. Sometimes
I might be later. If in such case an application were made to
Weist about a passage in the " Victoria " he would answer it
himself, but he would keep the passenger till I came.

JACOB WEIST, examined by Mr. GIFFARD — I am in the employ Jacob Weist
of Messrs. White, provision merchants. I attend at the London
Docks. I remember seeing the prisoner at the bar on several
occasions. I cannot say exactly the first time, but it must
have been some days previous to his paying his passage.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — The prisoner paid his
passage on Wednesday. I am not quite positive, but I have
some idea of seeing him at the docks on the Monday. Germans
come to me sometimes to ask questions. I am a German
myself.

Re-examined by Mr. GIFFARD — I got to the office on the
Monday about nine o'clock.

* 65

G. Clarke GEORGE CLARKB, examined by Mr. BEASLBY — I am a sergeant
of the detective police. On the 24th of August I went on
board the " Victoria " in New York. Mr. Tiernan, an officer
of the New York police, was in company with me. The prisoner
was on board. He was called to the after part of the ship
by the captain. I then seized him by the arm. He said,
"What is the matter? " John Tiernan, the American police
officer, replied, " You are charged with the murder of Mr.
Briggs." I, finding that Tiernan did not recollect the par-
ticulars, followed up with, " Yes, on the North London rail-
way, between Hackney Wick and Bow, on the 9th of July."
The prisoner said, "I never was on that line." I do not
know whether he said " that night," or whether he only said,
" I never was on that line." I replied that I was a policeman
from London, and that Mr. Tiernan was a policeman from New
York. I then took him down to the saloon, and Mr. Tier-
nan searched him in my presence. He took a key from the
prisoner's waistcoat pocket, which I produce. I took pos-
session of the key and said, " What is this the key of ? " He
said, " The key of my box." I said, " Where is your boxt "
He replied, " In my berth." In consequence of what the
captain told me, I went to No. 9 berth and found a large black
box, which I brought into the saloon where the prisoner was
standing. He said, " That is my box." I unlocked it with
the key I had taken from his waistcoat pocket, and in the
corner of the box I found this watch (producing it). It was
then sewn up in a piece of leather, which I have. I said,
" What is this] " knowing it by the feel to be a watch. He
replied, "It is my watch." I then took out a hat which was
standing in the box, and said, " Is this your hat? " He said,
" Yes." This is the hat (taking up the one supposed to have
belonged to Mr. Briggs). I said, " How long have you pos-
sessed them?" He said, " I have had the watch about two
years and the hat about twelve months." I then told him he
would have to remain in custody and be taken to New York.
I kept him on board all night until Inspector Tanner came on
board in the morning, when I gave him over to him.

Cross-examined by S,ERJBANT PARRY — The prisoner answered
my questions about the watch and the hat readily, and with-
out the slightest hesitation.
66

Evidence for Prosecution.

I think you have omitted an expression which Mr. Miiller G. Clarke
used, when you described to him the name of the gentleman
who was murdered, the railway, and the night. Did he not
say, " I know nothing about it; I never was on the line "1 —
My impression is he said, " I never was on that line "; but
whether he said " on that night " I do not remember. I believe
he did not.

I am sure this is only an omission from your memory failing ;
but if you refer to your deposition, made when you were some
weeks nearer in point of time to the actual conversation, you
will see that you made that statement.

Witness referred to his deposition before Mr. Flowers at Bow
Street, and said — I find here, my lord, that I said that " the
prisoner remarked in reply, ' I know nothing about it. I never
was on the line.' ' I do not now remember whether he said
" that night."

You don't now remember it, but it is very important. I
need not remind you that this deposition was read over to you
before you signed it? — Of course.

Of course a man in your position would be very careful in
making such a deposition, and being made at that time it
would be more likely to be correct than what you remember
now? — If I used those words I am quite certain the prisoner
said so.

You said also that you searched his box, and that there
were no new shirts? — I find that is a mistake. I said they
were not new because they were dirty ; but I found after that
deposition that they were shirts which had not been worn
probably more than once or twice.

INSPECTOR TANNER, examined by the SOLICITOR- GENERAL — I inspector
am an inspector of the detective police of London. I wasTanner
employed in this matter by Sir Richard Mayne. I went to
America, accompanied by Sergeant Clarke, by Mr. Death, and
by Matthews. I found Miiller on board the " Victoria." I
left Mr. Death on deck, and went below and found Miiller
there. I placed Miiller among eight other persons, and Mr.
Death then came down and pointed him out. I then spoke to
Miiller with reference to a ring, saying, " Have you stated
that you have lost a ring on board this ship?" He said,

Franz Muller.

Inspector "Yes, I have." He then said he had not lost it; it must
Tanner

have been stolen from him. I said, " Tell me what sort of

ring it is and I will endeavour to have it found." He said,
"It is a gold ring with a stone in it." I asked whether it
was a red stone. He replied, " No, a white stone." I said,
" A gold ring with a plain white stone? " He said, "No,
a gold ring with a white stone, which has got a head upon
it. I got it in Cheapside, and gave 7s. 6d. for it." The
ring was not found. I took possession of the effects of the-
prisoner. I showed them to him. He saw all that I had.
He said that they were the whole of his property, with the
exception of the ring. All his things were in the box. I
found no other parcel except the things in the box. I told
him that I should have to hold him as a prisoner, and he had
better tell me what was his property before he left the ship.
I have the box here. (Box produced. A trunk covered with
black and ornamented with brass nails, similar to those
generally in use by female servants.) I now put into the trunk
all the articles found in it when Muller was arrested in New
York. (The trousers worn by Muller, and found in the box,
were the dark pair of working trousers and the light pair
spoken of by Mr. Repsch.) No other trousers but these two-
pairs were found. There was very little other clothing. The
other things were one or two shirts, some collars, a few of the
implements of his trade, such as shears and measure, a few
scarfs, a few brushes, and an umbrella. There were also a
towel or two, a comb and brush, a pair of gloves, and a hand-
kerchief. There was no coat in the box or waistcoat. The*
prisoner only had one coat, and that was the one he had on.
No other parcel was discovered sewn up, such as has been
described.

(The prisoner's shears were, at the request of one of the
jurymen, handed into the jury-box, and examined.)

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — The prisoner answered
the questions I put to him most readily. I heard before
I saw him that his ring was lost. Sergeant Clarke
reported it to me. I knew from Mr. Death what
the ring was like. The prisoner said he did not
take it out of his pocket, but believed it was stolen from
68

Evidence for Prosecution.

him, and he had a suspicion of the man who had stolen it. Inspector
When I asked him whether it was a gold ring, with a plain
•white stone upon it, he at once said, " No; it has got a head
•upon it," and that he had bought it in Cheapside for 7s. 6d.
I did not hear him say in New York that he had purchased
the watch and chain on Monday morning at the docks. That
was suggested by his counsel in Commissioner Newton's Court
in New York. That was after he had seen his legal adviser.
Some German gentleman assisted the prisoner in New York.
I found 11s. upon him. He was so thoroughly searched that
there could be no mistake as to the amount of the money
he had. I did not ask him how he became possessed of that
money, nor did he offer any explanation to me. I am quite
sure of that. He did not say anything to me about having
sold or exchanged any of his clothes during the voyage. I
think he said something to Clarke about having exchanged
a waistcoat, but not within my knowledge.

SERJEANT PARRY — Perhaps your lordships will allow Clarke
to be recalled that I may ask him that question.

The bench assented.

GEORGE CLARKE, recalled, and examined by SERJEANT PARRY G. Clarke
— The prisoner told me that he had exchanged a waistcoat for
a little leather reticule. He exchanged again, and got the
^waistcoat back again. That is the waistcoat which the prisoner
is now wearing.

Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — The prisoner had
& waistcoat on when he was first taken, but that is not the
one I am speaking of. The one he wore when he was taken
was a very old one. I learned from something I said to him
about his clothes that he had exchanged a waistcoat for a
reticule, so I got the waistcoat back, and he wore it home. I
don't recollect that anything else passed between us with
respect to his clothes.

SBRJBANT PARRY asked Inspector Tanner whether the clothes
that the prisoner had on had been taken off his back for the pur-
pose of being analysed to see whether there was any blood upon
them? — I believe they were closely examined, but, not to my

knowledge, analysed.

Franz Muller.

T. J. Briggs THOMAS JAMES BRIQQS — I am the second son of the late
Mr. Briggs. I saw him last on the Thursday before the 9th
July. I next saw him at two o'clock on Sunday morning, the-
10th July. I was sent for. He was then in a state of insensi-
bility. I saw him at the Mitford Castle. His clothes had
not been removed. He was covered with a blanket, and his
clothes open at the neck. I have seen the watch. It is
my father's. The chain is also his. He had not worn it
many years. I have seen the watch and chain many timea
before my father had it. It was his brother-in-law's. "I
have seen him wear the chain and seal produced. My father
bought his hats from Mr. Digance, of 18 Royal Exchange,,
for many years. The hat produced by Tanner I first saw
at Bow Street. I did not at first recognise it as my father's
hat, as it is much shorter. I have seen the black bag and
stick found in the railway carriage. The stick is my father's,
the bag is my youngest brother's.

Cross-examined — I did not know a person named Thomas
Lee living in King Edward's Road before this transaction. I
have known him since. He lived about two miles from where
my father lived. I passed his house every day nearly. I
know that Mr. Thomas Lee was examined before the coroner.
I saw my father only a few days before his death.

S. Tid marsh SAMUEL TiDMARSH — I am a watchmaker. I knew the late
Mr. Briggs for seven or eight years. I had repaired a watch
for him once or twice. It is the practice in the trade to
enter the number of a watch we have to repair in our books.
I have looked at the number of the watch produced. I know it
is Mr. Briggs's watch. I have repaired it twice for him. I
last repaired it for him on 6th February, 1863. Its value
at the present time is about £10 or £12. I would give
hardly so much for it in the trade — perhaps not more than
£7. The original price was very likely about £25, or perhaps
£30 — it is an old-fashioned gold watch.

D. Digance DANIEL DiGANCB — I am a hatter at 18 Royal Exchange. Mr.
Briggs has been a customer of mine for the last five-and-twenty
or thirty years. I made him his hats to order. I made a

Evidence for Prosecution.

hat to order for Mr. Briggs in September, 1863. According D. Digance
to the description in the book the hat produced does not
correspond. It is lower in the crown, but corresponds
in the shape of the crown. It is what is called a bell-
crowned hat. This hat is lower in the crown than the hat
Mr. Briggs ordered. It has been cut down. Mr. Briggs
always wore a bell-crowned hat. Mr. Briggs's hat was a
little too easy on the head, and I placed a small piece of tissue
paper round. That tissue paper is not here. There are
some small fragments of it remaining in the band of
the hat. The tissue paper would be inside the lining. I
should say the hat had been cut down from 1 inch to 1^ inches.
The bottom part of the leather has been cut off. The piece
has been cut off, and it has been sewn together again, and the
silk has been pasted on again. It has not been cut down as
a hatter would do it. It is an operation I have never seen. A
hatter would have used gum, and put it on a block, and pressed
it down with a hot iron. This hat has certainly not been done
in that way. It has been sewn, and the silk pasted down.
The hat has been neatly sewn, and I should say it was done
by a person who understood sewing. With the exception of
the cutting down, the hat corresponds with the hat of Mr.
Briggs. When a hat is made to order, the name of the
customer is generally written on the band of the hat inside
the lining. That is the part of the hat which has been taken
away.

Cross-examined — I saw on the lining Francis Miller, 22 Jewry
Street. It is a common thing to put tissue paper in a hat
that is too large, sometimes leather. My trade in Cornhill
is of a first-class, not second-hand. I know nothing of the
second-hand trade in hats. My hats may get into the second-
hand trade. Servants sell their masters' hats very frequently.

(Several old hats were here handed to the witness by Serjeant
Parry.)

He said — They are my hats, but they are very old affairs.
Mr. Briggs generally had one hat a year, and he used to have
his hat lined very frequently. He was a very careful wearer.

Re-examined — The price of the hat that is cut down is one
guinea. It has not the appearance of being very old. None
of the hats shown me has been cut down.

Franz Muller.

D. Digance By SERJEANT PARRY — I will not swear that the hat produced
is the hat I made for Mr. Briggs. If the piece had not been
cut off I could have told.

F. W. Thorn FREDERICK WILLIAM THORN — I am a hat manufacturer, and
make hats for Mr. Digance. The hat produced I recognise as
my manufacture, and has my handwriting in it — two letters,
" D. D." There is nothing in it to show when it was made.
It is not as I made it ; it has been cut down ; a piece has been
cut from the band of the hat, removed entirely. When I have
a hat to order I put the name of the gentleman on the inside.
From 1 inch to 1^ has been cut away, and the name would be
on that part of the band of the hat. Sometimes I have marked
them higher up, two, three, or four years back. For the
last two or three years I have marked them in the band — for
my own convenience in the course of manufacture. I don't
know whether I made this hat for Mr. Briggs, but I know I
made it for Mr. Digance. If I had cut it down I should have
used gum and an iron, and not have done it as this is done.
The silk of this hat has been turned back for the purpose of
sewing it together, and it has been fastened down again with
paste, which we should never use; it has been sewn together
neatly.

Cross-examined — I am not aware that my hats are sold in
the second-hand trade. I put a different mark for other cus-
tomers. I mark all the hats I make for Mr. Digance as this
is marked.

inspector At the request of Serjeant Parry, Inspector TANNER was
recalled, and was asked if the hat which Muller had with him,
when he was apprehended in America, fitted him. Inspector
Tanner replied that it did.

Mrs. Blyth Mrs. BLTTH was also recalled at the request of the counsel
for the defence, and was asked, through the Court, whether
she knew the velvet coat or overcoat which had been spoken of
by Repsch. She said she knew the coat well.

When did you last see itf — On Thursday, the 14th of July.
72

Mr. Serjeant Parry.

Evidence for Defence.

That was the day of his leaving on board the " Victoria." Mrs. Blyth
Was he wearing it then? — I cannot say whether he was wearing
it or had it on his arm.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

lordships and Mr. Serjeant

Mr. SERJEANT PARRY — May it please your
gentlemen of the jury, I am assisted in the performance of the
very serious and responsible duty which has been placed upon
me by the firm, thorough, and unshaken conviction that the
young man at the bar will have from you a fair and impartial
trial. I know, however, gentlemen, how difficult it will be
for you to act with that self-control upon your judgment to
prevent yourselves from being carried away by any feeling of
prejudice. The Solicitor-General has already invited you,
and probably his lordship in summing up the case will repeat
that invitation, to discard from your minds all that you have
heard, all that you have read, all that you have discussed about
this case. Gentlemen, that will be a difficult task. I think
in every newspaper in the kingdom this case has been discussed
pro and con. Articles have been written in the public Press
proving that this young man was guilty of this murder.
Articles have been written in the public Press proving that he
oould not have been guilty of this murder. Gentlemen, it is
not for me to criticise the action of the public Press. The
writers in the Press have their law of action as we have at the
bar; but it is, for the most part, unusual that when a man has
been arrested upon a charge for which, if he is found guilty,
his life must be sacrificed — I say it is, for the most part,
unusual to take the course that has been taken, not by insig-
nificant journals, but by the most respectable and most eminent
papers of the country — the course of commenting upon the
likelihood of the guilt or innocence of such a person. That
has been done. What has been written has been read probably
by every one of you gentlemen — certainly by almost every
person capable of reading a newspaper in the country. What
has been done cannot be undone ; but an impression, more or

Franz Muller.

Mr. Serjeant less strong, must have been made on your minds, and not only
the action of the Press, but also social discussions taking place
between man and man on the subject of this young man's guilt
— sometimes diverging into the hottest of arguments — cannot
have failed to make an impression upon your minds. But,,
gentlemen, I am confident you will give this young man a fair
and impartial trial, that when you retire to consider your
verdict you will find it apart from everything but what has
been brought before you here. I cannot disguise from myself
that there is another terror and dread that I ought to feel in
defending the prisoner. Gentlemen, the crime of which this

(young man is charged is almost unparalleled in this country.
It is a crime which strikes at the lives of millions. It is a
crime which affects the life of every man who travels upon the
great iron ways of this country. A thrill of horror ran through
the whole land when the fact of this crime was first published.
Gentlemen, this is a crime of a character to arouse in the
human breast an almost instinctive spirit of vengeance. It is
a crime which demands a victim. Yet, still I have faith in
your honour in this matter. I have faith that you will allow
no spirit of vengeance, no vindictive feeling, to enter your
minds, and if for a moment such a feeling should enter, that
you will banish it away. Gentlemen, the law is, or ought to
be, passionless ; and I am sure that when you come to consider
the course of this case you will be passionless also.

Gentlemen, the course I intend to take on behalf of this young
man shall not be misunderstood by any human being. I
know that there have been in my profession men far more
eminent than I am ever likely to be, who have damaged them-
selves, who have damaged their client, and who have damaged
the profession to which they belonged by solemn asseverations
of the innocence of the man they were defending. Gentle-
men, I will indulge in no such asseverations. Supposing I
were solemnly to assure you that I believed this young man
to be innocent, you would treat that observation, as it deserved
to be treated, with perfect indifference. Supposing my
learned friend the Solicitor-General had solemnly declared
to you that he believed that young man at the bar to be
guilty, you would have treated that assertion just as you
would have treated my assertion of his innocence. No, gentle-
74

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening.

men, the true test of a man's guilt or innocence is the evidence Mr. Serjeant

Parry
brought before the jury at the time of his trial. I take it to

be impertinence on the part of a counsel, I take it to be a per-
version of professional duty, if he pledges his own word to that
of which he can know nothing, except from the evidence before
him. This I pledge myself to demonstrate to you from the
points of evidence before, supplemented by the evidence which
I shall lay before you, that you cannot, that you ought not,
and I believe you will not, find this young man guilty. What
should be the rule and canon of your conduct in trying to
arrive at a right conclusion? It should be this — that the
charge of murder brought against this* young man should be
brought home to him on the clearest and most unmistakable
evidence; that you should be as surely satisfied of his guilt
as though you with your physical eyes had seen him do the
deed. The evidence ought to be complete. There ought to f
be no omission, no discrepancy, no uncertainty in the evidence
which is to bring home such a charge against him. My
learned friend the Solicitor-General has said, as regards cir-
cumstantial evidence, that if it were not the rule of the Courts
and the practice of juries to act upon such evidence, crime
would be committed with impunity. Gentlemen, I entirely
concur in that observation. I believe myself that circum-
stantial evidence, if not of the highest character, is of nearly
the highest character of evidence; but only this when there is
no link wanting in the chain. But if there be a doubt on the
evidence laid before the jury, or anything that might cast a
doubt on the evidence given, then the chain of evidence is in-
complete, and the jury ought not, and cannot, act upon it.

The prosecution relied mainly upon three pieces of evidence.
They relied, first, upon the hat found in the railway carriage;
next, upon the hat found in the prisoner's box; and lastly, on !
the watch and chain also found with the prisoner. The
Solicitor-General said distinctly that that was the evidence
upon which he relied for a conviction. Now, gentlemen, I
will show that that evidence is not to be relied upon. First,
as regards the hat found in the railway carriage. The wit-
nesses all proved, or, rather, sought to prove, that the hat
belonged to this young man, Miiller; but only two — Mrs.
Repsch and Jonathan Matthews, the cabman — have spoken at

Franz Muller.

?Irr|erJeant a11 decidedl7 uP°n that point. Now, gentlemen, you will be
good enough to bear in mind that there is a vast difference
between whether Muller ever had a hat like that found in the
carriage and whether that hat really belonged to him. This
difference is as great as the difference between something and
nothing, which is said to be infinite. If the hat belonged to
him, the Solicitor-General says that is conclusive evidence of
his guilt. The hat, he says, was found on the scene of the
murder, and must have been left in the railway carriage by
the murderer. That is the theory of my learned friend the
Solicitor-General. But, gentlemen, he went on commenting on
the evidence, and I must caution you most strongly as to ming-
ling and mixing up the two questions as to whether Muller
ever had a hat like that, and this being Muller's hat in the
railway carriage. Now, Mrs. Repsch's evidence was very
remarkable. She could not tell the lining of her husband's
hat, of Haffa's hat, or of any one else's hat which she was in the
habit of seeing. She did not seem to have been meddling or
muddling herself with their hats, but some thirty or forty
times she had looked into the hat of this young man,
Muller, and she was positive that this hat was his. But if
there were another hat similar to the hat Muller may have
had, why, then, gentlemen, what she has stated ceases to be
important. Gentlemen, I watched that woman while giving her
evidence. I think she gave it with vehemence. All that she
says, however, is that the hat Muller brought to her in Novem-
ber last was like the hat found in the railway carriage.

I now come to a much more important part of the evidence,
and that which bears the strongest against the prisoner at the
bar; I mean that of the person who first gave information to
the police, and who has played a most conspicuous part in the
inquiry — Jonathan Matthews, the cabman. Now, gentlemen,
an observation dropped from my learned friend the Solicitor-
General which did me a great injustice. My learned friend
said he saw, by the tenor of the questions I was putting, that
virtually, if not actually, I was going to accuse Jonathan
Matthews of this murder. Gentlemen, through the whole time
I have been most anxiously engaged in this case, examining it
from the beginning to the end, sifting the most trifling circum-
stances connected with it, such a thing has never for a moment
76

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening.

entered into my mind. Gentlemen, I should be indescribably MP. Serjeant
foolish and wicked if I were to make such a statement. Except '
the actual perpetrator of the crime, none but the Omniscient —
"He to whom all hearts are open, and from whom no secrets
are hid " — knows who did it. How dare I, then, as the
advocate of the young man at the bar — how dare I, with my
finite and limited intelligence, affirm that which the Almighty
alone knows? If I were to affirm that Jonathan Matthews
has been guilty of this murder, or a participator in this murder,
I should be a disgrace to the profession. There was no
such suggestion in my thoughts. But this I say, he is a man
whose evidence is entirely unreliable. He is a man "who gives
his evidence in such an unsatisfactory manner that no body
of sensible men would for a moment pay any attention to it.
And, gentlemen, I say this of him, that he is evidently actuated
by a desire to obtain the reward that has been offered for the
conviction of the murderer of Mr. Briggs. That has animated
his whole conduct. I should be very sorry to charge him
with being a party to the murder, but I should be very wicked
if I were not to say that suspicion is pointing to him. Matthews
could not say where he was on the night of the murder, but
now he recollects that he was at the Great Western station
from seven to eleven o'clock that night. In that he is per-
fectly uncorroborated. There is, however, very little doubt
that he gave Muller the hat in exchange for the waistcoat, in
November, 1863. Now, Matthews was examined very shortly
indeed by the Solicitor-General, and he said this was the hat,
he believed, of Muller, and he remembered it by the edges of the
rims being turned up to resemble the one he had. That is his
evidence-in-chief. Now, in cross-examination, I found that he
never said that before. He said he took it to the shop to be
done, and that that, as nearly as he remembered, was the
hat he gave to Muller. You will remember he made a state-
ment on his examination at the inquest about a hat he had
purchased about three weeks before of Mr. Downs, in Long
Acre. Since then he has discovered that there was no hatter
of the name of Mr. Downs there at that time. It is, then,
very important to know where is the hat which exactly resembled
Muller's. We had Mr. Walker and his foreman here. Mr.
Walker and his foreman both say that there might have been

Franz Muller.

MP. Serjeant three or four hats with this kind of lining in them, or there
might be only one; but I think two, or three, or four is all
that Mr. Walker had of these hats. It is very remarkable,
therefore, that although there were only two or three hats of
this kind, Matthews should have purchased one for Muller so
exactly like his own, as he said before the coroner that he did.
Why could not this be Matthews' hat? Gentlemen, I say you
must not assume this is Miiller's hat. You must not
take it, from the mode in which Matthews was examined by
the Solicitor-General, that this is the hat of Muller. I appre-
hend you cannot be sure of anything of the kind. There was
another hat resembling Miiller's, and resembling it in every
possible respect. Where is that hat1? We have made in-
quiries, gentlemen. Inquiries have been made by Mr. Beard,
the highly respectable and very able gentleman who is instruct-
ing me in this case, but his inquiries have been baffled by
the falsehood of Matthews, who tells an untruth both before the
magistrates and before the coroner. He never corrects that
untruth until now, when he knows we have witnesses to show
that Mr. Downs had ceased to carry on business in Long Acre
before the time he said he disposed of the hat to him. Then
he changes his tune, and says he does not know where it is.
I do not know whether you remember a remarkable expression
of Mrs. Repsch's to me when she said that Muller said his
hat been thrown into the dusthole. Is it not a remark-
able coincidence that Matthews, too, has said that some of his
hats were thrown into the dusthole? I should think that is
the last place where a man would throw his hat. Is Mr.
Matthews' trustworthy in other respects? Do you believe that
he never heard of the murder before Thursday? Do you
believe that he had been on his cab all through the streets and
had not heard of this murder before? I do not believe it.
Why, murders, robberies, and police cases of all kinds are the
literature of cabmen. They read scarcely anything else.
Matthews says he had never heard of this before, but I put it
to you, is that story a likely or probable one? His wife knew
on Monday, the Repsches knew on Monday, and it seems almost
impossible for me to believe that Matthews is telling you the
truth when he says that he knew nothing whatever about this
before Thursday. Gentlemen, there was another circumstance
78

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening.

in the evidence which he gave which I think ought to induce Mr. Serjeant

you to disbelieve him. He had been convicted of a trumpery '

theft about thirteen years ago. Now, gentlemen, I assure

you I was most reluctant to touch upon that, because a theft of

this kind committed by a young man so long ago would not go

far to impugn his character for honesty. But, gentlemen, he

told a deliberate falsehood, and then I was determined you

should see he was a man who did not habitually adhere to the

truth. The Solicitor-General says, where is Miiller's hatl

Well, where is Matthews' hat? He cannot produce it. He is

in the same circumstances as Muller in not being able to produce

his hat. I know that Mr. Repsch says that Muller told him

that his other hat was smashed, and that he had thrown it

into the dusthole. Now, gentlemen, I think I shall satisfy

your minds that there is no unmistakable proof that this hat

ever belonged to the young man at the bar. Mr. Tanner — of

whom it is right to say he has performed his painful duty

towards this young man with the greatest delicacy he could —

Mr. Tanner has simply performed his duty as we perform ours

here. These duties are cast upon him just as duties are cast

upon us here. And I am sure Mr. Tanner now is no more

desirous for the conviction of this young man than I am. I

think it is only right to pay this tribute to his character.

There is, I say, a suspicion that this hat belonged to the

prisoner at the bar ; but, gentlemen, the charge must be brought

home, the charge must be proved, even strong suspicion must

be cast aside, and if you consider that in this case there is only

strong suspicion against the prisoner, he will be entitled to have

the benefit of the doubt.

Now, let me come to the hat of Mr. Briggs. This
hat has been cut down and sewed, as you have all
seen. This young man has given different accounts of
the time he has had this hat. In answer to Repsch, he said
he had had it two months, and it appears that, in answer to
Sergeant Clarke, he said he had had it twelve months. Now,
gentlemen, I regret that the prisoner has in the coarse of this
case made many statements that are not consistent with the
truth. It is quite evident that he is a vain and boastful man,
and there is no doubt whatever that he was in the habit of
making statements with reference to his own property which

Franz Muller.

were not actuall7 true. He had said that Mr. Hod^ktnson
was going to send him out to America as an agent at £150
a year; and in the same way he may not have chosan to tell
the truth to Mrs. Repsch about that watch and chain. At
New York he might have felt there was something wrong about
the watch, chain, and hat, and he may have made the state-
ment he made there in order to redeem himself from the diffi-
culty into which he had got. Will you then go so far as to
say that if these statements were not reliable, he is guilty of
this murder? There is no dout that fear came upon him
when he was arrested in New York, but you will find, when you
come to examine the evidence, that the statement he made with
regard to the hat has not been disproved. But if it were not
so, I do not believe for one moment that you would on that
account find him guilty of murder. The hat is cut down; but
I shall bring you witnesses to show that in the second-hand
trade it is not unusual to cut down hats like this.
Mr. Digance will not swear that he sold this hat to Mr.
Briggs, and, if Mr. Digance will not swear to it, will you by
your verdict undertake to swear to it? I will go further and
say, did this hat ever belong to Mr. Briggs? This hat got into
the second-hand market. There is a bit of tissue paper left,
and it is actually suggested that this little bit of tissue paper is
sufficient to prove the identity. Such a proposition passes my
comprehension, and I ask you not to act upon it. It is a
strange thing that some one was not called from Mr. Briggs's
house to show what hat he had on that morning. Is not that
a great omission on the part of the prosecution? He must
have a household. Why are not some of the servants brought
here to tell you what hat he had on that night? These are
serious omissions, tending to show that there is no proof and
that there is no evidence on which you can rely that Mr. Briggs
wore this hat at the time of the murder. It is easy to say
that the name of Mr. Briggs was in the hat, and that it had
been cut down to obliterate that name. Well, Muller writes
his name there, and writes his address also, 22 Old Jewry
Street. That he must have done before he left England; and
from that we may infer that he had the hat some time before
he went to America. As regards the lining, many gentlemen
change that once a month or so; and it was shown that Mr.
So

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening.

Briggs, too, was frequently getting his hat lined afresh. Gen- Mr. Serjeant
tlemen, I would warn you against assuming as a matter of
course that, when a witness proves what he was called to
prove, the object the prosecution had in view is gained, and that
the purpose for which he is called is accomplished.

Now, there is no proof whatever that this hat which is brought
forward to prove the identity of the prisoner at the bar was
ever worn by Mr. Briggs. When was the hat cut down?
Surely, if it had been done on the voyage, there would be
somebody here to tell us. Surely, if it had been done on the
Sunday, Mrs. Blyth would have known of it. When was it
done? When is it suggested that it was done? Here is the
name of the prisoner. Was it put there by Muller? Was it
put there when he was at sea in order to deceive? Or was it
put there by Miiller when he said he bought the hat, two
months before, and said he gave 4s. 6d. for it? You
will remember that Mrs. Repsch said that two months
before the murder she asked Muller to lend her 5s., and he
said he could not do so because he was going to buy a hat.
The foreman of you asked whether Mrs. Repsch saw him on
the Sunday, or was in the habit of seeing him on Sunday. Mrs.
Repsch did not see him on the Sunday, and therefore it is
clear that, whatever hat Muller wore on the Sunday, Mrs.
Repsch would not see it. There is no evidence that Muller
did not take this hat with him on board the " Victoria " and
sell it to some person there, because you will remember that
this man was always chopping and changing his mind, and was
continually exchanging or selling his property.

Now, as regards the watch and chain, Muller has to encounter
the difficulty of having made different representations about
them. There is no doubt whatever that, if Muller purchased the
watch and chain, which are not of the enormous value my
learned friend said they were, but were valued by the jeweller at
£7, he must have purchased them under most suspicious circum-
stances. That, gentlemen, is a matter which should be
strongly borne in mind before you. I believe this case to be a
great mystery, but I know there have been many mysteries in
this world that the human intellect has not been able to pene-
trate. If he purchased this watch at the docks, as it is
alleged by his counsel that he did, there can be no doubt what-
G 81

Franz Muller.

Mr. Serjeant ever that he would get them at an inferior price, and he must
have known that he was doing a suspicious act. But it does
not follow that he knew anything of the murder. If he pur-
chased those articles at the docks, either the murderer or the
agent of the murderer must have sold them; and where was
he so likely to have taken them as down to the docks, where
he might expect to find purchasers who would soon leave the
country with them? Muller said he had had the watch for
two years. There can be no doubt that is untrue; but, gentle-
men, if you consider for a moment, you will see that the
prisoner at the bar, perfectly irrespective of the murder, had
some reason to believe that, in buying the watch and chain,
he was doing something that would bring him into trouble,
and then the observations that had been made about his having
told untruths about them are easily to be accounted for. He
told Mrs. Repsch that he had bought Mr. Death's chain at the
docks. That was not true; but still, if he made the purchase
in the docks that morning, the falsehood was not so great as
it would have been if he had made no purchase at all. There
is one very curious quality which this young man possessed.
He was always either buying waistcoats or hats, making
trousers, or pledging trousers, or pawning watches. He was
always getting these things, and he was a young man who
might easily be tempted into making purchases of this descrip-
tion. Had he any money? I do not intend to go through the
various means he adopted after Monday of raising money by
pledging the watch and chain. It is a curious circumstance
that he had pledged his own watch and chain, and he appears
to have pledged a coat. There is no doubt that he was then
raising money to pay his passage on Wednesday.

But, gentlemen, it has l)een proved before you that Haffa
saw him in possession of sufficient money to pay his passage
a week before the 19th of July. Then what has become of
that money? Gentlemen, it has gone somewhere, because
only 11s. is found upon him. The prisoner had the means,
therefore, of purchasing this watch and chain, for it would be
idle to suppose that, in disposing of these articles at the docks,
the seller would get more than one-half of their value. Now,
Muller was at the docks on Monday morning. My learned
friend has called Gifford, the clerk, to show that the prisoner
82

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening.

•came there on the Wednesday morning, and he was there. He Mr. Serjeant
calls another young man, a German of the name of Jacob
Weist, who says he saw Miiller there two or three days before
he took his passage, and he believes he saw him on the Monday
morning at the docks. Now, that is remarkable evidence, for,
of course, it was supposed that Miiller had never been at the
•docks before Wednesday. What is more likely than that he
should go down to the docks before making the necessary inquiry
as to the amount of the passage? You will remember that on
the Monday morning he left Mr. Death's at eight o'clock.
That would give him two whole hours, and I cannot but think
that the evidence presented as to the exchanging of the chain
at Death's will bear a different interpretation to what the
prosecution has put upon it. Suppose he had bought this
watch and chain at the docks that morning, suppose he knew
that, for that small sum of money he knew he had, he
could get a gold watch and chain, he would have some sus-
picion that the chain was not a good one or the watch not a
good one, and therefore, in order to remove that suspicion or
confirm it, he takes the chain to Mr. Death, the jeweller, to
ascertain whether it is gold that he has got. By exchanging
the chain at Mr. Death's he laid himself open to suspicion the
same as if he had pawned it. I believe he said to Mr. Tanner,
" I bought it in Cheapside, and gave 7s. 6d. for it," which
is almost the truth. He mentioned that he had been in
Cheapside, where Mr. Death lived. He never denied having
been at Mr. Death's, and I think I am free to say that his
visit there is open to the interpretation I have put upon it.
I leave it, however, entirely to your judgment.

Now, gentlemen, what I have submitted to you must leave
an impression short of anything like conclusiveness as to the
guilt of the young man at the bar. If the two hats have not
been satisfactorily shown to you to be one belonging to Miiller
and the other to Mr. Briggs, and if, as regards the watch and
chain, his conduct has been what I suggest, then I say that,
as respects the possession of this property, the facts are fairly
open to the interpretation which I have put upon them.

Now, gentlemen, there is a portion of the evidence which is
produced by the Crown in which the prosecution has attempted,
and I think I shall prove they have completely failed, to show

Franz Muller.

Mr. Serjeant the guilt of the prisoner. In the first place, they have said h&
had a pair of dark trousers on the Saturday and a pair of
light trousers on the Monday. Where, they ask, are the dark
trousers? The insinuation is that the dark trousers may have
been covered with blood, and that therefore the light trousers
were worn on Monday. This is an inference that would not be
drawn, I think, except in the mind of one who was determined
to find something wrong in everything. There would not
otherwise appear to be anything wrong in wearing a dark pair
on Saturday and a light pair on Monday. The prosecution
felt their case was weak, and they found it necessary to take
hold of anything they could grasp. But what had become of
the dark trousers? Why, he had them on on the Monday. Mrs.
Blyth, a thoroughly honest woman, who did not come here to
mislead you or to press unduly against the prisoner, said she
would not pledge herself to say whether he had on light or
dark trousers on the Monday. That is the index of a
thoroughly conscientious mind. She evidently had been friendly-
with the prisoner. She evidently, if her own wishes were to
be consulted, did not wish him to be convicted. Mr. and Mrs.
Repsch said he had light trousers on. What does Matthews,
say? " He had dark trousers on on Monday when I saw him."
Mrs. Repsch is asked if the prisoner had an overcoat with a
velvet collar, and she said he had. She was not asked whether
it was a very hot season of the year, but simply had he a
coat with a velvet collar. Well, yes, he had; but that proves
nothing at all. Mrs. Repsch would not swear that he had not
dark trousers on; but Mrs. Blyth, the conscientious woman,
was recalled at the last moment, and states that she saw him
with a coat on with a velvet collar on the Thursday, on the
14th of July, after the murder. If he took the coat to the
" Victoria " when he started for America, and if he had the
dark trousers on on the Monday, what right has the Solicitor-
General to ask where they are now? He has now no more right
to ask it than the greatest stranger. It is a superfluous ques-
tion coming from the prosecution altogether. The prosecution
has nothing at all to do with it. I must confess I never saw
any evidence that has so completely crumbled away as the
evidence that has been given with respect to the trousers and
the coat. He might have sold them on board the vessel, for
84

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening.

it appears that he was in want of money ; but, whether he Mr. Serjeant
sold them or not, the prosecution has nothing to do with it.
My learned friend Mr. Giffard made a most ingenious sugges-
tion. He asked the clerk whether he had any parcels with
him, and he replied that he had three — two small ones and
one canvas one, 18 inches long, and my friend said, " Did there
appear to be anything sharp or pointed 1 " He asked him if
there appeared to be anything heavy, with rough edges. He
said he did not take any notice of that. Is this evidence
against the prisoner? Does it not rather appear as if their
case was not strong enough when they want to force on the
jury a question like this? We understand well what it was.
It was intended to imply that the parcel 18 inches long con-
tained garments stained with blood, and that the prisoner
intended to sink it when he got to sea. That is the suggestion
made, and I say it cannot be relied on in a case of murder. I
am sure you will reject that evidence, as it does not tell in
the slightest degree against Muller, but is rather in his favour.
I have already commented on the false statements
this young man is alleged to have made. I have offered to
you what I believe to be not an unreasonable explanation
of all those false statements, and I ask you to bear in mind
the plain, straightforward conduct of the prisoner throughout.
Excepting those false statements, there does not appear as
regards his conduct anything whatever that is wrong. I notice
that he has been spoken of as a fugitive from justice. Now,
that is utterly untrue; he did not fly from justice. For two
months previously he had expressed his intention of going to
America. That was not concealed from any one; he had told
it to his friends, and they all knew it. So far as the pledges are
concerned, he appears to have pledged in his own name, except
•when Mr. Glass's shopmate was with him, and then he pledged
in his name, as he was justified in doing. There is no disguise
there. Then he goes to the docks and takes a passage in his
own name. He is supposed to have committed a heinous murder
•on the previous Saturday. Now, do you not believe that a
man who had committed such a crime would, at all events, go
to America in a false name? Because a man who commits a
crime like this must be a great criminal. If he had done
this deed, how he could have taken a passage in his own

Franz Muller.

Mr. Serjeant name passes my comprehension. I cannot understand it,
Then, when he sails, his first act is to write a letter to his
friends, which you have heard read, which, I think, is not the
letter of a guilty man. His conduct on his arrival in America
is not opposed to the statements he has made. He is there
suddenly arrested. He is seized suddenly, and, I suppose,
almost dragged out of the room by Sergeant Clarke. He is
told all the circumstances of the murder of Mr. Briggs, and
he says, "I know nothing about it; I was never on the line."
I think I will show you that he was in the habit of travelling-
by omnibus generally, and that he never was on that line.
As far as the evidence goes, that is uncontradicted by any one.
He answers the questions that were put to him in the politest
manner, and it is remarkable that, in reply to Mr. Tanner, he
said he had a ring, but it had been stolen from him. When
asked, "Was it a red stone? " he said, "No, it was a white
stone, and I bought it in Cheapside for 7s. 6d." Now, he
had bought it for 5s., which was not far removed from the
value he stated.

Now, gentlemen, there is one part of this most anxious
inquiry of which I must speak as one earnest man may speak
to other earnest men when they are discussing a matter of the
gravest kind. I say there is one part of Jthis case which I
almost defy any one to reconcile with the prisoner's guilt. Mr.
Briggs appears to have been a man of about 12-stone weight,
and about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high. He was in robust and
vigorous health, according to his medical man. The young
man at the bar, compared with Mr. Briggs, is a mere stripling.
The distance between the Bow station and the Hackney Wick
station is 1 mile 414 yards. The body of Mr. Briggs is found
upon the 6-foot way between the lines, 700 yards from Hackney
Wick station. Now, it takes three minutes for an engine
to go from Bow to Hackney Wick station. Therefore, when the
murder had been consummated, and the body thrown out, there
was only about two minutes, or a minute and a half. Do you
believe that a slight and by no means muscular young man
could have committed that murder in that time? I think no
less than eight blows were inflicted, and some of them must
have caused death. After eight heavy blows had been inflicted
on Mr. Briggs, his body must have been dragged along across,
86

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening.

the carriage, the door must have been opened, and the body Mr. Serjeant

thrown out, and all this while the train was in rapid motion.

Now, you can see for yourselves that I am not describing this

wrongly when I say that the prisoner is a young man possessed

of no great amount of physical force. His physique is slight

in the extreme. It is proved that Mr. Briggs was perfectly

sober, and it is said that he was sleeping.

Now, gentlemen, you have to say whether you can form an
opinion as to whether that struggle, which ended in the death
of a powerful, sober man, could have been sustained by the
young man at the bar. If you believe in your own minds
and consciences that this young man, with the physique that he
has, and which you yourselves can see, could not have mur-
dered Mr. Briggs, then you will acquit him. Gentlemen, such
an impression, if on your minds, will outweigh all the circum-
stantial evidence in the world. Is it not likely that this was
a premeditated murder, committed by men well accustomed to
traffic in robbery, and, if necessary, to secure themselves by
murder? I can imagine that two such men might have com-
mitted this deed, and I will prove to you that there were two
men in the carriage with Mr. Briggs. I would imagine that
two such men had followed Mr. Briggs, seeing him in the
omnibus or in King William Street, when he alighted from the
omnibus and went to the North London railway. They had
followed him, seeing his watch and chain and the black bag,
which they thought might contain money, and seeing also that
he was a man likely to have other property about him. I
should have thought that men of that character would have
committed this crime. And, gentlemen, what is the young man
at the bar? He is a journeyman tailor, following the most
peaceful of peaceable occupations. He is a young man of a
kind and trusting nature, putting confidence in those who are
around him. among whom he has secured the friendship and
goodwill of a woman like Mrs. Blyth. I say that a young man
who shows himself, as he must have done, to a woman like Mrs.
Blyth, and secures her good feeling, does that which tells a
great deal. Mrs. Blyth' s friendship has been of great service
to this young man. Mr. Blyth also, who is a respectable man,
speaks of him as kind and humane. Mr. Glass, who has known
him for four years, also says he was a kind and humane young

Franz Muller.

Mr. Serjeant man. Mr. HaflEa says the same. And this is the man who
P&rry

has perpetrated this most hideous murder. That is what the

prosecution says. My learned friend the Solicitor-General
said he had seen the stick which was in the railway carriage,
and that it was covered with blood, and that, therefore, it
probably was the weapon with which the murder was committed.
He has undertaken to show you, or has suggested to you the
theory, that this young man, seized by the sudden temptation
to possess the property of Mr. Briggs, took his stick, beat him
about the head, carried the body across the carriage, and threw
it out of the window. Gentlemen, I say that is impossible.
I say that the prisoner at the bar could not in any way have
done that.

Allow me to go a little further into this. The
prosecution were at a loss to say with what weapon this could
have been done. Not a word was said about this either at
the Police Court or before the coroner. Not a single word
was suggested that this was the way in which the murder was
done by the young man at the bar, and, until that statement
fell from the lips of the Solicitor-General, it never entered my
mind that that was the way in which the prosecution were
going to account for the murder having been committed. A
pair of shears had been taken out of the pocket of the prisoner,
but I do not suppose that even now the Solicitor-General would
suggest that the murder was committed with the shears. The
blows were inflicted with a blunt instrument, and not with a
sharp one. The stick was said to be covered with blood. Now,
if that were the weapon, where would the blood have been
found? There was a little blood upon it for about 6 inches,
which had been examined by Dr. Letheby with a microscope,
and there was no doubt it was human blood. But there was
blood all over the carriage, and this stick being there must
have got splashed with blood, though if it had been used as a
weapon the blood would have been upon the handle. Now,
gentlemen, you have heard me ask Mr. Briggs, the younger,
whether he knew a gentleman of the name of Lee. That
gentleman was examined before the coroner. I cannot under-
stand why he has not been presented before you on the part
of the prosecution, but my learned friend, who has not thought
fit to call him, has, I have no doubt, some good reason satis-

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening.

factory to his own mind for not doing so. Mr. Lee, I under- Mr. Serjeant
stand, is a gentleman of independent means. He is the son
of Mr. Lee, one of the first coal merchants, and is altogether
unimpeachable as regards character. He was called, I think,
before the coroner, and he told the coroner what he will tell
you, that on the night of the 9th of July he saw Mr. Briggs,
and, knowing him well, spoke to him at the station. I shall
bring this gentleman before you, who will prove this. He
was going as a passenger to Bow by the train which arrived
at ten o'clock. He says Mr. Briggs got into the first com-
partment of the first-class carriage nearest the engine, and he
said "Good-night, Mr. Briggs," and Mr. Briggs replied
" Good-night, Tom." Nothing else passed between them. He
«aw there were two persons in the same part of the carriage,
and the deceased was sitting on the side next the down plat-
form. One man sat on the same side as Mr. Briggs, and the
other opposite to him. There was a light inside, but it was
from the lamp outside that Mr. Lee saw the two persons. It
was quite possible for these passengers to have got out after
he got into another compartment without his seeing it, but they
<lid not appear to have any intention of leaving the carriage
when he saw them. One man, he said — the man next the
-deceased — was a tall man, and he believed he had dark whiskers.
He would not swear he had whiskers. The other man had
light hair. He could not tell the ages. That is a statement
of what he saw, and that is an important statement, because,
as far as you know of this matter as placed before you on the
part of the prosecution, the murder must have been committed
between Fenchurch Street and Bow, or between Fenchurch
Street and Hackney Wick. There is no reason whatever to
•doubt that Mr. Lee saw two men, and that it was the gaslight
that enabled him to see the men so well as he did. As far as
he knew, neither of these men got out of the carriage. He
could not say that Muller was one of them. My learned friend
the Solicitor-General has put before you another theory. He
did not think there were two men. He thought there was
only one, and he gave as a reason that if there had been two
men the pockets of Mr. Briggs would have been rifled, and
the money taken from him, but if there was only one man the
time would not have been long enough to get at the pockets of
the deceased gentleman.

Franz Muller.

Mr. Serjeant Now, gentlemen, you will observe that the description given
by Mr. Lee does not answer to the description of Muller in any
way. He says he cannot swear it was Muller, but he says also-
he cannot swear it was not. He is clear, however, that he saw
two men. Now, gentlemen, for some reason or other this
gentleman has been kept back. It would not serve the purposes
of the prosecution to let you know that fact. Therefore Mr.
Lee is not called, because, I suppose, he would embarrass the
theory as to who did this murder and how it was done. I shall
feel it my duty to place that gentleman before you. Mr. Lee
said that at the time he saw Mr. Briggs that gentleman had
his hat on. Here you put an end to the suggestion that this
is the hat of Mr. Briggs, for, if he had it on at the time of the
first blow, it must have been crushed.

Gentlemen, if this were a case of a £10 note, if it were
a case of a bill of exchange, if it were a case of goods exchanged
or sold, of work done, or if it were a miserable squabble
between a hackney cab and a dust cart, I should be per-
mitted to sum up the evidence for the defence. But this
is simply a case of life or death, and the law of England
forbids that to be done. I feel very strongly on this subject;
but we are in a Court of justice, and not in a Court of
legislature, so I forbear to express my opinion further. You
may remember that the prisoner said he was going to see
his sweetheart at Camberwell, and he gave the name of the
girl he was going to see, who Haifa said was a girl of the
town. He had known her before, and had been in the habit
of visiting her. Haifa did not know whether she knew Muller
by his right name, but she will tell you that when you see her.
Her landlady, Mrs. Jones, lives at Stanley Cottage, James
Street, Vassal Road.

Now, gentlemen, this evidence is in the nature of an alibi,
and, if true, it is the most conclusive evidence which can be
given. This young girl knew a person of the name of Alexander
Gill. I shall call Mrs. Jones before you, and she will tell you
that on that night, after nine o'clock, between nine and ten,
Muller called, but the girl Eldred was out. He spoke to Mrs.
Jones or Mrs. Johnson, as he called her, about ten minutes,
and then left. He had his slipper on, and you will remember
that it is clearly proved that upon the night of the murder
90

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening.

he had his slipper on when he left the Repsches. He had it on Mr. Serjeant

Pappy
also at Camberwell. That is another circumstance in the case

which makes it very unlikely, as it seems to me, that, with
a slipper on, he could have committed such a crime as this.
He had his slipper on when he left Camberwell. The girl Eldred
had gone out about nine o'clock. Shortly after that, as you
will find by witnesses, Eldred returned, and then Mrs. Jones
told her that Muller had been to see her. (The learned Serjeant
was here interrupted by one of the other learned counsel for
the defence, and, correcting himself, said) — I am told it was
Sunday morning when Eldred returned. This only shows you
how very desirable it is that counsel for the defence should
have the right of summing up afterwards. Mrs. Jones told
her that her young Frenchman had come to see her; for Mrs.
Jones, or Johnson, knew him as the young Frenchman. Now,
Mrs. Jones and the young girl Eldred about this time received
a paper which I hold in my hand, and which is a telegraphic
message. That message was received on the 9th of July from
Alexander Gill Strachan, giving an address somewhere in
Whitechapel, and addressed to Miss Eldred, Stanley Cottage,
James Street, Vassal Road, Camberwell. It said —

I shall be with you on Sunday at three o'clock, be at home. — Yours,
in haste, Alexander Gill Strachan.

Mrs. Jones has two lodgers in her house, one Miss Eldred and
another girl. Both of these girls are what are called unfortunate
girls. Now, that appears to me to be the only blot in the
character of Muller that we have seen in the course of this
very long trial. Gentlemen, when we know well what is going
on in all classes, from the highest to the lowest, our moral
indignation ought not to press too heavily on the heads of thesa
unfortunates. Still, they will have to be watched narrowly to
see whether evidence is or is not true. If you are satisfied that
this telegram is genuine, it is a wonderful coincidence that
this girl should have received it, and that she should be told
on the same day by Mrs. Jones that her young Frenchman
had been to see her. This is a wonderful coincidence. That
this message is a genuine one can be proved beyond all doubt
or question, and Mrs. Jones will tell you that on that night
Muller came to her house; and that, gentlemen, is where

Franz Muller.

Mr. Serjeant Muller himself said he was going when he said he was going to
Camberwell, and, I believe, to see the girl Eldred.

Now, gentlemen, a person suddenly appears before you as
a witness of whom you have heard nothing before; but, if you
believe what this witness will tell you, it will allow you to relieve
the young man at the bar from the fearful consequences of this
charge. I shall call before you a witness whose testimony,
however, will not be very great. An omnibus conductor who
conducts an omnibus from Camberwell Gate remembers this,
and it is one of the results of the inquiries that have been made
by the German Legal Protection Society, who, much to their
honour, although feeling as great a horror at this crime as any
men living, have not allowed the life of their countryman to be
sacrificed, however humble he may be, without giving him the
means of a complete and thorough defence. I shall call this
omnibus conductor before you. He has been to see Muller since
he was in prison, and has been unable to identify him. Mrs.
Jones and Miss Eldred saw him in prison, and, of course,
recognised him at once. It is, however, a very small circum-
stance that I am about to mention. The omnibus conductor
remembers that at seven minutes to ten o'clock on one Saturday
night a passenger got into his omnibus; and, if it should be
that this man was the prisoner before you here to-day, it would
not be the first time that you had heard that he had come
home in a Camberwell omnibus that night. About ten minutes
to ten o'clock — on a Saturday night, I say — the omnibus con-
ductor recollects a passenger got into his omnibus who had a
carpet slipper on one foot. That is the whole of the evidence
he can give you. It may weigh as naught. A passenger in an
omnibus with a carpet slipper is, however, a very rare kind
of passenger. The time, too, fits with Miiller's visit to Mrs.
Jones.

Now, gentlemen, it may be that on examining him more
may come to his recollection. It is a very trifling circumstance
which he has to speak to, but the very insignificance of it
shows that the man who tells it must be the witness of truth.
If what he had to say had been false, he would have said he
had known Muller, and he would have told you all that was
necessary to prove an alibi. I dared not keep this fact from
you, although I admit it is not of so great importance as
92

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening.

others that will be submitted to you. There is, however, one Mr. Serjeant

P&PPV

observation which I ought to have made before, and it is of
such great importance that I am sure you will not regret that
I make it now. It is this, that no marks of blood whatever •
have been found on the clothes of the prisoner. It is idle to j
say that he has made away with his clothes, because he clearly
had not done so before his departure from the London docks.
No marks of blood have been found. Gentlemen, it cannot be
doubted that if he were himself the murderer, or if he were
one of two murderers, he would have had marks of blood upon
him. Blood spurted out of Mr. Briggs, and there is no doubt
whatever that his assailant must have been covered with blood,
or, at all events, have had a considerable amount upon his
clothes. Now, the only way in which the prosecution can
answer that statement is this, that the clothes he wore in that
carriage might have been made away with. It appears to me
to be conclusive that they were not made away with after the
murder.

Now, gentlemen, I believe that I have urged upon your
attention every topic that I thought might be honourably
advanced by me on behalf of the prisoner at the bar. I hope,
I sincerely hope, that I have done my duty. Gentlemen, this
case, as I have said all along, is one of suspicion, great
suspicion ; but I hope you will forgive me if, at the last moment
that I shall have the opportunity of saying a word to you — I
hope you will forgive me if I entreat you to bear in mind that
the case, if not proved against the prisoner, is equivalent to the
fact of his innocence — at all events, so far as your duty is
concerned. " Not guilty " in the English law means this,
either that the person charged is perfectly innocent, or that
the evidence against him — the proof brought forward — was
not satisfactory to the careful and cautious men who tried
him. Gentlemen, if ever there was a case in which care and
caution ought to be exercised by Christian men before they
arrive at a conclusion it is a case like this, where the life or
death of a fellow-creature hangs upon the balance. Once given,
and the sentence executed, your judgment is irrevocable. You
possess a transcendent power — a power which no other institu-
tion in this country possesses. You, the jury, have the
transcendent power to bid that young man to live or to die.

Franz Muller.

MP. Serjeant Gentlemen, when you retire after the final charge of the
Pappy

learned judge, there will be a terrible duty cast upon you. Is

there one of you who would not have preferred to be relieved
of that duty? Gentlemen, as I began, so I will end. Whatever
difficulties this young man has had to encounter in this case —
whatever difficulties I, as his advocate, have had to encounter
in the performance of my duty — I will only say at the end, as
I did at the beginning, that I have the fullest reliance upon
your honour and your caution. I have the fullest reliance that
you will receive every proposition I have made for the prisoner
with the favour it deserves at your hands. Gentlemen, you
will have to pronounce judgment, and I hope and pray the
judgment may be one of mercy.

The Court adjourned at seven minutes past five o'clock.

Third Day— Saturday, 2pth October, 1864.

The Court met at nine o'clock.

THOMAS LEE, examined by Mr. "METCALFE — I reside at King Thomas Lee
Edward Road, Hackney. I am a private gentleman. My
father was in business as a coal merchant. I knew the late
Mr. Briggs, and had known him for the last three or four
years. I saw him last alive on Saturday night, 9th July,
at the Bow station. It was about ten o'clock. He was in a
first-class carriage of a train coming from Fenchurch Street,
which stopped at Bow station. The carriage was the third
or fourth from the engine. I did not notice exactly which.
I said to him, "Good-night, Mr. Briggs." He answered me
and said, " Good-night, Tom." I was sufficiently familiar with
him for him to address me in that way. The train stopped
there longer than usual. I got into a second-class carriage,
nearer the engine, to go to Hackney, where I live. There were
two other persons in the same compartment with Mr. Briggs.
There was a light in the carriage. I believe Mr. Briggs had
his hat on, or I should have noticed it certainly. One of the
persons was sitting on the side of the carriage next the platform,
opposite to Mr. Briggs; the other was sitting on Mr. Briggs's
left-hand side next to him, on the same side of the compartment.
I saw sufficient of those persons to give a description of them —
one in particular. The man who sat opposite to Mr. Briggs
was a stoutish, thick-set man, with light whiskers. He had
his hand in the squab or loop of the carriage, and I noticed
that he had rather a large hand. The other man I only saw
casually, but he appeared a tall, thin man, and dark.

To the best of your belief, does the prisoner at the bar appear
like either of those men? — I can't swear to him.

Have you any belief on the subject? — I should rather think
he was not. I gave no information to the police of what I had
seen. Neither of the persons seemed, when the train came up,

Franz Muller.

Thomas Lee as if they were getting out, or moving with the intention of
getting out, at the station. I was in the second-class some-
time before the train moved on. When the carriage came up
I spoke to Mr. Briggs. I saw no apparent intention of those
persons leaving the carriage. I first mentioned this to any one,
I think, on the Monday or Tuesday following, almost as soon
as I heard of the murder being committed. I spoke to a friend
about it first. Subsequently, I believe, it was communicated to
the police, and I was examined before the coroner. I was
called, I don't know on whose part. The coroner directed me
to be there. Before going before the coroner I gave my evidence
to Superintendent Howie, who, I believe, was making inquiries
for the prosecution.

Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — I was not
examined before the magistrate. I live about twenty minutes'
walk from Hackney station. I left my house about eight
o'clock. I cannot be sure what time. My only object in going
to Bow was for a change. I walked up Hackney a little way
for amusement, for a stroll. I think I started from Hackney
by the quarter to nine or nine train. I took a stroll down to
Bow Church. I only went to Bow for a stroll, that's all. I
called in and had a glass of ale in a public-house at Bow just
beyond the church on the left-hand side. I don't know the
name of it. I only had one glass of ale. I can't swear that
I did not go to any other house, but I did not speak to
anybody. I simply went to Bow for a stroll. That is all the
account I can give. I got back to my house about a quarter
to eleven. I did not speak to anybody during that time. I
don't think I saw any one I can remember except Mr. Briggs. I
believe I did not. To the best of my belief, I swear it. I
cannot go beyond that, because it is some time ago. I know
it was Saturday night, the 9th of July, because I heard of
the murder the following week. It was the only night I ever
saw Mr. Briggs at Bow station so late. I heard of the murder,
I think, some time on Monday, about the middle of the day,
at Mr. Ireland's, the Falcon, Fetter Lane, where I have my
dinner generally, or Mr. Lake's, the Anchor eating-house, in
Cheapside. I am not quite certain whether I dined at Mr.
Ireland's or Mr. Lake's that day. I am not quite certain that
96

Evidence for Defence.

it was Monday ; it might have been Tuesday, but I think it was Thomas Lee
Monday. I am quite positive I did not hear of it on Sunday.

Having seen, as you say, Mr. Briggs within a few minutes
of his murder, in company with two men in the same carriage,
why did you not inform the police of that fact? — Because I
did not wish to be brought up. I did not see what my evidence
had to do with it.

Pray, consider your answer. Do you mean to adhere to that
answer, that you did not consider your evidence was of
importance? — I do.

What! you saw Mr. Briggs three or four minutes before his
murder with two men, whom you say you could describe, and
yet you did not think it of importance to inform the police? —
I did not think there was any need of it. That answer I persist
in. I first mentioned that I had seen two men in the carriage
with Mr. Briggs whom I could describe to a friend of mine,
Mr. Tompkins, I think, on the Monday night. I can't swear
to what I only think. Mr. Tompkins is a doctor, but not my
doctor. I have a wife. I am positive I told Mrs. Lee on
Monday night. I told Mr. Tompkins first, because I saw him
before I got home. I think I saw him on Monday. I think
I then told it to Mr. Ireland on the Tuesday. I did not know
at the time I should be called up for anything, therefore these
facts did not impress themselves on me. The next person, I
believe, was Superintendent Howie. I did not go to Superin-
tendent Howie to give information; he came to me on the
following Sunday afternoon, I suppose in consequence of what
he heard I had been talking about. He sent a man round on
Sunday morning and came in the afternoon. I then gave him
some information.

Then I am to take it that during the whole of that week
you, knowing, as you say, that there were two men whom you
could describe, gave no information to the police? — Yes.

You did not give it until one of them came to you ? — I should
not have given any information at all if they had not come,
because I thought it unimportant, and because I knew how
much bother it was. I have something to do. I collect my
own rents. I was examined before the coroner, and I believe
gave the same account of the men before the coroner that I
have given here now.

H 97

Franz Muller.

Thomas Lee (The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was about to read from the witness's
deposition before the coroner, when Serjeant Parry objected,
on the ground that the depositions had not been put in as
evidence — that certain words with reference to the witness's
statement before the coroner he (Serjeant Parry) had read from
the instructions contained in his own brief.

After some little discussion, Serjeant Parry's objection was
sustained, and the witness's cross-examination resumed.)

Cross-examination resumed — I don't remember who was
the ticket collector on that night. When I saw Mr.
Briggs the train had just stopped, and I immediately
got into my carriage after bidding him good-night. I have
been in Mr. Briggs's company a good many times — more than
half a dozen times — a good deal. I never visited or dined
with him or he with me. I have seen him in the city, and
often riding home with him in the same carriage. That was
my only acquaintance with him. He had been in the habit
of calling me " Tom " lately, and I will swear he did so on
that night. My carriage was next to his, nearer to the engine.
I got out at the Hackney station. I did not observe the guard
come with a lamp to his carriage, nor any commotion on the
platform, for I got out quickly. I heard of nothing extra-
ordinary having occurred in the carriage next to me.

Re-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — Hackney is not far from
Hackney Wick. I am able to swear I heard of the murder
on Monday or Tuesday. I believe I gave Superintendent Howie
the same account that I have given to-day. He wrote it down.
I have not seen him here. I was examined twice before the
coroner, but not in the sharp way that I have been by the
Solicitor-General to-day. Mr. Beard asked me one or two
questions. I had to go to Bow Street to see if I could identify
Muller. When it was found that I could not identify him I
was not called. I never knew or heard of Muller before in my
life. I have known Mr. Briggs in the way I have described for
two or three years. He was rather of a cheerful, affable dis-
position. He generally used to sleep going home in the railway
carriage; but he was not asleep on the night I bade him good-
night at Bow station. I think the train was late that night.
When I arrived at Hackney I immediately got out of the
98

Evidence for Defence.

carriage and left the station, just as an ordinary passenger, Thomas Lee
but rather quicker, because I was rather late.

By a JUROR — When Mr. Briggs was asleep he would keep his
hat on.

GBORGB BTERS, examined by Mr. BESLEY — I live at 4 Bridge George Byers
Road, Eburybridge, Pimlico. I am a hatter by trade, and
have been brought up to it from boyhood. I am acquainted
with all the branches of the hat trade, the second-hand trade
most particularly. Cutting down hats and sewing them is usual
in the second-hand hat trade with me and others. It is usual
to stitch them when they have been cut down. (Hat found in
Miiller's possession handed to witness.) This is not done as I
«hould do it, because I should stick it with dissolved shellac,
as well as stitch it. That would involve more time and trouble
in the work.

By the CHIEF BARON — I should stitch it first, and then
fasten it with dissolved shellac, so that it would be independent
of the stitching. That is the usual way in which it is done in
the trade. I should cut it down, of course, but likewise gum
or fasten it with the dissolved shellac. Some men, I may say,
are bunglers. They might probably in a hurry put a hat
together without stitching.

By a JUROR — It would probably take, independent of the
sewing, half an hour to make a good job of a hat, to gum
it, finish it, stick it on, and put the silk in its place after it is
stitched. Then it is finished. If I had a job of that sort,
I should take the leather out ; I should not cut it off. I should
put a new leather in.

WILLIAM LEE, examined by Mr. BBSLBT — I am a hatter, resid- William Lee
ing at Queen's Road, Chelsea. I have been for six or seven
years in the trade. In the second-hand trade I always stitch
hats after cutting them down. The reason for cutting them
down is that hats are now worn lower than the old hats.
Besides stitching, hatters use varnish. (Same hat handed to
witness.) I have done a great many hats in the same way as
this. If I cut down a hat for any one which did not require

Franz Muller.

WiUiam Lee a new lining, I should put in the old one again. It is cheaper
to stitch hats in the second-hand trade, because you save the
expense of shellac. I know nothing of Muller. When I heard
of this case I did not volunteer my evidence; I was subpoenaed.
I have never seen this hat before.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINB — Is that lining cut
in the way you would do it? You observe the edge of the
leather is cut? — It is lower. The leather has been cut. I
do not know why the leather should be cut. We do not cut
leather in our trade.

Has it been cut for any purpose you can understand? — I do
not know that.

People would not think of cutting a piece out of a new hat? —
Hats are worn lower than they used to be, and a hat would
become more saleable after being so treated.

Re-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — Have you, as regarda
stitching, done many hats in the same way as that in your
own trade? — Yes.

Are hats sometimes cut down on account of grease from th&
head having injured them? — I have never done so.

By a JUROR — I should not put so many stitches in a hat aa
are in this; not so close together, nor yet in the same zig-zag
way. I should not either cut a hat down so low. It is lower
than they are worn.

Alfred C. ALFRED COOPER WOODWARD, examined by Mr. METCALFB — I

am a clerk in the service of the Electric and International Tele-
graph Company, which connects with the London District Com-
pany. (Telegram handed to witness.) I have the original
of which this is a copy; here it is. (Original produced.) That
telegram was sent from the office on the 9th of July last.
(Telegram read by the Clerk of the Court.) The sender of
the message was Alexander Gill Strachan, Mr. Drake's, Somer-
set Street, Whitechapel. It was sent to Miss Eldred, Stanley
Cottage, James Street, Vassall Road, Camberwell, New Road,
and was as follows: — "Gone to Stratford, but I shall be with
you to-morrow, Sunday, three o'clock. Be at home. I shall
come without fail. — Yours in haste, Alexander Gill Strachan."
It was received on the 9th of July, at the Mincing Lane office*
100

Evidence for Defence.

at 4.30 p.m., and sent about twenty-five minutes to five. It Aifl-ed C.
might be half an hour or less reaching its destination.

By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL — The date is on the top of the
telegram.

Mrs. ELIZABETH JONES, examined by SERJEANT PARRY — I Mrs. E. Jones
reside at 1 St. George's Road, Peckham. In July last I lived
at Stanley Cottage, James Street, Vassall Road. I have two
female lodgers, young women, who receive the visits of men.
A young woman of the name of Mary Ann Eldred lived with me
then, and she lives with me still. She has lived with me ten
months. I know the young man at the bar. He had been
in the habit of occasionally coming to see Mary Ann Eldred. I
have known him as visiting her about nine or ten months before
the 9th of July. Miss Eldred knew Miiller before she came
to me — about a twelvemonth, I think. I have seen him visit
my house frequently. I remember my lodger receiving this
telegram quite well. I do not recollect when I received it,
but it was some time in the afternoon. I remember seeing
Muller on the 9th of July, the date of that telegram. It was
about half-past nine o'clock in the evening. At that time
Mary Ann Eldred was not at home. She had gone out at
nine o'clock, and had been out about half an hour. Muller
called to see her, and found she was not at home. He stayed
talking with me about five or ten minutes at the door. I am
quite sure it was as much as half-past nine o'clock. He then
left. Bearing in mind that telegram, I am quite sure that it
was Saturday evening, the 9th of July, about half -past nine,
that I saw this young man. I thought his name was Muller,
but I used to call him the little Frenchman. I did not know
he was a German. Miss Eldred used to say that he was a
German, but I used to call him the little Frenchman. I noticed
that he had one slipper on. He told me that he had hurt his
foot. (Slipper handed to witness.) I did not notice what
kind of slipper it was. He told me he was obliged to come out
with a slipper, for he had met with an accident and hurt his
foot. I did not see Mary Ann Eldred after this young man
had left until Sunday morning. I told her her friend had been,
•and she said, " Who — the one I received the telegram from? "

• - 101

Franz Muller.

Mrs. B. Jones The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to a conversation being giver*
as evidence, and his objection was sustained by the bench.

Examination resumed — I am afraid I can only ask you did
you communicate something to Mary Ann Eldred the next
morning 1 — Yes .

And also to your husband? — Yes, on the same evening to
my husband. My house was from a half to three-quarters of
a mile from where the omnibuses start at Camberwell Green.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINB — I suppose Miss
Eldred is here? — Yes.

You are living in some other house; are you living in the
same name? — Yes.

Are you sure? Have you taken the house in the same name?
— I do not know whether my husband has taken the house in
the name of Kent or Jones.

Is his name Kent? — Yes.

How is it your name is Jones ? — My name has been Jones for
thirty-six years, and I have always gone in the name of Jonea.
This is my second husband. I do not know Nelson Square,
Peckham, or any part of Peckham. I am living now at Peck-
ham, about half a mile from where I used to live. It was
Camberwell before; now I have got down the road to Peck-
ham, but I do not know where Nelson Square is. Supposing
a person wanted to get to Fenchurch or King William Street,
he would go up towards Camberwell Gate for an omnibus. It
would take a quarter of an hour or ten minutes to walk there
from Vassall Road. It is half a mile or more. The Peckham
omnibuses do not go to Camberwell Gate, they go by the Lord
Nelson. I do not know whether the Peckham and Camberwell
omnibuses meet in King William Street. I believe they both
go over London Bridge.

Can you give an idea of the time you received that telegram?
— No, I cannot give a better idea than I have given, it is sa
long ago.

To whom was the telegram handed? — I took it in off the
messenger. I do not know whether I signed for it. I only
recollect its coming on that day. Directly I received it I
took it up to Miss Eldred 's room. The gentleman that sent
it lives in the neighbourhood of Peckham. Miss Eldred occupies
the first floor.
102

Evidence for Defence.

What time do you generally dinel — Sometimes at one and Mrs. E. Jones
sometimes at two o'clock; never later than two.

Don't you recollect how long it was after dinner that the
telegram came? — I do not.

Had you any reason to recollect Miiller's calling except from
Miss Eldred's being out? — I should not have known the date
if it had not been for this letter (the telegram).

Should you have known the time when Muller came but for
what Mary Anne Eldred told you? — Muller came about half-
past nine, half an hour after Miss Eldred went out.

How did you know what time Miss Eldred went out? — She
called to me before she went out to know the time.

You remember the time she called to ask? — Yes.

Can you not tell me how long after the telegram arrived
Hiiller called? — I cannot give you the time when the telegram
came. It was some time in the afternoon ; but I cannot say
when. I had a clock in the kitchen. I looked at the clock,
and called out when it was nine o'clock, and then Miss Eldred
went out.

When were inquiries made of you in this matter? — When
inquiries were made she remembered having this telegram on
the afternoon that Muller called.

When were inquiries made of you about this matter? Was it
before Muller arrived in England? — I do not understand your
question.

(Question repeated) — It is about seven or eight weeks ago, I
think.

Who called first? — A German gentleman and another gentle-
man.

Did you know that Muller was suspected? — We had heard it,
but we did not know whether this was the same or no. He
went by the name of Miller. We did not know it till the
German gentleman came. He called two or three times. It
•was some weeks after we had seen Muller.

Was Miss Eldred with you when the German gentleman
came? — She was called into the room.

When the German gentleman came, you had not the tele-
gram upon the table? — No, sir; it was fetched afterwards.
Miss Eldred remembered that she had received it on the same
day, and she had it in her box with her other letters.

103

Franz Muller.

Mrs. B. Jones Did the German gentleman mention the day, or how came
she to know anything about the day? — She had heard of the
murder being committed on the 9th of July.

If you and she had had any talk about the murder, do you
mean to represent that Eldred was not at all aware that the
man accused of that murder was Muller ? — Not for some time ;
but when we used to read the papers, being a tailor, and being
lame when we saw him last, although he was called Muller
instead of Miller, we thought it seemed to correspond with the
young man she knew. We fancied so before the German
gentleman came.

Did she not remember that she had had this telegram before
the German gentleman came? — No; she remembered it one time,
and she said she had it on the very day Muller last called,
and " if I find the letter we shall know the right date when
he came on." That was only two or three weeks ago. Sha
said, " I hope I have not destroyed it." When she looked
for it she found it. It was only two or three weeks ago she
found it. She has always had it by her, but it was never
sought for. She gave it to my husband in my presence. She
said she did not know whether it would be of any service. My
husband gave it to the German gentleman.

It is six or seven weeks since the German gentlemen came
who were assisting in the defence of Muller ; if she had the
telegram when they called why did she not go and look for it
at once? — She might not have thought of it. I do not know
whether she told the German gentleman that day that she had
the telegram; I was not in the room all the time. Nothing
was said about the telegram while I was in the room. I
remembered distinctly that the telegram was received on the
day that Muller called last. I did not tell the German gentle-
man so, but she gave him the letter to convince him as soon as
she found it.

Why did you not tell the German gentleman that Muller had
called at half-past nine on that evening, and that you remem-
bered the day by the telegram? — Well, I do not know. I did
not interfere with her affairs. I did not think of it at the
time; they did not refer to any letter, neither did I. I do
not know whether Eldred told him. I left him and her alone
in the room both before and after. The first time that Eldred
104

Evidence for Defence.

and I had any conversation about the telegram may be three Mrs. E. Jones

weeks ago, that would be some three or four weeks after the

German gentleman called on us. I never knew of it until

about three weeks ago, because we did not know the day of

the month, but she said, " I had a letter from my friend,"

calling him by his name, " and if I can find that letter I shall

know the day of the month; I hope I have not destroyed it."

That was two or three weeks ago, and she looked in her box

and found it.

Can you say how she came to say this two or three weeks
ago, never having referred to it before; can you explain that?
— She remembered having the letter the same day, and she
knew if she had come up she would not like to false swear,
and she would know by that letter the date. I took the tele-
gram to Miss Eldred. I have parted with it to the gentlemen
who are defending the prisoner. My husband gave it to them
in my presence, but not in Miss Eldred's presence. Miss
Eldred sent it to him, but she said she did not know if it would
be of any service. I thought that was a fortnight ago come
Tuesday. A week last Tuesday the German gentleman has
had the letter in his possession. Miss Eldred brought it down
and gave it to my husband ; I saw her do it ; it was last
Monday week she brought it down, and on the Tuesday she
gave it to the German gentleman. I mean that at the time
she gave it she said that she did not know it was of any service.
Miss Eldred was sometimes in the habit of asking the time before
she went out, but not always. I cannot say whether she did
so the night before; I think she did — she generally wants to
know the time. I cannot say whether she did on the night
after. She does not go out on Sunday evenings. I cannot
recollect whether she did on the Monday. Sometimes she will
ask the time three or four times a day. There is no clock in
her room.

Re-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — Would you not have been
able positively to fix the date of Mtiller's calling unless the
telegram had been found 1 — I knew that it was on a Saturday. I
believe it is about seven or eight weeks ago since a German
gentleman and one of Mr. Beard's clerks first called. We then
told them that Muller had called, he had been in the habit of
visiting our house, and had called on the Saturday. We

105

Franz Muller.

Mrs. K. Jones heard of the murder on the Tuesday following. I think we
should have known the date by hearing of the murder. Find-
ing the telegram made us quite positive as to the day of the
month. I never eat supper, nor does Miss Eldred before she
goes out.

By a JUBOE — Muller had a hat on when he called.

M. A. Eldred MART ANN ELDRBD, examined by Mr. MBTCALFE — Where did
you live in July last? — Lant Street, in the Borough.

Where did you live before you came to Peckham? — Lant
Street.

Where did you live before that? — In Islington.

Did you ever live at Camberwell ? — Yes ; with the same land-
lady that I am now with.

What was the address? — That was Stanley Cottage, James
Street, Vassall Road.

Were you living there in July last? — Yes, sir.

Do you know Muller? — Yes, sir; I have known him for a
twelvemonth.

Were you often in the habit of seeing him? — Yes.

How long was it before the 9th of July, when you received
that telegram, that you had seen him? — I met him on the
Saturday preceding the 9th of July in the Old Jewry, Cheapside.

Do you remember to what hour you remained at home on the
day you received the telegram? — I went out at nine o'clock in
the evening, and I remained out till after twelve o'clock. I
came home that night.

Did you see your landlady that night? — No, not till the
morning. She told me then that my friend had called.

How long was it after that before you heard of the murder ? —
I can't recollect. I can't tell at all.

Are you quite sure you went out at nine o'clock that night?
— Yes ; I generally went out about that time — at nine — and
the prisoner called at half-past nine.

Did Muller call before you went out? — No.

Did you know of his going abroad ? — Yes ; several weeks

before he went. He told me, and asked me to go with him.

He said he was going to America to see his sister, and that

if I did not go with him he should only remain there six months-

106

Evidence for Defence.

When did you first make a communication to any one about M. A. Eidr*d
his having been there? — I don't remember telling any one.

Do you remember some gentlemen calling — some German
gentlemen? — Yes, sir; I did not see them the first time they
called.

Did some one come afterwards to speak to you about it? —
I don't recollect.

Did you make a statement at any time? — No, sir.

Did you say something which was taken down in writing by
a gentleman? — No, sir.

Did you see the solicitor, Mr. Beard? — Yes.

When was that telegram produced first? — I have had it a
long time.

When did you give it up to any gentleman? — Two or three
days ago, I think.

Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR- GENERAL — When did you
see that gentleman, Mr. Beard? — A few days ago.

When did you see him first? Do you recollect? Within a
month? — It is not so long as a month ago.

How soon after seeing Muller for the last time did you speak
to anybody of this matter? — I don't remember that I ever did.

Did you see a German gentleman? — -No, sir.

Did you see two gentlemen together at your house? — Yes.

When? — Some weeks ago. Three or four weeks ago.

Was anything said about the telegram? — I did not say any-
thing about a telegram.

When did you first say anything about the telegram? — A few

•

days ago.

Until these gentlemen called at your house about a month
ago, had your attention been called to the date or time of
Muller coming to see you? — No, sir.

Did you remember at once the exact time of your going out?
— Yes ; I remembered going out at nine o'clock, because I had
the telegram from that gentleman.

What time did you receive it? — I can't say the time, but it
was towards the afternoon. It might have been one or two
o'clock.

What time did you dine on that day — after four o'clock? —
I can't exactly tell. I daresay it was about that time, but
I can't tell to half an hour.

107

M. A. Eidred When did you breakfast? — I don't remember when I break-
fasted. It might have been ten or eleven o'clock.

When did you get up? — I got up after eleven.

When did you go to bed? — I went to bed past twelve o'clock.
I think half-past. I only guess. I am positive I went out
that night at nine o'clock, because it is the time I generally
go out, and because I went out every night at that time. I
can remember so well because of the telegram.

What had the telegram to do with the time you went out? —
I don't know that it had anything to do with it. I remember
the time, because the landlady told me Muller had called in
the evening. It was the next morning she told me that. The
receiving the telegram had nothing to do with the time of my
going out. I don't know why that should assist me in
recollecting the time I went out.

Re-examined by SERJEANT PARRY — You say you heard from
Mrs. Jones next morning that Muller had called? — She said to
me that a friend of mine had called.

By a JUROR — Were you in the habit of seeing Muller's hat? —
.f" No, sir; I have not noticed it.

T. Beard THOMAS BEARD, examined by SERJEANT PARRY — You have

conducted the defence of this young man, instructed by the
German Legal Protection Society? — I have.

You have heard Haffa examined here? — I have.

Did you hear him say that Muller told him when he left Old
Jewry Street at a quarter to eight o'clock that he was going to
Camberwell to see this young woman ? — I did hear him say so.

Did he communicate that fact to you before the arrival of
Muller in this country? — He did.

I believe he also said so at the Police Court ? — I am not quite
sure, but I am sure he communicated it to me out of Court.
I received that communication four or five days before Muller
arrived from America, and he arrived on the 17th of September.

In consequence of that did you instruct your clerk to accom-
pany one of the German gentlemen to make inquiries about
this matter? — I did.

Did he do so? — He did, and he brought the result back
to me.
108

Sir R. P. Collier (First Lord Monkswell).

Evidence for Defence.

This telegram was first handed to you twelve or fourteen days T. Beard
ago? — About that time. I had proofs produced to me by my
clerk and a German gentleman before Muller's arrival, also
proofs of Eldred and Jones.

The telegram was shown to you on consultation, I daresay
on Thursday week? — I had not then had it in my possession
above a couple of days.

Cross-examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINE — It was under my
judgment that neither of these witnesses was called at the
Police Court nor before the coroner.

CHARLES FOREMAN, examined by Mr. METCALFE — I am an c. Foreman
omnibus conductor, living at 7 Norfolk Street, Montpelier
Square, Peckham. I conduct an omnibus belonging to Mr.
Barwick, fly master, of Camberwell, running from Peckham,
through Camberwell, Walworth, and Newington, to the
Borough. On our last journey I leave Camberwell Gate at
five minutes to ten, and arrive in King William Street about
twenty past ten o'clock, and leave again at the half-hour, or
a minute or two over. The previous journey we leave Camber-
well Gate at seven o'clock. It is a little more than a quarter
of a mile from Camberwell Gate to Camberwell Green, and
about a quarter of a mile from Camberwell Green to Vassall
Road. I cannot say exactly. I remember I had a gentleman
ride in my omnibus on my last journey, at five minutes to ten,
from Camberwell Gate to the City, who appeared to be lame,
and wore a slipper, but when I could not say. It was in the
summer, but I can't say whether it was in July or August. I
cannot tell the day of the week. My attention was called to
it a month or five weeks ago. How I noticed it was this. He
leant rather heavy on my arm as he got out. He appeared to
me to be lame, and seemed rather stout. I made the remark
to myself, "Ah, he has got a touch of my old complaint";
that is, the gout. He seemed to me to be rather fair and, to
the best of my belief, rather stout. (The slipper was handed
to witness.) I can't swear that was the slipper. It seemed
to me, to the best of my belief, to be a Brussels carpet slipper.
I cannot say whether it resembles it. It was a carpet slipper
to the best of my belief.

This concluded the case for the defence.

109

The Solicitor-General's Address to the Jury.

Solicitor-
General

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then rose for the purpose of replying
upon the whole case. He said — Gentlemen of the jury, I said
in my opening speech that it gave me great satisfaction that
the prisoner at the bar was not an altogether friendless man,
but one who had been so far befriended and assisted that he
had been able to obtain the assistance of most eminent counsel.
We have all witnessed the zeal and ability with which those
counsel have discharged those duties. Gentlemen, that my
learned friends should have appeared on the part of the
prisoner, and have exerted, as I knew they would, both ability
and eloquence, is highly satisfactory to the Crown. Had
Muller been undefended it is probable and possible that some
circumstances which might fairly and legitimately be urged in
his favour would have escaped our attention. But now you
have the satisfaction of knowing that everything which can be
fairly and properly said on his behalf has been said with the
utmost force and eloquence. It remains only, therefore, to
hear the comparatively few observations which it will be neces-
sary for me to address to you on the part of the Crown, and to
hear the summing up of the learned judge, to be in a condition
to do your duty with perfect impartiality towards the prisoner
at the bar. Gentlemen, I am sure I need not say " at length,"
for you will readily believe me that the Crown could have no
interest in unduly pressing any prosecution. God forbid that
any man who appears on the part of the Crown should be
desired to do so. At the same time, it is my duty, repre-
senting the Crown — which, in other words, is the public, the
public to whom it is my duty to inform you that you have a
duty to perform as well as to the prisoner — to see that you
thoroughly appreciate the facts of the evidence which hare been
submitted to you. When I have done, my duty is done and
yours begins.

Gentlemen, my learned friend Serjeant Parry some-
what complained of me, I think, for having alluded to the
probabilities of this case. Though he complained of me for

Addresses to Jury.

alluding to those probabilities, he proceeded to dwell on them Soiieitor-
himself. In fact, the staple of his speech has been proba- M
bilities, but, with respect to the facts of the case, my learned
friend has been silent. It is highly proper that the jury, in
considering a case of this sort, should bear in mind not merely
facts which are in the nature of conclusive and proper evidence,
but that you should bring to the discharge of your duty your
knowledge of the ordinary affairs of the world. My learned
friend was, therefore, perfectly right in dwelling on the proba-
bilities of this case; he was only wrong in blaming me for
having done so also. But, gentlemen, in adjusting the final
balance, when you hold the scales, probabilities are as feathers,
facts as lead. I desire to call attention to some of the leading
facts, and I will omit the probabilities. The first and most
important fact of the case appears to be this. Aye or no —
was that hat found in the railway carriage the hat of Muller?
Now, it is proper you should appreciate the full force of that
inquiry. For, gentlemen, if that hat was the hat of Muller,
worn at the time on that night, what follows 1 That Muller
was in that carriage with Mr. Briggs, and that the case, as far
as his being in the same carriage with Mr. Briggs is concerned,
is proved as conclusively as if he were seen in that carriage
by a dozen witnesses. If Muller left that hat that night in
that railway carriage, the case is the same against him as if he
had been seen to get out of the carriage after the murder was
committed, and thereupon was apprehended. It is impossible
to over-rate the significance of that fact. Aye or no — was
that hat the hat of Muller? That is the question. I listened
to my learned friend's speech with a good deal of interest. I
wished to see whether he would suggest this theory, for I knew
the fertility of my learned friend's invention would suggest the
best possible theory for your consideration in this matter. I
waited to see whether my learned friend would suggest a theory
of this kind — " that hat was the hat of Muller : it was left
by Muller in that carriage on that night, but still Muller did
not commit the murder." But my learned friend, feeling the
gigantic difficulties — which I candidly admit — of the case that '
he had to grapple with, did not feel himself able to propound
to you any theory of Muller 's innocence consistent with the
fact of his hat having been found in the railway carriage. I

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- should have been glad to hear the suggestion of Muller having
been in that railway carriage, and having left that hat inno-
cently, and not having been connected with the murder. But
my learned friend knew, his experience told him, that it was
idle to make any such suggestion — lhat it was impossible that
it should be believed by a jury. My learned friend knew that
the only course he could pursue to save his client was this, to
deny or to raise a doubt in your minds as to that hat found in
the railway carriage being the hat of Muller.

Now, gentlemen, on that it is my duty to invite your attention
to the evidence. The evidence upon that subject has turned
out, in the course of the inquiry, stronger than I was aware of,
and stronger than I stated to you in my opening speech. I
was anxious in stating this case not to overstate it. It would
have been highly improper if I had done so. I, therefore,
with the information which I had then received, stated it to
you in this way, that the hat which was bought from Mr. Walker
in Crawford Street had a peculiar lining, but that it was a
lining used by Mr. Walker in his trade. I certainly was under
the impression that possibly he had put the same kind of lining
into five hundred different hats. But, gentlemen, it has turned
out, and upon the cross-examination of my learned friend him-
self, that, according to the witness Watson, there were only
three or four hats made with that lining, and, according to Mr.
Walker's evidence, only one, or possibly two. That certainly
was1 very striking. There is no more powerful cross-examiner
than my learned friend. Under his cross-examination a bad
case or a rotten case crumbles into dust. But it is the char-
acteristic of a strong case and a true case, that the more it
is cross-examined the stronger it becomes, and the effect of the
whole of the cross-examination of my learned friend has been
to corroborate the case against the prisoner. Gentlemen, the
evidence upon the subject of the identity of the hat is a most
striking fact. I believe, if a hundred cases were tried turning
upon the identity of a hat, it would be impossible to give
evidence so cogent as this.

It is proper, now, to point out the effect of the
evidence. I will take the evidence of the hatter and
that of Mrs. Repsch only for the purpose. I will put aside
Matthews, of whose evidence I shall have a word to say

112

Addresses to Jury.

presently. I will put Matthews' evidence altogether out of soiieitor-
the case, and see how the matter stands with respect to that
hat. Mr. Walker, the hatter, was called, and shown the lining
of that hat. He says, " That is a peculiar lining, which I got
from France. It was only a sample, and it was used at most
in two hats." Watson, the foreman, says it was used prob-
ably in three or four, but Mr. Walker says in one or two hats
only, and he believes only in one. What does Mrs. Repsch
say? She noticed Muller with a hat with that particular lining.
When Muller got the hat he brought it to her, and she observed
the peculiarity of the lining- She had seen him from time
to time take off this hat, and put letters behind the lining, and
she gave a description to the police of that lining before the
hat was shown to her. Gentlemen, my learned friend has
made some attempt, I confess I thought a somewhat feeble one,
to impugn the evidence of Mrs. Repsch. My learned friend
said that she gave her evidence vehemently, but he was con-
strained in candour to admit that he was not justified in im-
puting that she came before you to commit perjury. You
will judge whether Mrs. Repsch is open to any imputation at
all. It is entirely a question for the jury to judge as to the
credibility of witnesses from their demeanour in the box. As
far as I am able to judge, and I make the observation subject
to your correction, a fairer and more straightforward witness
than Mrs. Repsch never appeared before a jury. She had no
quarrel with Muller. On the contrary, she was on inti-
mate terms with him. What desire Mrs. Repsch could have to
injure this young man is not even suggested. She gave her
evidence in every respect in a perfectly straightforward manner,
and there is no reason whatever which my learned friend could
suggest for discrediting anything which she told you. She
is a highly respectable woman, who came forward to give
her evidence, and from a sense of duty was compelled to tell
the truth, although that truth might weigh against a man
with whom she was well acquainted. Now, unless this witness
is not to be believed, Muller had a hat with that peculiar lining.
What follows? If Mr. Walker is correct, there were only two
hats ever made with that peculiar lining — he believes only one
— but there may have been two. Now, mark the significance
of this evidence. If Mr. Walker is correct, murder must have
i 113

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- been committed by one of two men. If it were not by Muller,
it must have been by the man who bought the other hat — if
the other hat was ever made and was still in existence. But,
gentlemen, what follows further, assuming that there was
another hat? Why, the man who committed the murder was
the owner of the other hat. But where is Muller 's hat? And
what about the chain and the watch? Muller must have got
the chain and the watch from the man who wore the other hat
lined in the same way. Where did he get them? He must
have got them on the Monday morning. Then, again, how
about Mr. Briggs's hat? Do you believe the hat in Muller' s
possession to have been Mr. Briggs's hat, subsequently cut
down? If so, Muller must have got it from the man who wore
a hat lined in the same way as his own. When one comes
to state such a proposition to a jury the matter becomes so
incredible and almost impossible that my learned friend knew he
could not venture — that it would be trifling with your under-
standing— to mention such a thing.

But the evidence does not rest here. I must dwell
a little longer on these most important facts. Let
me remind you here that if this fact — that the hat
belonged to Muller — is proved, Muller was in that
carriage with Mr. Briggs, and he left that hat there after the
murder, and after Mr. Briggs had been thrown out. It is
not necessary for me to prove more. But let me dwell further
on the evidence with respect to that hat. It is such as a
jury could accept, for the evidence was conclusive on that sub-
ject. I called before you Matthews, the cabman. And here,
again, I wish to know what there is to impeach the evidence of
Matthews? I am extremely glad that my learned friend con-
tradicted a statement which I made as to the impression which
his cross-examination made on my mind. My learned friend
most honestly and candidly disavowed any intention, or the
most remote idea, of imputing to Matthews that he was con-
cerned in the murder. My learned friend must forgive me for
my misapprehension ; but why was Matthews cross-examined
so sharply as to where he was on that night? It was utterly
immaterial, unless he had committed the murder, where he
was on that night more than any other man. It does not
signify where he was that night, unless the object was to impute
"4

Addresses to Jury.

complicity ; therefore my learned friend must forgive me if I Sotieitor-
supposed, when Matthews was so cross-examined as to his where-
abouts, that that cross-examination had an object which it now
appears it had not. But I accept the disclaimer of my learned
friend. It would be preposterous, and my learned friend, as
a distinguished advocate, knows his duty too well to defend any
person whose defence must be conducted by casting imputa-
tions upon others. I believe that there is not one of my
learned friends who would adopt such a course. But what
is the imputation against Matthews, if there be any? Why,
gentlemen, it is supposed that he is actuated by a hope of
reward. What is the object of advertising rewards if you do
not intend that any one should be influenced by them? The
object is to induce people to come forward to give evidence ; and
if you are to disbelieve every man who gives evidence because
of a reward, at once and for ever cease to give rewards for the
purpose of detecting great offences. You have heard the evi-
dence of Matthews, and the account which he gave. Now,
let us see whether that account is a probable or an improbable
one. It is quite right for you, gentlemen of the jury, to judge
of what you think probable or improbable in the evidence of a
witness by the aid of your knowledge and experience of the
world. Now, what does Matthews say? He says he got a
hat for Miiller, whom he had known for some time, from Mr.
Walker. Muller, he says, saw his hat towards the end of
November or December last. He said, " I like your hat,
Matthews," and put it on his head; "but it is a trifle too
small for me. I should like to have it larger. Buy me a
hat at Walker's, and I shall be much obliged." This was
very natural, because Walker's shop was out of Muller's beat,
which was between Victoria Park and Fenchurch Street, and
in the beat of Matthews. Matthews says, " I got the hat for
him, put it into a hatbox, and he called one day at my place
and took it." To the question, " What did you pay for it,
and did Muller pay you again? " Matthews replies, " Well, he
did not exactly pay me ; but he made me a waistcoat of the
value of 8s. 6d., and took the hat." A more probable account
was never given. In the whole course of the cross-examina-
tion my learned friend introduced a great deal of, as I think,
irrelevant matter as to where Matthews was on the night of

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- the murder : but not one question did he ask Matthews about
Jeneral

the purchase of the hat for Muller for 8s. 6d., or about Muller

taking it away. That part of Matthews' evidence my learned
friend did not attempt to attack. Then you have this evidence
that Matthews never had any quarrel with Muller. Is it
credible, then, that Matthews, by false evidence, should desire
to take Muller 's life? No one could impute anything of the
kind.

I confess it gave me great pain when my learned friend
desired to cross-examine Matthews as to whether he had not
been convicted, fourteen years ago, of a trivial offence for
which he got twenty-one days' imprisonment. He was tried
at Quarter Sessions, and the evidence went to show that the
offence was not a very great one. But he did not disclaim
it, and from that time to this there is no imputation of any
kind upon Matthews. He appears to have been struggling
honestly and perseveringly to support his wife and family.

I From that time to this he has been an industrious man, and
if he did commit an error in his youth, he has endeavoured
to redeem it. It is a very hard case, because he is a witness
for the prosecution, that an error committed in his youth
should be raked up against him ; but to suppose this is a ground
for discrediting his testimony seems to me entirely out of the
question. Matthews had been to America for the purpose
of giving evidence in the American Court with a view to the
extradition of Muller. When Muller returns Matthews goes
up to speak to facts which he knew, and is cross-examined in
the most forcible way. He is asked, " Where were you that
night? " " Account for your time," and a number of questions
of that kind are put to him. Matthews, naturally enough,
replies, "I can't exactly say; I was out with my cab; but
I can't say where." Supposing you were now to send out
a policeman and bring in the first cabman, and say to him,
" Where were you on the night of the 9th of July? " he would
say, no doubt, " I was out with my cab " ; and, if required to
be more definite, would refer to a book, or to his wife, and
his customers, or write to his master. Then probably he
would be able to find out exactly what he was doing. Now,
Matthews appears to have written to his employer, and, having
got the information, he was able to tell you precisely where he
116

Addresses to Jury.

was. He tells you that he was in the street, and at the Great solicitor-
Western station for some hours ; that he was not lucky in
getting a fare, went and ordered a joint of meat for his Sunday
dinner, and went home about eleven or twelve o'clock. Then,
again, Matthews is asked a good many questions about his own
hats. He says he has got a good many, and I suppose he has,
for cabmen are out more hours, in all sorts of weather, than
most other men, and I never saw a cabman using an umbrella.
It appears that he had made a mistake as to getting one of
his own hats ; but now he says he can tell all about his own
hats if you wish it. These are the grounds on which you are
asked to discredit the evidence of Matthews ; but it is easy to
see, gentlemen, what effect his evidence made upon your minds.
Does any one who heard Matthews doubt that he got such a
hat, gave it to Muller, and that Muller took it away? Then,
again, Mrs. Matthews corroborates the transaction. My
learned friend did not accuse her of being actuated by any hopes
of reward, or desire of vengeance, or any other improper
evidence. Now, what is the evidence of Matthews? Can
there be any mistake about Matthews' evidence? Matthews
says, that in pursuance of an agreement made with Muller, he
went to Walker's, bought a hat, and gave that hat to Muller.
Matthews recollects that Muller said, " Make it as like your hat
as you can." So he had it turned up at the brim somewhat
more than it was, with a view to making it more like his own,
and Muller was very much pleased with it. My learned friend
assumed that Matthews' hat was lined like Muller's. Gentle-
men, it comes to this, that if this was not Muller's hat, the
man who was in the railway carriage that night must have
had Matthews' hat. Matthews said, however, that he pur-
chased a hat for Muller, and he could not tell if the linings
of both were alike.

SHRJBANT PARRY — The cabman stated that the lining of both
hats was alike.

The LORD CHIEF BARON — I have nothing of that kind on
my notes, and we must go by what is here.

BARON MARTIN — I do not know what was on the depositions
before the coroner; but the last answer he gave in cross-
examination here was that the lining of his hat was similar to
that of Muller's hat.

117

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — That has escaped me. If that be
General

so, it makes the case somewhat stronger than it was before.

Just see the significance of it. If Mr. Walker is right in saying
that this particular lining was only used in two hats, and the
cabman's hat was the other hat, and the cabman had not parted
with it, the murder must have been committed either by Muller
or the cabman ; but, if the cabman had parted with his hat,
or it had become too bad for him and been discarded, and had
been picked up by somebody else from a dusthole, probably
then the supposition must be that the man who picked up or
obtained the discarded hat was the murderer. And, further —
and this is extremely important — if the other hat, the hat
worn by Muller, was the cabman's cast-off hat, it would not fit
Muller. It was too small for him, because, you recollect, he
tried it on in Matthews' room, and found it would not fit.

SERJEANT PARRY — That is not proved.

The SOLICITOR-GBNERAL — Yes ; he said to the cabman — " You
must get me a size larger." But the evidence of the cabman
is corroborated by his wife, upon whom my learned friend casts
no imputation. Then there is the evidence of Mrs. Repsch, who
saw not only the hat, but the hatbox. She was asked whether
Muller brought them there on a Sunday or not, and she said
she thought he probably did on a Sunday. The evidence of the
cabman is so far confirmed that, having said he gave the hat
and the box to Muller, Muller brought them to Mrs. Repsch's.
But the matter does not rest there. Muller actually speaks to
Mrs. Repsch as to the circumstances under which he obtained
the hat. He says Matthews gave it to him. The fact, however,
appears that, instead of Matthews actually giving the hat to
Muller, he received a waistcoat from Muller in exchange. The
cabman is therefore corroborated in a most striking manner
by Mrs. Repsch. But the case does not rest here, for there ia a
hatbox bearing the name of Messrs. Walker & Co., which was
found in Muller's lodgings. Now, gentlemen, it appears to me
impossible to overlook the importance of this hat in the case.
If you are satisfied it was the hat of Muller, left by him that
night in the railway carriage, no explanation or suggestion
consistent with his innocence has been offered.

But, again, I have to repeat that this case does
118

Addresses to Jury.

not rest here. The murderer, whoever he was, in the Solieito?-
confusion and hurry with which the crime was com-
mitted, left his own hat and took away Mr. Briggs's hat.
Mr. Briggs's hat is gone; that is quite clear. If he had
gone away without a hat he would have been noticed, and
Mr. Briggs's hat would have been found upon the railway some-
where. The evidence is almost conclusive that the man who
committed the murder went away with Mr. Briggs's hat. Now,
has Mr. Briggs's hat been found or not? That is a question for
your consideration. With respect to that other hat very
striking evidence has been submitted to you. I have called
the hatter, Mr. Digance, with whom Mr. Briggs alone dealt.
Digance's name is found in that hat, but the evidence does
not stop there. Mr. Digance tells you that a hat was ordered
by Mr. Briggs of what is called the bell-crowned shape. This
hat is of the bell-crowned shape; it is also of the size of Mr.
Briggs's hats, and he recollects this circumstance, that it was
somewhat too large, and a piece of silver tissue paper was placed
between the lining and the hat. This paper has been taken
away, but fragments of it are left. Now, this hat has been
cut down. Why cut down? The first witness called by my
learned friend with respect to the hat said it was not cut down
as he would have cut it down, or as it was cut down "in the
trade. It was not gummed in the usual way, but merely
pasted. The witness added that it was sewn somewhat as he
would have sewn it ; but, in reply to a question by a gentleman
of the jury, he said the stitches were rather too close, or rather
too far apart, I forget which, and not as he would have done
them.

SERJEANT PARRY — He said he would not have put in so
many stitches.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — The hat was remarkably dealt with.
The lining is cut down. No one produced before you says that
a man cutting down a hat would cut down the lining. The hat
is cut down, not, as has been represented hats are sometimes,
to make them more fashionable, more saleable, hats being worn
with somewhat lower crowns than formerly, because this hat is
too low for the fashion. Why should Miiller desire to cut down
the hat? Had he a fancy for a low-crowned hat? If you
believe the other hat was his, it was rather a high-crowned

119

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- one, you will say what effect the evidence produces in your
mind — whether you think the hat was cut down by a hatter in
the ordinary course of business, or cut down by some person
not accustomed to that kind of work, though knowing how to
sew. You will couple that with the consideration that if it be
Mr. Briggs's hat, and was not cut down, you would see Mr.
Briggs's name inside the lining. Gentlemen, these are very
striking circumstances indeed. It is not suggested by my
learned friend that Muller had ever dealt with Mr. Digance.
Not a question was asked of Mr. Digance on that subject. It
is suggested that Muller might have got this hat second-hand
from some one. From whom? His advocates have called
several witnesses, but where is the man from whom Muller
bought that hat, if he bought it of any one? Could Muller
give no description of him? If in his statement before the
magistrates, in America or in this country, he had said he had
bought the hat in the docks, described the man, or given the
remotest clue to him, why, of course, the Crown would have
instituted every possible inquiry and endeavoured to find the
man out, and they would not have put upon Muller the task of
calling him as a witness. What is the account of the hat he
gave in America? He says he had it twelve months, but he
does not say from whom he got it, or give any information
which would afford the slightest clue to the person he purchased
it from. He had before said that he had bought it within two
months.

This reminds me of a somewhat remarkable part of
the case. Putting aside for the moment the direct testimony
as to the identity of the hat, it appears that Muller was at
Repsch's on the Saturday afternoon, and up to the time he left
Mrs. Repsch had noticed no change in his dress or hat; but on
Monday morning she and her husband noticed he had got a
new hat. There must have been a considerable difference for
them to notice it. Then a conversation followed. It was said —
"You are very extravagant to get a new hat." He said he
gave 14s. 6d. for it, and Mr. Repsch said it was a guinea hat.
Now this is a very striking fact. The first thing on Monday
morning he is seen with a new hat, a better one than his own,
and it was not then noticed, as far as we know, that it was
cut down.
120

Addresses to Jury.

Gentlemen, that is the evidence as to the two hats. I Solieitor-
now pass on; but, if you are satisfied with the propositions
I have stated, that Miiller left his hat in the carriage that
night and took away Mr. Briggs's hat, probably you will not
require further evidence on the part of the prosecution. Unfor-
tunately, the evidence does not rest here. There is the watch,
and there is the chain. Everything taken from Mr. Briggs that
night is found on Miiller. The chain is proved to be in bis
possession on the Monday morning after the murder. He goes
and changes it for another. The watch, it is true, is not seen
in England, but subsequently it is discovered in his box in
America. Therefore he must have had it before he left England,
unless it be suggested that he got it on the voyage, and I
suppose that will hardly be done. My learned friend says that
Miiller was a vain, boastful man, fond of showing and boasting
about his property — his watch, chain, or any trinket he had.
If Miiller had got the watch honestly would he not have
boasted of and shown it to his friends — a handsome watch of
that kind ? Did he buy the watch and chain ? Why, the lowest
value of the watch and chain was about £10; the watch was
originally worth £25. Haffa, a respectable man, who knew
Miiller, and naturally enough was anxious to say something
in his favour, said he saw Miiller before the murder with some
money — he believed his passage money — but he did not count
it. But Miiller was in this condition just before he started for
America, that he pawned his coat for 6s., and it was found that
he had no overcoat on the voyage. Where was Muller to raise
£10 for the watch or the watch and chain? If he had been
able to raise £10, or even a half or a quarter of £10, would
he not have taken his own watch and chain out of pawn? If
he had a watch and chain in pawn, why should he get another?
These are difficulties in the case which my learned friend has
scarcely attempted to touch.

Now, these are the observations which I have to address
to you upon what I may call the direct evidence of the case —
the strong, direct, circumstantial evidence which, if entirely
believed by you, amounts to almost positive proof. I proceed
to make an observation or two on the probabilities of the case
of my learned friend. I think you will see that my learned
friend has failed to grapple with these strong facts. It was

Franz Muller.

GefneraF" *n Vain *or ^m to attemPt *° grapple with them. They are
too strong for any advocate. But my learned friend has in
a great measure endeavoured to divert your consideration
from these great cardinal points to circumstances tending to
show the improbability of Muller having intended to commit
this crime. I have before observed that probabilities and
improbabilities are worth consideration, but probability is
* worth nothing against fact. My learned friend attempted to
show that it was highly improbable that Muller would commit
this murder. I grant that it was highly improbable that he
would commit it. It was highly improbable that any such
murder would be committed. It was highly improbable that
any man, or any number of men, should commit such a
murder. If there is any occasion when a man may consider
himself perfectly safe, it is when he is travelling in a first-
class railway carriage in the metropolis. It is, as I observed
in my opening speech, a most extraordinary murder, and
there is no difficulty in showing that it is in the highest
degree improbable that a man, or any number of men,
should contemplate such a crime. But it was committed.
What is the use of probabilities when you have a fact —
when you have the body of Mr. Briggs, with the wound upon
his skull, inflicted by a blunt instrument, and when you
find that his watch and chain have been torn away from his
body, and that his hat is not in the carriage? These are
facts, and you must deal with them. My learned friend says
I ought to explain clearly and precisely in what manner this
murder was committed. He says I ought to propound some
clear opinion as to the weapon with which the blows were
struck. I said at the outset that I was unable to do so,
and I entirely demur to the doctrine of my learned friend
that I am bound to state what the identical weapon was.
Murders are not committed in the presence of witnesses. Is
it to be said that, if a man commits a murder, and it is not
found out under what particular circumstances the blow was
struck or with what instrument the murder was committed,
the murderer must go unpunished? To say that would be to
make a proclamation in favour of the guilty, and most fatal
to the lives of the innocent. I said at first that I was
unable to state with any certainty how the blows were

Addresses to Jury.

inflicted or what instrument was used; but this is beyond all Solleitor-
doubt, that the blows were inflicted on the head of Mr. Briggs
by some blunt instrument wielded with violence. The stick
of Mr. Briggs will be placed in your hands, and you will be
able to form an opinion whether that was the instrument
employed. You are quite as capable of judging as I am,
or any scientific man — probably more capable — whether that
stick, wielded with violence by a young man of average
strength, would or would not inflict those blows. I cannot
tell how the blows were inflicted. They might have been
inflicted by a life-preserver. My learned friend called atten-
tion to a certain pair of scissors found in the luggage of the '
prisoner. It is only fair and proper for me to say that there
is no evidence that he had them in his possession on the
night of Saturday, the 9th July. I believe no such sugges-
tion was made. My learned friend says he was taken by
surprise by the reference to the scissors. So was I. I had
no knowledge that they were in his box. I repeat that I am
not able to show by what instrument the wounds were caused;
but I have shown that they were inflicted by a blunt instru-
ment by some one in that carriage. Was the prisoner in that
carriage or was he not? My learned friend having found
fault with me for speculating how this murder was com-
mitted, he immediately proceeds to speculate on it himself.
He suggests various theories, and he must forgive me for
saying that upon this part of the case he has drawn to some
extent upon his imagination.

My learned friend spoke of Mr. Briggs as a very power-
ful man, and represented Muller as weak and feeble,
and supposed that there had been a terrific struggle
between them. Here my learned friend departed from
his usual accuracy, for there was no evidence what-
ever of any struggle. The evidence is the other way. Mr.
Briggs was a man of seventy years of age; he had been
suffering from a severe illness, and he might or might not
have been asleep in the carriage — it is impossible to say.
Mr. Briggs was not a heavy man, being only between 11 and 12
stone in weight ; and therefore all the declamation of my learned
friend as to his being a powerful and heavy man is only the
result of his imagination. As I have said, my learned friend

123

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- represented Muller as a feeble man. He is twenty-four years
of age. That is the time when the physical strength is most

(developed. There is no part of a man's life, I am afraid,
when he is stronger than at twenty-four. Muller is not tall,
he is not stout, but he is a well-formed young man in the
prime of his youth. Is there not reason to suppose that he
possesses a good deal of strength and is able to strike a heavy
blow? What chance would an old man of seventy, lately an
invalid, have against such a young man? Then, so far from
there having been a struggle, there was no struggle at all.
What is said about Mr. Briggs's dress? The only disorder in
it spoken of is that his shirt-front was crumpled. That
is accounted for by his chain being snatched from him or
by his being pushed out of the carriage. If there had been
a terrific struggle his coat would have been torn to shreds.
There were no bruises on Mr. Briggs except on his head, and
nothing on his person or his dress indicated wrestling or
struggling. Probably the first blow by his antagonist — but
I am wrong in using that term, for there was no antagonist —
probably the first blow struck with some instrument — I don't
know what — fractured his skull. What could Mr. Briggs do
after that? He might have been dozing at the time, and
totally unprepared, and four or five blows might have followed
each other in as rapid succession as do the same number of
words fall from me. Whether afterwards he was carried
from one end of the carriage to the other, or whether the
murderer or murderers took him up in their arms and carried
him, or whether he had just sense enough left to move to the
door himself, either to call the guard or to attempt to get
out, I am unable to say. If he did get as far as the door
himself, nothing could have been easier than to have pushed
him out, and then you would have found scarcely any blood.
It must have been a very quick transaction. There were only
a few minutes to do it in, possibly not a minute and a half.
Then, so far as a terrific struggle is concerned, my learned
friend's observations have no weight.

My learned friend has represented this murder as
having been committed by a gang of men deter-
mined to murder Mr. Briggs. Well, it might have
been so. It is for you to say whether the evidence does
124

Addresses to Jury.

not point the other way. If it had been committed by a soiieitor-

1111 i,.,. . • i • General

gang of men, would they have left four sovereigns m his

pocket, the silver snuffbox, and the diamond ring on his
finger? We can suppose that a gang of thieves, if they sus-
pected that he left the bank with a large sum of money,
might have followed him on this night from the bank to the
railway; but it so happened that on this night he did not
leave the bank for the railway, but dined with some relatives
before he went home, and it is difficult to suppose that they
could have got any information about that. And, if there
were more than one party to the deed, the probability is that
the spoil would be divided. But where is all the spoil? It
is found in the possession of one man. These considerations
do point to the conclusion, with almost certainty, that the
murder was not committed by a gang of persons, but by one
person, and there would be no difficulty in one person, toler-
ably strong and moderately active, overcoming and knocking
down and robbing an old man like Mr. Briggs, and getting
rid of his body or pushing him out if he moved to the door
himself.

I have said so much with respect to the probabilities
to which my learned friend has referred. He has said that
it was impossible for Muller to commit this crime, because,
among other things, Mr. Briggs was a powerful man and
Muller a weak man. I have shown there is no foundation
for that argument. My learned friend has said that Muller
could not have committed the crime because he had an
injured foot, and had a slipper on. Upon that subject I
refer to the evidence of Mrs. Repsch, who said that on the
Saturday he brought two slippers, but took one away. She,
however, said that he took away both his boots, and, if he
left with one slipper on and one boot on, he had the other
boot in his pocket. I don't think, however, that this matter
amounts to much one way or the other. I will merely observe
with regard to Muller's clothes : it appears, no doubt, that he
wore a pair of black trousers on this day. It may or may
not be that there was blood on the trousers of the man who
committed the murder. It does not necessarily follow that
there should be. If Mr. Briggs moved to the window and was
pushed out, there would be little blood on the murderer.

125

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- Muller appears to have worn the same clothes on the day
and the day after, but Mrs. Repsch says that on the Monday
his clothes were slightly different. On the other hand, it is
to be said that the pair of trousers which Muller wore on the
Saturday night in the railway carriage, if he were there, are
not forthcoming. We don't know what has become of them.
He is asked by Inspector Tanner, pointing to his luggage, if
that is all of it, and he says, " That is all," all with the
exception of a waistcoat which he had exchanged for a reticule.
That waistcoat was afterwards found, and Muller does not
say that he had any clothes which he disposed of on the
voyage. Then there is this fact to be considered — I don't
wish to attach more importance to it than it deserves — that
the pair of trousers Muller wore that night in the railway
carriage, if he were there, are not forthcoming, and no account
is given of them. There is also a coat with a velvet collar
which he had before he started which is not forthcoming. I
have now said as much as I think necessary on the direct
evidence against Muller and on the probabilities suggested by
my learned friend, and I am sure I need scarcely repeat that
probabilities are as nothing, or as little as possible, compared
with positive facts.

Now, a few words on the defence my learned friend has set
up on the part of Muller by the calling of witnesses. The first
witness whom my learned friend called was Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee
was examined before the coroner, but he was not examined
before the magistrate by my learned friend Mr. Giffard, who
then conducted the case for the Crown. I entirely approve of
the conduct of Mr. Giffard in not having called Mr. Lee on that
occasion, and I did not call Mr. Lee before you because I did
not believe his evidence to be of a trustworthy character. I
am bound to submit to the jury all the evidence which I think
tends to lead to a correct conclusion, be it a conclusion in
favour of the Crown or of the prisoner; but I do not deem it
my duty to lay before them evidence which I do not deem
trustworthy. The evidence of Mr. Lee was perhaps the most
remarkable evidence that any one ever heard in a Court of
justice. Mr. Lee represented himself as a friend of the unhappy
man who was murdered, as on such intimate terms with him
that he addressed him by his Christian name and called him
126

Addresses to Jury.

" Tom," and yet, according to Mr. Lee's own statement, though Soiieit»p-
three or four minutes before Mr. Briggs was murdered, he saw
two men in the carriage with him whom he can identify, he
gave no information of the circumstance for some days ! He
gave no information to the police, and he further told you
that, unless one of the policemen had come to him, he should
not have given any information on the subject. And when
asked why, he said because he thought it immaterial.
Immaterial to give a description of two men who were in a
railway carriage three or four minutes before a murder was
committed in it ! And then he said, " I thought it a bother to
give information." He thought it a bother to give information
respecting the murder of a man whom he represents as an ,
intimate acquaintance! If such a witness had been called for
the Crown I would not have believed a word he said ; we should
not have known whether it was true or whether it was false.
It is extremely difficult to understand him. What is his
account? He says he left his home about eight o'clock, that
he strolled about, that he went to Bow for a change. He was
asked if he had any business at Bow? — None. If he spoke to
anybody at Bow? — No. "Did you go to any house? — Well, I
went to a public-house; I had a pint of ale. Did you go to
any other house? — I do not believe I did." And then he came
back, having, he says, spoken to no one. It is a most extra-
ordinary account. But the question arises, was Mr. Lee there
at all that night? He says the train stopped an unusual time
at Bow that night, but that when he saw the deceased he said,
" Good-night, Tom " — a strange expression for him to use to a
man whom it appears he did not know intimately, and whom
he only knew from occasionally seeing him in the city. He
says that he got into the next carriage, and that the train
waited an unusual time at Bow that night. But, so far from
the train waiting an unusual time that night at Bow, it appears
that the train was late, that it had started late, and that it
was hurried on. And what is the further evidence of Mr. Lee?
He says that he got out at Hackney Wick. Now, according
to his own account, he was in the next carriage to that in which
Mr. Briggs was murdered, and it is proved that immediately
after the train arrived blood was discovered in the carriage;
that Mr. Jones and another gentlemen got into the carriage;

1 37

Franz Muller.

Genera* ~ *^at *^e £uarc* was ca^e<i> and that he came with a light ; that
other persons got into the carriage ; that they were turned out,
and that the carriage was locked up. But not one word does
Mr. Lee recollect of all this. If he had come into the box and
had said, " Muller is the man whom I saw in the railway
carriage with Mr. Briggs," I should not have felt justified, on
the part of the Crown, in calling him. He says he cannot say
whether Muller was the man. He says he can describe the
persons; and how does he describe them? He says there were
two men sitting with Mr. Briggs, that at the time he did not
see well, but that one had dark whiskers, and that there was
another man, a stoutish man, who had light whiskers. I will
take the liberty of reading a statement which my learned friend
Mr. Serjeant Parry read to you. My learned friend in his
speech said — " Lee will say, ' I saw two men in the compartment,
and I cannot say that Muller was one ; that the man that was
next to the deceased was a tall, thin man, and had whiskers,
and I believe he had dark whiskers; and the other man who
sat opposite to the deceased had light hair. I cannot tell the
age.' " There was not one syllable about the other man having
whiskers, or being a stout man, or being anything of the kind.
Therefore Mr. Lee appears to have thought of these whiskers
since he gave the information, for since Mr. Serjeant Parry
was instructed he has put a pair of whiskers on the man's face
which were not there before.

Now, gentlemen, I think I need not say another
word about Mr. Lee. I think you will agree with
me that my learned colleagues and myself have taken the
right course in not bringing forward such a witness. And now,
gentlemen, what is the next evidence? I do not think I need
say more on the evidence as to the hats. I have commented
upon that already. We next come to the alibi which my learned
friend has been instructed to set up. Now, gentlemen, I must
confess to some doubt as to the wisdom and the prudence of
setting up that defence, for a more unsatisfactory and a more
dangerous alibi was never set up in a Court of justice. Against
the evidence which I have submitted to you on the part of the
Crown, what is the evidence set up by the defence? The clock
of a brothel, the keeper of the house, and the statement of
one of the unfortunate women who reside in it. Gentlemen, in
128

Addresses to Jury.

most alibis there is a certain amount of truth. An altogether Solicitor-
fictitious alibi one seldom meets. Usually the story is correct
as to the main facts, but the day is altered — sometimes it is
Monday, instead of the Monday week; sometimes the transac-
tion spoken of occurs in the evening instead of in the morning,
and there is generally a clock to go by. Now, let us see the
nature of this alibi. Mrs. Jones or Mrs. Kent is called to say
that Miiller called at her house at nine o'clock on the night
of the 9th July, and there is a good long story about a telegram,
which Miiller had nothing to do with, but it is used as fixing
the time. It does not concern me on the part of the prosecution
whether they are right or wrong in saying that Miiller did call
on that day (Saturday, the 9th of July), but, if he did call
half an hour earlier than they say he did, it is a strong fact
for the prosecution. The whole question of the alibi is reduced ,
to a question of half an hour, and yet this old lady and this
girl are called before you to speak to an occasion to which
their attention was not called for a month or six weeks after-
wards, to speak to the exact time — half-past nine. Can they '
do that? How could the old lady remember that Miiller called
at half-past nine o'clock exactly? It did not signify to her
what hour he called; there was nothing to fix it in her
recollection. Then comes in the clock — the alibi clock.
She looked at the clock. Why should she look at the clock?
Why, because Eldred (one of the unfortunate women) went out
at nine. It is a singular fact that Eldred does not remember
anything about the clock, but she says she went out at nine,
because she always did go out at nine. But can they recollect
anything else? If there be anything the old lady would
remember it would be the arrival of a telegram. I do not
suppose that telegrams are often sent to brothels; but she
cannot tell the time within an hour or within half an hour
that it arrived, nor can the girl tell when she received it, nor
what time she got up that day; but she says she went out at
nine o'clock. Do you suppose that the proceedings of that
respectable and well-conducted establishment are regulated by
clockwork? Why, it is preposterous. There is no reason for
their fixing upon the clock. Why, if this girl had gone out a
little before nine, and if Miiller had called a little after nine,
that would be quite consistent with the case for the prosecution.

K 129

Franz Muller.

Solicitor- What does old Mrs. Jones know as to whether Muller called
General

half an hour before or after a certain time? She never thought
of it till some German gentlemen and the attorney's clerk called
/ upon her; and then they did not recollect anything about the
telegram; they found that out since, and, as to their recollect-
ing the precise hour or precise minute at which anything took
place on that day, it is perfectly idle. Well, but we will just
assume that there is a certain foundation of truth in what they
say, that Muller was there a little before nine, or about nine
o'clock. Muller is at Mrs. Repsch's at half-past seven or a
quarter to eight. He left somewhere about that time, and he
said to Haffa that he was going to see this girl. And it is
said that he went out in one of his slippers. Suppose that to
be so, and that he took the omnibus to Camberwell, and went
to see this girl, what time did he arrive? He left Repsch's at
a quarter before eight, and would arrive at this woman's house
at Camberwell at half -past eight or a quarter to nine. He did
not stay above a few minutes; there was nothing to stay for,
because the girl was out. He goes back, and might take the
omnibus that would carry him to London Bridge, and if he
started about a quarter past nine, or somewhere about that
time, he would arrive at King William Street just about the
same time that Mr. Briggs would arrive there. The station to
which Muller would go, in order to travel to where he lives, is
the Hackney Wick station, sometimes called the Victoria
station, and he would be going home by the same train in
which Mr. Briggs was. Gentlemen, I cannot but think that
this was a most dangerous alibi to set up. If I had known that
Muller was at Camberwell, and that he left to go home at, I
will not say half-past nine, but at nine o'clock, or a quarter
to nine, I should, on the part of the Crown, have thought it
proper to give you that information. Only suppose a mistake
of half an hour by Mrs. Jones, and a mistake by the girl of
half an hour, and you have Muller put in such a situation that
he would probably arrive at Fenchurch Street station some-
where about the same time as Mr. Briggs. I submit that for
the defence the alibi has totally failed, and that, by supposing
the mistake of half an hour, it strengthens the case for the
prosecution. I say nothing about the last witness, whom, I
suppose, they did not rely upon. He merely said that some
130

Franz Muller
(From a Photograph taken by the New York Police).

Charge to the Jury.

time last summer a gentleman rode in his omnibus -who wore Solieitor-
a slipper, and that he was a stoutish gentleman, and leaned \
on his arm when he got down.

Gentlemen, I have now arrived at the close of the
observations which I have thought it right to make
to you on the part of the prosecution, and without further
comment I will leave the case in your hands, satisfied
that you will perform your duty. If you see — I will not say
any possible doubt, because it is not for us to speculate on
remote possibilities — but if you think there is any reasonable
doubt in the evidence that is laid before you, acquit him; but
if the evidence in this case, circumstantial as it is, brings to
your minds a clear and abiding conviction of the prisoner's
guilt, I call on you to perform the duty you owe to society by
pronouncing the prisoner guilty.

The Lord Chief Baron's Charge to the Jury.

The LORD CHIEF BARON commenced to sum up the case to Lord Chief
the jury at twenty-five minutes past one o'clock. His lord-
ship said — Gentlemen of the jury, the prisoner at the bar,
Franz Muller, is indicted for the wilful murder of Mr. Briggs,
and it is your duty, upon the evidence before you, to say
whether or not you can find him guilty. I shall not think it
necessary to enter upon some of the matters which have been
alluded to with respect to the discussions and opinions. I
think that fair statements — I abstain from saying discussions —
of anything that occurs in this country, in which the people
are interested, appear to be one of the benefits of the Press
which one would not desire to see curtailed, and if you have read
nothing but statements, and cannot therefore be prejudiced by
discussion, I think you come to this inquiry of three days — I
may say you come to the inquiry with your minds furnished
with certain facts which are an essential part of the question,
and I think you are better able to enter into the matter than
if you had come here entire strangers to all the circumstances.
It is my duty to present to you the facts as they are brought
forward on the part of the prosecution and on the part of the
defence, to state to you any point of law on which it is neces-

Franz Muller.

Lord Chief sary to give direction, and then to leave you to form your
own judgment as to what are the opinions to be drawn from the
facts that are sworn before you. There can be no doubt that
Mr. Briggs on the evening or night of the 9th of July in this
year was murdered. I know nothing, and can say nothing,
of the manner in which that murder was done, but I apprehend
that of the fact there can be no doubt. I shall presently state
to you the circumstances as they appear to have occurred
according to the evidence, and I shall leave it to you to form
your own fair opinion, for the verdict is to be yours and not
mine. I shall call your attention to certain parts of the case.
I shall give you some general directions as to what I think you
should do, and I shall leave you to form your own opinion.

It has been said, and said very truly, that this is a case of
circumstantial evidence. I apprehend that circumstantial evi-
dence means this — when the facts stated do not directly prove
'the actual crime, but lead to the conclusion that the prisoner
committed the crime — and I believe I am right in saying that
the majority of cases that are investigated in criminal Courts
in this country are decided upon circumstantial evidence — it has
been said that that evidence is better than direct evidence.
In one sense that may be true ; in another sense it is not true.
If you have the testimony of witnesses of undoubted character
who saw the crime committed, why, then, you can hardly have
better evidence than that — the direct evidence of some persons
who saw the fact and can depose to the crime as having been
committed; but, undoubtedly, where there be any doubt about
the veracity or honour of the witnesses, indirect evidence, com-
ing from different distances and remote quarters, and all tending
to the same end, has a force and effect beyond the testimony of
more direct evidence. For direct evidence may be mistaken in
various ways. There may be an error about the person. The
witness may say, " I saw him do it, or a person like him." He
may give a character to the commission of a crime which really
does not belong to it; but indirect testimony from a number
of facts, supposing that you believe them — if that is the case,
and they all concur to the same point, they are free from the
objection that there has been either perjury, or omission, or
misstatement. There is another matter upon which I wish,
before I go into the case, to address you, and that is upon the
132

Charge to the Jury.

degree of certainty with which you ought to give your verdict. Lord Chief
I collected from my brother Parry's address that he suggested
to you that you ought not to pronounce a verdict of guilty
unless you were so satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner as if you
had seen him do the act, and you yourselves, too, witnessed
the completion of it. Gentlemen, I think that is not the
certainty which is required of you to discharge your duty on
the oath you have taken, to the country to which you belong, or
to the prisoner, whose safety is in your power. I have heard
the late Lord Tenterden frequently lay down a rule, which I
will pronounce to you in his own language — " It is not neces-
sary that you should have a certainty, which does not belong
to any human transaction ; it is only necessary that you should
have that certainty with which you transact your own most
important concerns in life." No doubt the question before you
to-day, involving as it does the life of the prisoner at the bar,
must be deemed to be of the highest importance ; but you are
requested to have only that degree of certainty with which you
can decide upon and conclude your own most important trans-
actions. Gentlemen, our care should be to prevent the com-
mission of crime, which it is the object of criminal Courts
to do. The learned counsel, brother Parry, has referred to
a common axiom in which there is no doubt some degree of
truth, and that is, that it is better that a great many guilty
persons should escape than that one innocent man should suffer.
Now, gentlemen, it is impossible to deny that the history of
our criminal Courts, and I believe that of all criminal Courts,
will afford instances where innocent persons have been classed
with the guilty, and have been found guilty, and have suffered
by it. But, gentlemen, to make a comparison between con-
victing the innocent man and acquitting the guilty is perfectly
unwarranted. There is no comparison between them. Each
of them is a great misfortune to the country and discreditable
to the administration of justice. The only rule that can be
laid down is, that in the question of a criminal trial you should
exert your utmost vigilance, and take care that if the man be
innocent he should be acquitted, and that if guilty he should
be convicted.

Now, gentlemen, I think the mode to investigate this
case on your part should be this. Take the facts

133

Franz Muller.

Baron

Lord^Chief that are proved before you, separate those which you believe
from those which you do not believe ; take those you are satis-
fied you can rely upon, and the conclusions which naturally
and almost necessarily result from those facts are to be acted
upon as much as facts themselves ; and whatever may be
the conclusion they may lead you to — whatever, on the one side
or on the other, that conclusion may be — I think you may rely
upon it as a safe and just one. The case on the part of the
prosecution is the story of the death of Mr. Briggs, told by
the different witnesses, who unfolded the circumstances one
after the other according to their occurrence, leading to the
gradual discovery of some apparent connection between the
property which was lost and the possession of it by the prisoner
at the bar. The case on the part of the prisoner I collect to
be threefold. In the first place, my brother Parry said,
'' You have not satisfactorily made out the guilt of the
prisoner. There are links wanting in your chain. Some of
the links are broken or imperfect. You have substituted
imagination for fact, and of these there is no certainty." So
I understood brother Parry to say the prisoner would be en-
titled to your verdict of not guilty. That issue, no doubt,
requires your special attention, because it is very much upon
that the trial is to be determined. There can be no doubt if
the case on the part of the prosecution does not bring home
to your minds a satisfactory conclusion, upon which you can
only say that, acting upon your own minds, you believe the
prisoner guilty, the prisoner is entitled to be found not guilty.
The next point in the defence was this, that the prisoner was
unable, that he was not of stature and strength competent to
the task that apparently was performed. That, no doubt,
if the prisoner at the bar were a young man under age and
possessed of no strength, would be an argument in his favour.
If you think he was incompetent, if you think that he could
not have done that which is imputed to him, of course, if he
could not have done it, then he is entitled to be found not
guilty. The third line of the defence is an alibi. That
requires a word from me before I proceed to the particular
facts of the case.

Upon the whole case for the prosecution, if you
entertain any reasonable doubt, if you cannot come to a

Charge to the Jury.

satisfactory conclusion, the prisoner is entitled to the benefit Lord Chief
of that doubt. If you do come to a satisfactory conclusion
upon the case for the prosecution you are then met by an alibi,
and I think the alibi is then to be weighed in the scale against
the case for the prosecution. To explain precisely what I wish
to show — if you entertain any serious doubt on the case for the
prosecution you must acquit the prisoner. On the other hand,
the case for the prosecution and the alibi must be thrown into
the same scale. Where an alibi is proposed and there is some
doubt, it then becomes your province and duty to examine the
alibi, and to decide between the prosecution and the alibi. All
the facts brought before you on the part of the Solicitor-
General form the case for the prosecution, and ought to be
weighed duly. The facts brought in support of the alibi should
be weighed with the case for the prosecution, and you will
say which you believe. It is a case where both cannot be
true, and it is for you to decide to which the truth belongs.
Now, gentlemen, having stated to the jury what I consider
to be the case on the part of the prosecution, and the case on
the part of the defence, I think it right to draw your attention
to the facts themselves.

Gentlemen, it appears that Mr. Briggs left London on the
9th of July (Saturday). After having dined with his niece's
husband, Mr. Buchan, he proceeded by an omnibus to some
place near London Bridge, where he got out and went to a
train at Fenchurch Street station to take him through Bow
to Hackney, or Hackney Wick, as it is called. A Mr. Lee
said he saw him there. There is no doubt that Mr. Briggs
left Fenchurch Street and was murdered before he reached
Hackney Wick, and, as it is highly improbable that he was
murdered between Fenchurch Street and Bow, you may
easily believe that he was at the latter place. Whether he
was there with another person or not I will not say. Lee,
who was there, and did not consider it his duty to make a
statement respecting what he saw, is, I think, scarcely in that
frame of mind which is deserving of approbation. If, indeed,
the prosecution had known what Lee had to say in examina-
tion and cross-examination, I am not surprised that they did
not call him, and they did quite right not to call him. Mr.
Briggs was there. Mr. Briggs did not arrive at Hackney

135

Franz Muller.

Lord Chief Wick. The carriage that went from Fenchurch Street to
Hackney Wick was taken back without being turned round.
That accounts in part for what appears on the depositions
and in the evidence before the coroner, for what on going
down was the near side would in returning be the offside, and
the offside would be the near side. Mr. Briggs was found
about one-third of the distance from Hackney Wick. His
body had in some way been removed from the carriage to the
six-foot way, and there he was found, with his head towards
Hackney Wick and his feet towards London. Gentlemen, I
think it right that some of you may have remarked the circum-
stance as well as myself. The head pointed towards Hackney
Wick. The consequence of that is that his feet must have
touched the ground first. If a man were thrown out head
foremost, and his head touched the ground, his body would
go forward with the velocity of the carriage, and his head
would be towards London and his feet towards Hackney Wick.
On the other hand, if he were put out by force, or if he jumped
out and alighted on his feet, the effect would be that of stop-
ping his feet, his body would go with the velocity, and his
head would be smashed. This makes no difference in the
charge against whoever it was that committed the murder,
for it is plain that before the body was removed in any way,
either by himself or by the murderer, he had received several
desperate wounds. According to the medical evidence, there
was one fracture, and I think it right to say that, in point of
law, whether Mr. Briggs had been struck and then stunned
by the blow, so as to be unable to call out, or believing that
he might be got to the door of the carriage and then driven
out by force, or the fear produced by the violent action of
the person menacing him, it would be equally murder, because
his death would be caused by his getting out and then receiving
that violent wound. Mr. Briggs was examined that evening,
the carriage was examined that evening, and there were the
articles which Mr. Briggs had lost. The only alteration with
respect to that property was that the watch and chain were
gone. That some struggle had taken place in the carriage
was evident from the fact that a link of the chain was found
pressed down in the carriage. The hat he wore was gone,
and another hat was left in its place. For some days nothing
136

Charge to the Jury.

was known about it, but, according to the evidence, Mr. Death Lord Chief
was applied to on the following Thursday, and was asked if '
he had exchanged a chain. Mr. Death said "Yes," and he
gave in exchange for it another chain (the one produced) and
a signet ring. At that time it was also discovered that there
was some question about the hat. Every effort was made to
discover the person who was connected with the transaction,
and, when it was discovered to be the hat of the prisoner at
the bar, officers were sent out to anticipate his arrival in
America. On their arrival his box was searched, and the
watch was found in his box. In that box also was found a
hat, and when that hat was brought back to this country
every inquiry was made respecting it. It was said the hat
was not the hat of Mr. Briggs — that it could not be; it was 1
inch or 1J inches too short. When it came to be examined
it was found to be cut down. Then came the question with
respect to the watch and chain and hat Mr. Briggs wore, and
the hat supposed to be the prisoner's. Gentlemen, there is
no evidence whatever to show you whether that is the hat Mr.
Briggs wore on that day or not. It is for you to consider
how far the evidence will show you that was Mr. Briggs' hat.
Now, gentlemen, the facts of the history of this case, though
appearing to be many, are in reality very few — the watch,
the chain, and the hat Mr. Briggs lost that night. A hat was
found in the carriage in the place of Mr. Briggs's hat. These
are the three matters which constitute the case for the prose-
cution. Gentlemen, these are three links of the same chain;
but do not make the mistake which it appears to me Serjeant
Parry is rather inclined to lead you into, that, if there is
one link of that chain broken, you have got rid of the prosecu-
tion. There are three separate and distinct links, having each
of them a separate history, and a failure on the part of one
does not in the slightest degree affect the position of each of
the others. For instance, if there had been no trace whatever
of either of the hats, if the hat alleged to be the hat of Mr.
Briggs had not been found in the box, that does not at all
diminish the evidence of the watch and chain. They all
stand on separate and distinct grounds apart from each other,
and if one of them is made out to your satisfaction, that is,
if the result of the evidence satisfies you that the prisoner at

137

Franz Muller.

Lord Chief the bar was on the Monday morning in possession of the watch
and chain, then you are to see whether he has given a true
account, or — for this is the question — has he given a satis-
factory account? Now, with respect to the watch and chain,
the evidence seems to be this : on Monday morning, about ten
o'clock, he exchanged the chain for a chain which he took
from Mr. Death, the jeweller. That chain he pawned on the
Wednesday. But then you say, what became of the watch?
Why, when he was apprehended off New York he had the
watch in his box ; it was found there. He said it was his
watch, and he had had it two years. It will be for you to say
whether that is evidence to induce you to believe that both the
watch and chain were in his possession. How did they come
into his possession? Gentlemen, I shall presently ask that
question, and call the attention of my brother Parry to the
way in which I understood that he put it, because I am desirous
that there should be no mistake, and I am desirous not to
speak in ambiguous or doubtful language, but to express myself
with perfect plainness, and, if I am wrong, I shall be glad
to be corrected. You will have to ask yourselves whether the
prisoner had the watch and chain on the Monday morning.
The evidence is that he separated them if he had them, that he
took the chain to Mr. Death, that he there had it valued at
<£3 10s., that he declined to take a chain of the value of £3 15s.,
which would require him to pay 5s., and that he took a
chain of the value of £3 5s., and took a ring instead of the
5s. Here, as I must again say to you, it is for you to say
whether you believe that part of the case or not. Unless
you believe it, you ought not to convict the prisoner; if you
believe it, I think you ought to act upon it. When he had got
the chain he went to the house of a friend, and, showing it,
spoke of it, and mentioned what he had given for it, and said
he had bought it at the docks. There is no evidence that he
said anything to anybody about the watch — none. He gave
different accounts of the way he got them. He described
himself as buying the ring along with the chain. He stated
to one person that he had the ring sent to him by his father;
and in America, when he was questioned about the ring, he
said he had bought it at a shop in Cheapside, very probably
meaning that he got it at Mr. Death's. Gentlemen, you will
138

Charge to the Jury.

have to consider whether you see what is the reasonable con- Lord Chief
elusion to be drawn. He never has said on any occasion
that he bought the watch and chain at the docks.

SERJEANT PARRY — Will your lordship pardon me? Mr.
Tanner said in evidence that in America his counsel stated that.

The LORD CHIEF BARON — Oh, his counsel.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL — His counsel suggested it.

SERJEANT PARRY — No, his counsel made that statement.

The LORD CHIEF BARON — What he said in America was that
he had the watch two years, and the statement of his counsel,
as given by Mr. Tanner here, amounts to no evidence. The
statement here in London was that he bought the chain, and
he said nothing about the watch. I think it my duty to point
these matters out to you. I come now to the question as to
which I want to call the attention of my brother Parry. My
brother Parry suggests that there is no evidence that he did
not tell anybody in Amerca that he bought the watch at the
docks.

BARON MARTIN (referring to his notes) — Inspector Tanner
says, " I did not hear him say he had purchased the watch
and chain at the docks. His counsel suggested that before
the magistrates at New York."

The LORD CHIEF BARON — I want to call the attention of
brother Parry to the matter, in order that I may be correct
as to what he said. What I understood my brother Parry to
state was this — that he bought the watch and chain at the
docks, and that he was quite aware that a transaction of that
sort could not be perfectly right. I understood my brother
Parry to say that every false statement the prisoner makes
in reference to that matter might be explained by his con-
sciousness that he was doing wrong. I call brother Parry's
attention to it in order that we may understand distinctly what
was intended to be conveyed to your minds, viz., that, instead
of committing the murder on Saturday, he bought on Monday
morning at the docks the watch and chain. That is his
account of it. Sunday is not a day for regular business,
but for the transfer of property obtained by robbery or other

Franz Muller.

Lord Chief illegal means, that is as good as any other day. Property
taken illegally on Saturday and sold on Monday morning is
not so likely a transaction as one of honest dealing, in which
Monday morning is the same to Saturday night as Tuesday
morning is to Monday. It is for you to consider how far that
is an apology for being in possession of these things, because
he was aware there was something wrong about his having
bought them; he therefore gave excuses and made awkward
statements about them. That is not the only thing. The
remarkable matter about this case is that every part of the
change of property — the loss of the watch and chain and the
hat of Mr. Briggs, and the hat left in the railway carriage
by somebody, points with a certain degree of strength more or
less to the prisoner at the bar. Now, gentlemen, you have
to consider the question as to the hat. The hat is proved
to be Mr. Briggs's to such an extent that my learned brother
Parry did not deny that it probably was the hat.

SERJEANT PARRY — I admitted that it was a hat sold by
Mr. Digance, but never that it was Mr. Briggs's.

The LORD CHIEF BARON — My brother Parry does not admit
anything. No man can admit anything in a case like this;
but the hatter who made it said, " I made it for Mr. Digance,"
and Mr. Digance says, " I recognise this hat, as far as I can,
as having been made for Mr. Briggs." He speaks of it in
every respect as the hat. He says it had been cut down, and
in a manner in which no hatter would have cut it down, and
then he points out the peculiarity, which I do not think it
necessary to dwell upon. The hat, on being examined, turns
out to have been sewed in a manner which is said not to be
the practice of regular hatters, and apparently not the prac-
tice of second-hand hatters. I do not think it necessary to
call your attention to the evidence of the two hatters; they
both of them said they should not have altered a hat in that
way. It is for you to say whether, on the whole of the evi-
dence, it is or is not made out to your satisfaction that that
was the hat of Mr. Briggs. A remark was made by the
Solicitor - General which is of some force, that the
prisoner at the bar has had, and one is very glad
that he has had, the protection of a patriotic society
140

Charge to the Jury.

established for the protection of their countrymen, and Lord Chief
that no expense has been spared by them to get all the
information that could be obtained. It is for you to con-
sider whether half the industry and diligence which has resulted
in the production of those old hats that we saw — I forget now
how many there were — it is for you to consider whether, if
that diligence had been applied in finding out where the prisoner
bought this hat, which was bought certainly, according to his
own account, not more than a month from the date of the
murder — whether half that diligence would not have found out
the very man who sold it to him, if anybody did sell it, and
the very man who altered it, if, in fact, anybody did alter it
but himself. On that question you will have to decide, but
it is a point in the case that appears to me to be worthy of
your consideration.

SERJEANT PABRT — I beg pardon; but Mr. Digance said, at
the close of his evidence, " I will not swear that this is the
hat I sold to Mr. Briggs."

The LORD CHIEF BARON — I dare say; but the question is
whether he believes that it was, and whether he furnished you
with sufficient material for you to believe that it was. A
man will not swear positively to a thing, but the question is,
does Mr. Digance speak with certainty, the certainty that
you have that I am speaking to you now? He cannot be
certain in that extreme sense. Well, then, gentlemen, you
will say how far the history of the hat leads you — whether
it leads you to the conclusion that the hat which was found
in the box belonging to the prisoner at the bar was the hat of
Mr. Briggs. Then, with regard to the said hat that was found
in the railway carriage, undoubtedly it was some surprise to
all who are acquainted with the proceedings in criminal Courts
that evidence of such a character could be produced. It was
stated that that pattern of lining was not put into more than
three or four hats, and Mr. Walker himself said, " I got a
number of samples from France, and there were only one or
two of these, and certainly not more than two or three of the
hats that I have made that had this particular lining." Now,
gentlemen, it is for you to say what is the conclusion you
draw from this Mrs. Repsch said it had a remarkable lining,

141

Franz Muller.

Lord Chltf and that she never saw any other hat with the same kind of
Baron . . •

lining. Well, then, when these different points of the case

lead one with each other to the same conclusion, it is for
you to say how far the union of more than one gives strength
to that conclusion, how far it is better if several
of them unite together in a conclusion, even though
not so perfect, and lead to a result more certain on
the whole. There is a case which, I think, will illustrate
what I mean. It is to be found in Mr. Starkie's book on
Evidence. A gentleman was robbed of his purse in a crowd.
He gave information to the police, and a man was appre-
hended, and a purse corresponding was found upon him. The
prosecutor was asked whether he could swear to any of the
pieces of money which were discovered in the purse. He said
he was convinced it was the same. Why? Because he said
it contained five or six separate, distinct pieces of money, and,
though he could not swear to any particular piece, one of
which was a seven-shilling piece, he said that he could swear
his purse contained a half-crown, a seven-shilling piece, and
so enumerated the several pieces. It was not likely that
anybody else had a purse exactly like it. You yourselves will
see the value of that sort of identity — not by identifying each,
but by identifying the whole. This man said, " I cannot
identify each separate piece of money, but I can identify the
whole, and my impression is that it is my property." That
will prove what I mean by a part of a case leading to one
conclusion, by another part of the case, though imperfect, yet
leading to the same conclusion, and strengthening it; by a
third leading to the same conclusion, although it is not per-
fectly made out, but still it adds strength to the general case
which is involved in a comparison of these different acts.
Gentlemen, that is the true value of circumstantial evidence.
If you believe the facts to lead to a conclusion, I think you
are bound to go on with that conclusion to the end. I shall
not trouble you further upon the hat that was found in the
prisoner's box or the watch or chain. With respect to the
evidence for the defence, I will not make any remarks on Mr.
Lee's testimony. If you believe from the appearance of the
prisoner that he could not do it you will say so. It is said
that he was lame that night, but it is quite plain from the
142

Charge to the Jury.

evidence that on the Sunday he was walking from six to nine Lord Chief
o'clock with his friends. If you believe that he was incapable
of doing it, of course, he did not, and, of course, he is entitled
to your verdict. Now I come to the alibi. That is entirely
a matter for your consideration, and I shall say very little
upon it. The evidence of Mary Ann Eldred — whom it is im-
possible to see here without some compassion for the situation
of life which she is in — consists certainly very much more in
saying what she cannot recollect rather than what she can recol-
lect. But certainly she stated that she went out at nine o'clock,
and that Miiller called at half-past nine o'clock. That is what
she said, and that she knew that he was going to America. He
asked her to go with him, and said if she did not that he
would return in six months. I think it is fair to say that
his going to America was perfectly well known. Then there
is the evidence of Mrs. Jones; and, respecting her husband, I
think a man who is living on the profits of such a calling as
that pursued by his wife is about the most infamous of man-
kind. How far the wife is some shades better than her hus-
band is for you to judge. Her evidence is for you to judge.
According to the case for the prosecution, the prisoner, between
seven and eight o'clock, was at Repsch's, and left there, taking
his boots with him, and saying he was going to Camberwell.
There was plenty of time for him to have gone to Camberwell
and to have returned, though not in the same omnibus as
Mr. Briggs.

SERJEANT PARRY — Not the same.

The CHIEF BARON — But he might have returned to his home.
These, I think, are nearly all the circumstances it is neces-
sary for me to call your attention to. If you wish the whole
of the evidence to be read over to you I will do so.

The jury consulted for a moment, and the foreman said,
"It is not requisite."

The CHIEF BARON — Or any part of it?

The jury again consulted for a moment, and the foreman
said, "No, my lord, it is not requisite."

The CHIEF BARON — I think that it is the more unnecessary
that I should do so, because you have had two able and

Franz Muller.

Lord Chief elaborate addresses from the two sides, and I have no doubt
Baron

that during the whole course of the investigation you have

paid considerable attention to the different evidence — some
of which evidence emanated from questions put by the jury of
considerable importance. And now, gentlemen, I have
endeavoured to discharge my duties; it remains for you to
discharge yours. I must again tell you that the verdict is to
be yours. It is for you to decide the great and important
question. If I have in any part of my address to you inti-
mated any opinion, I have desired not to express any. I
have called your attention to circumstances which I think
you ought to consider. As far as I could, I endeavoured to
avoid the expression of my opinion, for it is not for me to
decide. It is for you to deliberate and decide according to
the best of your judgment. If you have collected any opinion
of any sort from what may have fallen from me — unless so far
as it goes entirely with your deliberate opinion — treat it as if
I had said nothing of the sort. The verdict is yours. The
law and the constitution have given to twelve men, sworn to
act according to evidence, to find a verdict of guilty or not
guilty. In deliberating on that verdict I doubt not that you
will act with impartiality and candour. You will remember
the duty which you owe to the prisoner — to believe him inno-
cent until proved to be guilty; but you will at the same time
not forget the duty which you owe to the country and to
society at large. If the evidence leads you to a conclusion
of guilty, you will fearlessly act upon that evidence. You
will act according to your consciences, and give that verdict
which you believe to be just; and may the God of all truth
guide your judgment and conscience to the verdict which may
be satisfactory according to the truth and justice of the case.

The CLERK OP ARRAIGNS — Gentlemen of the jury, please to
consider your verdict.

The jury signified that they wished to retire.

The proper officer of the Court was accordingly directed to
take them in charge to an adjoining room.

At three o'clock the jury returned into Court, having been
absent fifteen minutes.
144

Mr. Baron Martin
(From a Painting by Sir Francis Grant, P.R.A., in the possession of Lord Macnaghten).

The Sentence.

The jury stood up to answer to their names. The foreman
(Mr. Isaac Moore) and the others having duly answered to
the call,

The CLERK OF AKRAIGNS said — Gentlemen, are you agreed
upon your verdict?

The FOREMAN — We are.

The CLERK OP ARRAIGNS — How do you find the prisoner at
the bar — guilty or not guilty of the murder with which he is
charged 1

The FOREMAN — Guilty.

The CLBRK OP ARRAIGNS — That is the verdict of you all?
The FOREMAN — Yes.
r. Baron Martin here entered the Court.

The CLERK OP ARRAIGNS — Prisoner at the bar, you have been
convicted of the crime of wilful murder. Have you anything
to say why judgment of dying should not be given t

The prisoner did not reply.

The CRIER OP THE COURT — Oyez, oyez, oyez! My lords the
Queen's justices do strictly charge and command that all
persons do keep silence while sentence of death is passing
upon the prisoner at the bar, upon pain of imprisonment.

Mr. BARON MARTIN, who had meanwhile put upon his head JJr. Baron

Martin
the black cap, then passed sentence. Franz Muller, you

have been found guilty by the jury of the wilful murder of
Mr. Briggs. It is no part of our duty to express generally
any opinion with respect to the verdict of the jury. It is
their province to decide upon your guilt or innocence. But it
is usual with judges to state, in passing sentence, if they
entirely concur in that verdict, and they do so for two reasons.
It is satisfactory to know if the opinions of the judges concur
with that of the jury ; and I am authorised by the Chief Baron
to state — and I state on my own behalf — that we are perfectly
satisfied with that verdict. If I had been one of the jury I
should have concurred in it; and I state so, for the second
reason, in order to remove entirely from your mind the possi-
bility that you will live in this world much longer. Within
i- i45

Franz Muller.

J*r. Baron a short period you will be removed from it by a violent death ;
and I therefore beseech you to avail yourself of what, I have
no doubt, will be offered to you, the means, as far as possible,
of making your peace with your Maker, and of preparing to
meet the fate which will very shortly happen to you. I forbear
from going into the particulars of the case, but there are a
variety of circumstances in which, if the evidence had been
gone into more minutely, would have more and more tended
to establish your guilt. The history of you during that day
is not difficult to judge. You left the house of Mrs. Blyth
about eleven o'clock. You remained at the house of Mrs.
Repsch until seven or eight, or nearly eight o'clock. You
stated your intention of going to see a young woman. You
went there, and it is obvious that your account of your time
is to show us that one hour and a half were consumed in going
to this house, and it may be that Mrs. Jones was telling the
truth when she supposed that you were at her house at half-
past nine o'clock that night. I am perfectly satisfied that
you were there much earlier, that she is in error in thinking
you were there so late, and that you came from this place, and
were probably tempted by seeing Mr. Briggs exhibiting the watch
and chain ; and there are other circumstances strongly tending to
the same conclusion, as seen from your history during the few
days of the following week respecting the money. You
exchanged the chain of Mr. Briggs for one that you got from
Mr. Death, and you immediately proceeded to pledge that to
raise a sum of money upon it. Having raised it, you pro-
ceeded to take out of pledge your own watch and your own
chain. Having them in your possession, you proceeded to
pledge them and get the money with which, no doubt, you
paid your passage to America. I have little doubt that this
is the history of the case — that, moved by the devil, and for
the purpose of getting the money to go to America — where it is
evident you intended to go — you robbed Mr. Briggs of his
watch and chain. I wish to remove from your mind any
hope of an alteration of the sentence. After listening to all
the evidence which has been adduced, I feel no more doubt
that you committed this murder than I do with reference to
the occurrence of any other event of which I am certain, but
which I did not see with my own eyes. It only remains
146

The Sentence.

for me to pass upon you the sentence of the law — which is Mr. Baron
not the sentence of the Chief Baron or myself — for the crime
of wilful murder of which you have been convicted. It is
that you be taken from here to the prison from whence you
came, that from thence you be taken to a place of execution,
that there you be hanged by the neck till your body be dead;
that your body when dead be taken down, and that it be
buried within the precincts of the prison where you were last
confined. And may God have mercy upon your soul.

Mr. JONAS said that the prisoner had asked whether he
might be allowed to speak.

The CHIEF BARON said " Yea."

The PRISONER — I am perfectly satisfied with my judges and
with the jury, but I have been convicted on false evidence,
and not a true statement. If the sentence is carried out I
shall die innocent.

The prisoner was then removed, and the Court adjourned.

'47

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX I.

EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS AT NEW YORK.

(Daily Telegraph, Monday, September 5, 1864.)
THB GERMAN NATIONAL VEREIN AND FRANZ MULLER.

A meeting of the London branch of the German National
Verein took place on Saturday, under the presidency of Dr.
Gottfried Kinkel, at Seydr's Hotel, Finsbury Square, when the
committee for affording legal assistance to Germans in need, who
in this country may not be able to obtain it from the authorised
representative of their respective Governments, brought up their
report. The committee stated that, in compliance with the
expressed wish of the National Verein, they were using all
means in their power to aid the legal authorities in clearing
up the mystery as to the guilt or innocence of Franz Mullet
respecting the murder of Mr. Briggs.

September 6, 1864.

AMERICA.
Arrest of Muller.

The following telegram was received at Mr. Reuter's office
this (Tuesday) morning : —

(Via Greenock.)

New York, Aug. 26 (Evening).

The " Victoria " has arrived at New York, and Muller has
been arrested. The hat and watch of Mr. Briggs were found in
his possession.

Muller protested his innocence, and the legal proceedings in
reference to his extradition are progressing.

Franz Mullet.

8/9/1864.
The Arrest of Mutter.

New York journals to the 27th ult., per the " City of Balti-
more," containing details of the examination of Muller before
the New York police authorities, will not reach London till a
late hour this (Thursday) morning. Up to last night the Chief
Commissioner of Police at Scotland Yard had not received any
communication from the detective officers sent out to apprehend
Muller. In the course of the day, however, letters are
expected .

12th, 1864.
Extradition of Muller.

New York, Aug. 30 (Evening).

On the 27th inst. the hearing of the extradition case of Muller
was resumed before the U.S. Commissioner Newton.

The British Government was represented by Mr. F. F. Mar-
bury, as on the previous day, while Messrs. Chauncey Schaffer
and E. Blankman appeared for the prisoner.

The Court was thronged with spectators anxious to obtain a
view of the accused, who sat with an unmoved countenance.

Mr. Blankman, on behalf of Muller, applied for an adjourn-
ment, to give time to prepare for the defence.

Mr. Marbury, for the British Government, opposed the
adjournment.

Mr. Blankman briefly responded, urging the motion for a
brief adjournment.

Mr. Schaffer followed for the defence, and maintained that
as yet there was nothing to justify the committal. The accused,
being a foreigner, he contended that the treaty under which
the extradition was demanded had been suspended, and he
also adverted to the " Florida " as being a pirate sent out
by English subjects.

Inspector Tanner having been re-examined as to the height
of the prisoner, Mr. Schaffer endeavoured to show that Muller
could not be one of the two men seen in the compartment with
Mr. Briggs on the night of the murder.

Commissioner Newton then delivered his decision, stating
that, under the circumstances, he was constrained to grant a
certificate, and commit the prisoner, being satisfied as to his
guilt.

152

Appendix I.

13/9/64.
(From the New York Herald.)

The following detailed report of the last day's proceedings in
the case of Miiller is from the New York Herald of August 28 : —

The hearing in the extradition case of Franz Miiller, charged
with the murder of Mr. Thomas Briggs, near Hackney, London,
on the 9th July last, was resumed yesterday morning before
Commissioner Newton. The British Government, through its
consul at this port, was represented by Mr. F. F. Marbury;
the accused by his assigned counsel, Messrs. Chauncey Schaffer
and Edmond Blankman.

The examination took place in the United States District
Court-room, which was thronged with persons who evinced the
greatest interest in the proceedings, and who anxiously sought
for a view of the accused. The latter sat beside his counsel
with an unmoved countenance and a calm demeanour,
apparently the most uninterested and unaffected person in the
densely crowded Court.

Mr. Blankman said that, as the prosecution had closed their
case yesterday, having had everything in preparation for sub-
mitting it to the Court, it devolved upon him to make a few
remarks in urging upon the Court an application for an adjourn-
ment, to give the counsel assigned for the accused an oppor-
tunity to read over the testimony and to agree upon the proper
line of defence. There was, however, much to urge prepara-
tory to entering upon that stage of the proceedings. The
warrant issued for the apprehension of Miiller set forth that " on
the 9th July instant, he (Miiller) did feloniously, wilfully, and
of malice aforethought, kill and murder one Thomas Briggs."
If a case of murder had been made out in accordance with the
statutes of Great Britain and the law of this land, the duty of
the Court was certainly to be a plain one, but if to the mind
of the Court there did not appear to be (as it did not appear
to him) legal evidence of murder having been committed, then
the case did not come within the treaty of 1842, and there was
no ground whatever for the apprehension and commitment of
the accused. If the case even be one of manslaughter, it would
not come within that treaty. Whatever view might be taken
of the case, it would be but an act of simple justice to allow
counsel for the defence an opportunity to examine the testimony
adduced against their unfortunate client. He therefore moved
that the further hearing of the case be adjourned in order to
give counsel time to prepare their defence.

Mr. Marbury, on the part of the British Government,
opposed the motion for adjournment. On the day of the

'53

Franz Muller.

prisoner's arrest Mr. Beehe had been assigned by the Court
counsel for the accused. That gentleman had accepted the
task, and had an interview with the prisoner, and it was
expected that he (Mr. Beehe) would have been present to defend
him on the day fixed for the examination. The depositions in
the case had been handed to the two able counsel subsequently
(in consequence of the absence of Mr. Beehe) assigned for the
defence, and those gentlemen were present yesterday when the
testimony of the witnesses was given. This inquiry was a
preliminary one. The Commissioner was sitting in the capacity
of an ordinary committing magistrate, not for the purpose of
saying whether this man was absolutely guilty or not, but
whether there was a sufficient degree of suspicion of criminality
against him to justify his commitment for trial, supposing the
offence charged had been committed here. In other words,
supposing, instead of Mr. Briggs having been murdered
between Bow and Hackney, he had been murdered between
Twenty-seventh Street and Harlem, under precisely similar cir-
cumstances as appear in this case, the question would then be
whether the evidence that has been presented would justify the
commitment of the accused for trial in the ordinary way, and
according to the due course and progress of law. He (Mr.
Marbury) would extremely dislike to do anything bearing even
the appearance of a desire to withhold from the unfortunate
man any privilege or right which belonged to him; but it
seemed to him that the request made by counsel was not a
reasonable one. The whole facts lay within an exceedingly
narrow compass, and from the reading of the depositions, and
from testimony adduced yesterday, the general conclusion
arrived at must be that, whatever the ultimate fate of the
man may be, whatever the result of the more formal and legal
investigation, enough has appeared and transpired here to
justify his commitment. What follows? He is committed
for trial; he is sent to the scene of the murder, to the place
where he can find and produce witnesses who will state all the
circumstances of exculpation that can be found. A great and
appalling crime has been committed, and circumstances of great
weight and moment connected the accused with the commission
of that crime. Necessarily the case must undergo an investi-
gation, and it is not depriving the prisoner of the right to the
fullest and amplest defence secured to him by the common law
of England, and by the practice of English jurisprudence, to
commit him for trial. He did not think that anything was
likely to arise in the case that had heretofore failed to present
itself to the experienced and acute counsel on this occasion,
and it appeared to him that great inconvenience and detriment
would arise from any postponement of the case.

Mr. Blankman briefly responded to the remarks of the counsel

154

Appendix I.

for the prosecution, urging anew his motion for a brief adjourn-
ment.

Mr. Chauncey Schaffer followed for the defence. He advo-
cated no new doctrine, advanced no new law when he declared
that there was nothing in the evidence before the Court to
justify the commitment of the accused on the charge here pre-
ferred against him. The accused was a foreigner, a German
by birth, who had a few days since arrived on these shores in
the ordinary course of transit. When any man thus lands
here he is presumed to be innocent of any crime. The law
throws around him that shield of presumptive innocence, and
he is secure, and that power which sends forth fleets and
armies, and which on this occasion is embosomed in your
honour, is here to shield and defend him from any violation
of that principle. He was not present to-day to quarrel with
the policy of England; but here he would fearlessly state at
the outset that he did not regard the treaty under which it
was sought to extradite this man as anything else than a viola-
tion of the constitution of the United States, and utterly inopera-
tive. But why should he, a pigmy, go forth to meet in con-
flict the dead champion of the nation and Constitution? But
even he had been overruled as a lawyer. The great Webster
held, and ruled, and wrote, and declared that M'Leod, who
crossed the Canadian frontier and landed at Sloser, and who
murdered Duprey, and set the steamer " Caroline " on fire,
and then set her afloat so that she went down into the sublime
depths of old Niagara — that he should be set at large. Great
Britain defended M'Leod's acts as justified by the mixed and
unsolemn state of war that then existed. Webster was for
discharging that man after he had been arrested on the
soil of New York, and indicted and held for trial and charge
of murder. But the supreme Court of the State held him,
and he was tried and acquitted, but the dignity and sovereignty
of the Empire State was vindicated, and " Excelsior " is her
proud title still. Now, the constitution of the United States
provides that no man shall be put in peril of his life or liberty
except upon indictment by a Grand Jury, or presentment of a
Grand Jury, which means the same thing. The extradition
of this man is claimed by virtue of a treaty between this country
and England. Treaties are made by the President and sub-
mitted by him to the Senate; and when ratified by that body
they become part of the law of the land, with almost the same
binding force as the Constitution itself, if the treaty be not in
violation of the Constitution. He would not stand there and
say that it were better that the nation should perish than
the Constitution be violated, but he would say that it would
be far better for him as an individual and for all others that
this once proud island and all it contains should be destroyed

Franz Muller.

— better, indeed, that the goodly island should become a sand-
bank for the storms of earth and ocean to meet in conflict dire
— that it should be a spot for sea monsters to fatten on — than
that the supreme law of the land should be violated directly
by the treaty-making power or any other power. Now, by this
treaty you are asked to surrender this man to be tried for his
life before he is yet indicted, in that the treaty is in contraven-
tion of the Constitution. You are asked to do what the Pre-
sident and Congress could not constitutionally do — put this
man in peril of his life before indictment for any offence is
found against him. He did not ask the Court to say that
the treaty was unconstitutional, but he would show conclusively
that it was at present suspended after the act, and the British
Government it is who seeks here for its enforcement. The
ocean is as much a portion of the heritage of the American
people aa the broad prairies of the West. He would come
briefly to the main point of his argument. It was an ele-
mentary principle recognised by the law of nations that a state
of war between two nations suspends the operations of all
treaties. But it may be said that there is no war between
this country and England; neither is there in their sovereign
relations incapacity, but there is war notwithstanding. There
does exist what the eminent Groteus terms " a mixed or
unsolemn state of war " between the two nations — between the
subjects of England on the one side and the subjects of the
United States, as represented in her commerce on the ocean,
on the other. The test is easy of application. For
instance, the officers who are here in Court to-day repre-
senting their sovereign while in pursuit of this man sup-
posed to have his hands red with the blood of his
fellow man, were actually afraid that the supposed murderer
would escape condign punishment. Why? What gave rise
to their fears? The fear that a private vessel, infesting the
ocean — the highway of nations — sent out from the friendly
English ports by British subjects, would snatch from British
justice that which British justice was in pursuit of — Britain
committing suicide upon her own justice. That is a state
of war, and that state of things, by the common consent of
mankind, suspends all treaties between the countries. There
is that hostility on the part of English subjects towards this
country which the writers on international law denominate
" mixed and unsolemn war," and which can be carried on
without any formal declaration of war. There are three sorts
of war — public, private, and mixed. Mixed war is sub-divided
into solemn and unsolemn war. When hostilities are carried
on without any previous declaration of war, that becomes a
mixed and unsolemn war; and this, as in any war, to the
suspension of treaties previously existing, being a war between
156

Appendix I.

the citizens and subjects of one nation against another nation ;
and that nation or power which cannot prevent this state of
things, that nation which cannot control its own subjects,
ceases to be a nation. England cannot say she is neutral in
this matter when she furnishes our rebellious subjects with
vessels of war, mans them, opens her ports to them, furnishes
them with arms and ammunition, and sends them forth on
their errand of destruction, burning merchant ships and destroy-
ing the commerce on the seas of a friendly power. The
" Alabama," built and armed in England, and manned by
Englishmen, sank and burned one hundred and twenty of our
ships ; and when at last she meets the fate she so richly deserved,
we find an English subject on his yacht snatching from an
American officer his legal rights. Look at the case of the steamer,
running from port to port, and in Maine seized by pirates,
the engineer murdered, passengers murdered, the vessel brought
into an English port, and the murderers and pirates protected
by English subjects. But, as in the case before the Court,
when a man is found murdered near London, they pursue the
supposed murderer to our shores and cry, " Treaty, treaty,
treaty." They tore that treaty to pieces three years ago.
(Applause.) Nay, more than that, great argosies, laden
with the choicest treasures of the nation, have been sunk in
countless numbers, with connivance and consent of this neutral,
friendly power. The truce has been applied by the pirate
" Florida," built and sent out by English subjects — a robber
on the highway of nations, murdering our citizens, and destroy-
ing our commerce, and humiliating the nation before the world,
so that no longer is it an honour to claim to be an American
citizen. This was not so much the act of the Government
or of the people as of the aristocracy, who misrepresented the
Government and the people. The latter were true to liberty
and to the United States, God bless them. This treaty, then,
under which the rendition of this man is demanded, is suspended,
and is a dead letter until this mixed and unsolemn state of
war on the part of British subjects against the Government
ceases. England, to claim this man, must come into Court
with clean hands. She must not come here and ask of us to
honour her justice when she dishonours her own justice, breaks
her treaties, and cries peace and neutrality while at the same
time she lets slip the dogs of war, and with piratical vessels
drives our peaceful commerce from the ocean. This cannot
long continue. Better for us we had war at once, when we
could send out our cruisers and assert our rights of retaliation
on the ocean. The Lines of Decahur are not forgotten, and
we have a Farragut worthy to take the first place in any
contest, where the pride and honour and courage of America

Franz Muller.

is at stake. (Applause.) Leaving the case of his client in the
hands of the Court, he would close.

Inspector Tanner was re-examined as to the height of the
prisoner and his personal appearance, to show that he could
not be one of the two men seen in the compartment of the
railway carriage with Mr. Briggs on the night of the murder.
This ended the case for the defence.

Mr. Marbury, for the British Government, addressed the
Court. He did not think it quite generous or becoming in
him to enter upon a criticism of the speech of the gentleman
who had just spoken, nor would he attempt to follow him
through the wide and discursive range of topics he had intro-
duced into the case. He would even hold himself excused
from the necessity of even as much as adverting to many of
the irrelevant matters which he had dragged into the discussion
of this question. All that was immaterial. With reference
to the treaty under which the accused was claimed, whether
that treaty was faithfully observed or not was not a question
for this Court to determine. That was for the executive
Government to decide ; and when the executive shall have taken
the ground that by reason of the grievances to which counsel
has so eloquently referred, the Ashburton Treaty is of no further
force or effect, it will be time enough for the Courts to follow
the action of the executive, but so long as the Governments of
the two countries regard that treaty as a subsisting treaty,
then it holds its place under the Constitution, next to which
and under which it is the supreme law of the land. It would
be trifling with the time of the Court to pursue this point any
further. The only excuse or apology counsel could possibly
offer for the introduction of such topics must be in the fact that
the case, on its own merits, affords no entertainment to the
audience, which the counsel is always expected to produce when-
ever he appears in Court. This is a very serious and grave busi-
ness for this young man, and, looking upon him, one could
hardly conceive that he perpetrated the dreadful crime with
which he stands charged, and if he could escape from the
evidence of guilt that comes from so many quarters, all con-
verging and pointing to him, he (counsel) would experience
relief from a weighty responsibility. This is not a case for
sickly sentiment or sympathy. If he be really guilty of mur-
dering the venerable man (Mr. Briggs) in the way described,
then his crime is one of the blackest dye, as well as one of
the meanest and most revolting in all its aspects that has ever
been perpetrated. The facts are these : first, the corpus
delicte is fully established. At half-past ten o'clock, 9th July,
1864, Mr. Briggs was seen alive and in perfect health. In
two and a half or three and a half minutes afterwards he lay
moaning and insensible in the 6 -foot way of North London

158

Appendix I.

Railway. The carriage in which he had been riding, and from
which he was thrown, exhibited proofs of a recent bloody
struggle. Several mortal wounds were inflicted upon the de-
ceased, from the effects of which he shortly afterwards died.
Second, the evidence which has been adduced shows clearly and
conclusively that the prisoner is guilty of the murder of Mr.
Briggs, with which he is charged. On Saturday evening, 9th
July, between half-past seven and half-past eight o'clock,
Miiller left the house of Mrs. Repsch, 12£ Jewry Street, Aid-
gate. He did not return that evening to his lodgings, as it
was usual for him to do. On examining the compartment in
which Mr. Briggs had been assaulted and murdered, a hat was
found, made by Mr* T. H. Walker, 44 Crawford Street, Mary-
lebone, London. It was crushed, and had marks of blood
upon it. This hat is proved by the witness Matthews, who
has been examined here, and by Mrs. Repsch, whose depositions
have been taken, to have belonged to Miiller, and to have been
worn by him up to the time of the murder, or nearly so. Mr.
Briggs's hat was taken by the murderer. Miiller, on the 14th
day of July, had on at Mrs. Repsch 's a nearly new hat with a
white silk lining. He told Mrs. Repsch that his old one had
been thrown into a dust hole. When arrested here, a hat is
found stowed away in his box. Mr. Briggs's hat is gone, and
Miiller is found with one in his box. From the person of Mr.
Briggs a gold watch and chain were taken by violence. The
chain is proved distinctly to have been in Miiller's possession
on Monday, the llth of July. On that day it was exchanged
by him at the shop of Mr. Death, 55 Cheapside, London, for
another chain and ring. This other chain was packed in one
of Mr. Death's card boxes and delivered to the prisoner. He
subsequently exhibited this new chain and ring to several
persons. The box with Mr. Death's name and address he
gave to Mr. Matthews' daughter. On the 12th July, 1864
(Tuesday), the prisoner pawned this new chain to Mr. Annis,
121 Minories, and received a pawn ticket therefor. On 13th
July (Wednesday), 1864, the prisoner sold this pawn ticket
to John Haffa, his room mate, for the sum of 12s., which sum
he needed, as he stated, to pay for his passage to America.
On his arrival there he is identified clearly by Mr. Death as
the person who sold him Mr. Briggs's chain. He is also identi-
fied by Matthews as owner of the hat which was found in the
compartment of the railway carriage where Mr. Briggs received
the wounds from the effects of which he died. There is also
found in Miiller 's box a heavy gold watch, made by Archer,
of Hackney, where Mr. Briggs resided. Miiller is not known
to have had any watch of his own. If he had he would prob-
ably have exhibited it, or it would have been seen by Matthews
and other witnesses, to whom he showed the chain and ring,

Franz Muller.

and with whom he was on terms of intimacy. Third, the
evidence is such as would plainly require the commitment of
Muller for trial if the offence had been committed here, and it
results that a certificate leading to his extradition that the case
may undergo an investigation in England should be granted.
Thus was the chain of evidence complete, not a link wanting
to connect the prisoner with the commission of the crime with
which he stands charged.

Commissioner Newton then proceeded to deliver the decision
of the Court. Having complimented the counsel assigned for
the defence for the able manner in which they had advocated
the cause of their client, he said — " I am not at loss to see,
after carefully looking down the testimony, and weighing it in
my mind, that there is sufficient testimony for me, sitting in
the capacity of a committing magistrate, to commit this man
to a trial. My simple duty is to determine whether there is
sufficient probable cause, from the evidence that has been pro-
duced to that effect, which would cause me to remand him,
that he may have an opportunity to "Be tried at the place where
the crime was committed, and there proving his innocence, or,
being found guilty, to be punished for his crime. It is not
necessary for me to determine absolutely that he is guilty of
the crime. The fact to determine is, has a crime been com-
mitted? If it has been committed, is there probable cause from
the evidence to show that the party accused is the party who
has committed the crime? Now, it appears to my mind,
looking at it in the light of probable cause, that my duty is
very simple and very plain. I do not desire to sit in judg-
ment upon this man ; far be it from me. I wish it was in my
power to discover any evidence or trace of innocence to justify
me to withhold the certificate of extradition. But I am free
to say that, from all the combined circumstances, the chain
which seems to have been linked around this man points fatally
to him as the guilty man. So clear and distinct is the question
of probable cause that I cannot for one moment have a doubt
as to the proper course to pursue. Under these circumstances
I am constrained to grant the certificate, and the prisoner
therefore stands committed."

The prisoner was then removed.

1*0

Appendix II.

APPENDIX II.

MEMORIAL PRESENTED BY THE GERMAN LEGAJL PROTECTION SOCIETY.

(From The Time*, Friday, llth November, 1864.)

Yesterday afternoon, at half-past one o'clock, a deputation
from the German Legal Protection Society, consisting of Dr.
Juch and Mr. Berndas, accompanied by Mr. Beard, the solicitor
for the defence, proceeded to the Home Office, and presented
to Mr. Everest the following memorial which, after various
meetings of that society, was recently adopted in Miiller's
behalf. The deputation read the heads of the memorial,
which prayed for a respite of the sentence of death passed upon
the convict. Mr. Everest, after hearing the deputation, stated
that the memorial would be forwarded by the post of that
evening to Sir George Grey, who is at present at Falloden, and
that an answer could not possibly be received from him before
Saturday morning, but that the moment it came to hand a
copy of it should be forwarded to Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard
handed in a letter to Sir George Grey, which he requested
might accompany the memorial, and in which he requested the
immediate attention of the Home Secretary to this urgent
matter of life and death. Mr. Everest promised to forward
Mr. Beard's letter, and the interview, which lasted only a
very few minutes, terminated. The memorial is as follows: —

" Franz Muller, a German, was convicted at the Central
Criminal Court on Saturday, the 29th day of October, of the
murder of Mr. Briggs in a first-class railway carriage on the
night of the 9th of July last. The evidence against him was
circumstantial. It was sworn that on the Monday following
the murder he exchanged, at the shop of Mr. Death, a silver-
smith in Cheapside, a gold watch-chain, which was proved to
be the property of the murdered man, and that he received a
new chain for it. This last-named chain was packed in a
small case, which was given by Muller on the same day to
the daughter of one Matthews, a cabman, with whom Muller
was on intimate terms. On the 13th of July Muller redeemed
a watch and chain which he had in pawn, and re-pawned them
at a different place for £4 ; he gave his own name (Muller)
when he did BO."

(Then follows a brief summary of the evidence against
Muller ; and in the succeeding paragraphs the evidence in his
favour, such as was adduced at the trial, and all the points
touched upon in Serjeant Parry's speech for the defence are
gone into at some length. With respect to the alibi, it is
M 161

Franz Muller.

again argued in the memorial that Muller could not possibly
have returned from Camberwell in time to leave Fenchurch
Street station by the same train as Mr. Briggs. The state-
ments of Matthews, his wife, and Mrs. Repsch are called into
question, and a hint is thrown out that they might have been
induced to swear as they did for the sake of participating in
the promised reward. It is also asked why Muller should
be condemned because he could not tell what became of his
old hat, while Matthews is in equal ignorance of what has
become of his. The memorial then goes on — )

" One of the most singular circumstances in this case is that
these two men should have hats so nearly alike. Muller
positively declares that he bought at Mr. Digance's the hat
which is said to be that of Mr. Briggs, and he gives the very
dates, that is between the 14th and 20th of May last. It may
be said that it was too expensive; but Muller was a man who
spent a great deal in personal decoration. He asserts that
after he bought it he was rallied upon it as being too tall for
him, and that this was the reason he cut it down. He asserts
most positively that the Repsches saw him cut it down, and
when he was ironing it Repsch advised him to wet his rag, as
hatters did. He described to a member of the committee the
appearance of the shopman at Mr. Digance's, from whom he
bought it. Two of the committee went to Digance's and saw
that shopman; his description corresponded exactly with that
given by Muller. Mr. Digance himself was questioned about
the sale of such a hat, and was politely asked to let his day-
book for May be seen ; but he refused to give any information,
nor would he let his day-book be examined, nor would he permit
his assistant to give information, stating as his reason that
Muller was a murderer. Now, if it could be proved that this
hat was really purchased by Muller at Mr. Digance's, the
case for the prosecution would be greatly weakened, if not
wholly destroyed. Muller asserts that it can. It is not
unreasonable, therefore, to ask only for a respite that this
matter may be inquired into.

" Muller asserts that he went to the docks on the Monday
morning, the 1 1th of July ; that a pedlar, whose face was well
known to persons employed there, offered him the watch and
chain, near where the ships lay ; that he then had his passage
money in his pocket (as Haffa says) ; the price which the
pedlar asked was £6, but Muller did not feel disposed to give
more than £4, which he offered. The pedlar refused, and
they parted. In about half a minute it occurred to Muller
that as the pedlar refused £4 for the chain and watch they
must be worth more, and that he could make a good bargain.
He returned, and offered him three half-crowns additional, which
were at once accepted. Muller left the docks, and when
crossing Tower Hill he doubted the genuineness of his purchase
162

Appendix II.

— he thought that they were only gilt and worthless, and he
went to Mr. Death's to propose an exchange of chains for the
purpose of discovering whether the newly acquired property
was gold or base. Discovering that it was gold, he resolved
to part with the chain and keep the watch in place of his own,
which was in pawn. His vanity made him state a falsehood
as to the chain and ring, that they were presents from his
father, as he also falsely stated that Mr. Hodgkinson was send-
ing him to New York at £150 a year, and, as he pretended
there, that he had had the watch two years.

" The latter statement, it is suggested, was that of a man
who had become convinced during the voyage that the watch
purchased from the pedlar had been got under doubtful cir-
cumstances, and he probably was under great embarrassment
about it when apprehended. Had he known that the chain was
that of Mr. Briggs, it is incredible that he would have given
the box which he received from Mr. Death to Matthews' child
as a plaything, for he must have been guiltily suspicious that
that box would be identified and traced to him.

" Jacob Weist, porter at Mr. White's, proved at the trial
that he had seen Muller several times at the London Docks. He
now adds that three or four days before Muller sailed he saw
him there one morning. Weist was not at the docks on either
Saturday or Tuesday, and therefore he believes that it was on
the Monday morning before he sailed he saw Muller.

" There are declarations that the pedlar described was in
the habit of frequenting the docks, and that he ceased to do
so about the period when the police were engaged in the
discovery of the murderer.

" Muller describes the pedlar who sold him the watch and
chain as being a man of middle size ; he had a lean face, with
prominent cheekbones, brown whiskers, and shaved clean ; he
had a little scar on the lip. He wore a Melton morning coat.
This, as nearly as possible, corresponds with the description
of the missing man. This pedlar has since been discovered.
He admits that he sold a gold chain and a watch about July
to a person in the docks, but he asserts that the watch was
silver. It is submitted that this last assertion cannot be
wholly relied upon, and that the coincidence is so extraordinary
that Muller at New York should have asserted this fact, and
that it should be discovered to be true in the most material
particulars, that a respite of Muller is imperatively demanded
by the exigencies of public justice for a more full investigation
as to where the pedlar got these articles, and what he subse-
quently did with them. It was from Muller's description of
him solely that he was traced out and discovered.

" The passage money had exhausted Miiller's finances. He
sold his coat and trousers on the voyage, and had 12s. in his
pocket when apprehended. This accounts for the non-pro-

163

Franz Muller.

duction of his clothing, which was made so much of at the
trial. It is certain that he was so reduced in his finances
when he was about to leave London that he could not have
paid his passage money had he not pledged his coat for 6s.,
before mentioned. No person who went out in the ship
could prove that Muller had cut down the hat during the
voyage. It was proved to have been ironed after it was
cut down. If he borrowed an iron on board ship, the fact
should have been proved. It is unlikely in the extreme
that he did so on the Sunday, as Mr. and Mrs. Blyth declare
that he was with them all that day, and they both unite
in speaking that they did not notice him with a new hat.
Mrs. Blyth positively avers that from the time when Muller
entered her lodging until he left she never saw but one hat
with him; the prosecutor did not venture to put into her
hand at the trial either of the hats which were supposed to
prove Muller's guilt. The truth is, the hat was cut down
soon after he bought it, and it was cut before he went to
lodge with Blyth.

" In the absence of direct evidence, while the indirect
evidence is of a doubtful or suspicious nature, Muller's char-
acter should be thrown into the scale; his demeanour since
his arrest, and even since his condemnation, has been that
of a man who is not guilty of the crime of murder ; and his
whole previous career is as much at variance with the perpe-
tration of the crime as his physical and nervous temperament
renders him apparently incapable of it.

"It is not reasonable to suppose that a man who had
committed a murder of this terrible description, when the
hue and cry was raised all through London, would be coolly
walking about the streets and would openly exhibit his newly
acquired hat and chain and ring which he knew to be con-
nected with the crime. Would he dispose of the chain to a
respectable dealer, where he would be most likely to be detected?
Would he not rather sell it in some haunt of thieves? Would
he openly declare his intention to leave the country, and tell
all his friends the name of the ship he was going in, while
he took his passage in his own name? His natural cheerful-
ness and kindliness of temper never were seen to change,
though, if he had been guilty, it is impossible but that he
must have exhibited some agitation, some traces of inward
or external excitement and alarm. Yet none was ever seen.

"If it be conceded — and it was virtually conceded at the
trial — that Muller was at Jones's at all that evening, the
dates conclusively show that he could not be at Fenchurch
Street at 9.50. He parted with Haffa at Jewry Street,
Minories, not before 7.45. This was ten minutes' walk from
Gracechurch Street, and he could only catch the eight o'clock
164

Appendix II.

omnibus to Camberwell Gate. It takes twenty-five minutes
to ride from Gracechurch Street to Camberwell Gate; and
to walk thence to Vassal Road at a moderate pace by a lame
man with a slipper could hardly be done in twenty-five minutes ;
that takes us to 8.50. It is in evidence that he stayed five
or ten minutes. Assume that he left Jones's about nine, he
would arrive at Camberwell Gate at 9.25 or 9.30. He could
not arrive there for an earlier omnibus certainly than 9.45.
This would bring him to Gracechurch Street about 9.50.
Thence to Fenchurch Street is about five minutes, making it
9.55; but the evidence conclusively showed that the 9.45
train, a few minutes behind its time, started at 9.50. On
the whole, it is improbable that he could have caught all
those omnibuses and trains at the exact moment when he
wanted them, and that he could have made so well-timed a
race to commit murder. Muller positively declares that he
was the passenger in the slipper who left Camberwell Gate
in the omnibus at 9.55.

" The Lord Chief Baron told the jury as follows upon this
point (The Times, 31st October): — 'Between seven and eight
o'clock the prisoner was at Repsch's; he then left, taking
his boots with him, saying he was going to Camberwell.
There was plenty of time for him to have gone to Camberwell
and to have returned.' It is submitted that on the figures
just quoted this direction of the learned judge was too un-
qualified. Those figures are all absolute, and, being so,
they demonstrate that the judge was mistaken in asserting
that 'there was plenty of time.'

" At the coroner's inquest the following important evidence
was given by Townsend, a ticket porter at Hackney Wick
station, who collected the tickets in the train in which Mr.
Briggs had travelled. He said, ' We keep the doors locked
till the tickets are collected. I remember that a man was
very anxious to leave the platform and went into the porters'
room, thinking that was the way down. He seemed very
impatient, and said, on being told that the door would be

opened in a moment, " D the door, it ought to have been

opened before," and he added that he would report me. I
should know him again. The station is on an embankment.
We have rather a rough lot there at times.' Muller was
shown to this witness, but he could not identify him as the
man. Like Mr. Lee, he was not called by the Crown. It
is submitted that this is very remarkable evidence when taken
in connection with what Mr. Lee swore, and that this was
probably one of the two men seen by him in the carriage with
Mr. Briggs. The other may have escaped down the embank
ment, which is steep, and not traversable by a man who
limped, as Muller did on that night. Observe, also, that

165

Franz Muller.

this man, whoever he was, has never come forward to explain
his remarkable conduct that night. Yet the inquest was held
so long ago as the 19th of July last, and the coroner might
have discovered him if he were guiltless.

" A similar observation occurs as to the two persons seen by
Mr. Lee. As it is impossible to assume that he has wilfully
perjured himself, how is it that neither of these persons has
ever come forward? Their concealment of themselves can
be accounted for only on the supposition that they possess a
guilty secret, and that they were, in fact, the murderers of
Mr. Briggs. It is absurd to believe all that Matthews says
and to disbelieve all that Mr. Lee swears.

" A witness named declares that on the night

of the murder, some time after ten o'clock, he lost his way
going to Hackney Wick station, and found himself in Wallace
Road, near the canal, at a place about 100 or 150 yards from
where Mr. Briggs was found. He saw a man who appeared
stunned or drunk, and whose face, hands, and clothing were
covered with blood; another person, who appeared to be a
workman, and who was there, remarked that the man had
either been attacked or had done some murder. The man
went in the direction of the canal. It is suggested that this
was the second man who sat in the railway carriage; that in
the struggle with Mr. Briggs both rolled out of the carriage
together; that this man escaped, and made towards the canal
for the purpose of cleaning himself, while his companion rode
on to the station, and naturally expressed impatient anxiety,
and perhaps alarm, at finding the door closed, which he could
not fail to feel under the circumstances that surrounded him.

" F M declares that about eleven o'clock on the

same night a man, in a very excited manner, offered him a
heavy gold old-fashioned watch for <£!. His hair was dark;

he had an alpaca coat and dark trousers. F M 'a

wife was with him, and she says she thinks she would know

the watch again. F M refused to buy the watch.

He gave information to the police a day or two after, yet the

police never showed Briggs's watch to F M 's wife.

This took place at Street, St. George's-in-the-East, and

if the man who exhibited impatience at Hackney to get away
from the station was the person who offered the watch to

F M , he could easily have got from the station to the

place where F M met him. A circumstance so

pointedly singular as this demands a rigid and immediate
inquiry.

" It was not shown that Muller was in any way acquainted
with this particular railway line; it was never suggested that
the murder was premeditated by him; yet it is supposed that
this poor tailor got into a first-class carriage with the chance
present to his mind of his being able to kill or rob somebody
166

Appendix II.

IL a minute or two, ready armed and prepared with a deadly
instrument. Such an hypothesis is fallacious. All hia ante-
cedents negative the idea. It is more likely that Briggs, the
baak clerk, was known and followed by some London thieves,
who had watched for him and premeditated the murder, and
who certainly tried his leathern bag before they decamped,
for blood was found on its handle."

(The report recently put into circulation of Mr. Poole, at
Edmonton, having a pair of trousers stained with blood thrown
at his window, on the morning of 10th July, is then men-
tioned, and a letter on the subject, signed " John Bennett,"
wiich appeared in a contemporary, is reproduced. The
memorial then proceeds — )

" If Muller were one of the two men seen in the railway
carriage — though Mr. Lee declares that he was not — it is hard
tc conceive how he could have been found in possession of
the whole of the property, as he would have had to share it
with his confederate. It is more probable that he pur-
chased it all from one of these men, or from a Jew accomplice
of theirs afterwards, under circumstances that, when he came
to reflect upon them, excited his own suspicions.

" The persons who proved an alibi had no interest whatever
in the acquittal of Muller. The full details of this alibi were
known in London to those interested in his defence long before
he was apprehended in New York.

" It was clear also that Muller was found guilty because he
was proved to be connected with circumstances so suspicious
that it was difficult to believe such circumstances could be con-
sistent with innocence. But it is submitted that this is not
a fair way of arriving at a conclusion so momentous, because
there are many circumstances of the greatest weight connected
with his case equally indicative of his innocence ; in other
words, there are nearly as great difficulties in arriving at a
conclusion of Miiller's guilt as there are in concluding that
he is wholly innocent. Instance the following: — The
physical improbability and almost impossibility that a slight
young man, destitute of any large amount of strength, and,
to some extent, disabled of the use of one limb, could in the
space of two or three minutes overpower and throw out of the
carriage a man so much larger, heavier, and more powerful;
the same man not having been asleep, nor likely to be so in
the short interval between his getting into the carriage and
speaking to Mr. Lee and the moment when he was attacked.
There must have been a desperate and deadly struggle — body to
body ; the number of the wounds and their position, and the
heaving out of the body, would indicate more than one assailant ;
and Muller was not shown to have ever possessed such an
instrument as would have inflicted the wounds found on Mr.
Briggs.

167

Franz Muller.

" The Lord Chief Baron in his summing up to the jury inti-
mated that Sunday was a dies non — a most unlikely day for
the murderer, supposing him to be another than Muller, to
dispose of the watch and chain to a third party. It is sub-
mitted that Sunday is, of all others, the very day most likeiy ;
it is the well-known market day of the Petticoat Lane thieves
and dealers.

" The Lord Chief Baron likewise told the jury that it -was
not required of them in finding a verdict of guilty agaiist
Muller that they should have no doubt of his guilt, but tley
should have the same degree of certainty which they required
in their own most important affairs. Now, this direction being
addressed to men of business, they would naturally take tie
analogy of business matters as their standard. Yet ye see
every day that men embarking in the most important commer-
cial transactions require only a slight preponderance of probt-
bilities of success to justify them in doing so and runniig
the greatest hazards ; and hence the vast number of ruined
speculators, who, nevertheless, are usually men of sound judg-
ment and well accustomed to mercantile contingencies. Ic
is submitted, therefore, that such a test is calculated to mis-
lead ; and that it was intended by Lord Tenterden, on whose
authority it was cited, rather for civil than criminal investi-
gation.

" No imputation is intended to be conveyed on the finding
of the jury, who, on the imperfect facts presented to them on
Muller' s behalf, could have probably arrived at no other ver-
dict than that which they did. Muller himself, after con-
demnation, said, ' I should like to say something. I am, at all
events, satisfied with the sentence which your lordship has
passed, for I know very well it is that which the law of the
country prescribes. I have not been convicted on a true
statement of the facts, but on a false statement.' This may
be taken as strong a protestation of innocence as a foreigner
knowing little of the English language could make ; and it
was a rejoinder to the judge, who said it was the sentence of
the law, and not of the Court. But Muller was condemned by
public opinion long before he was brought to England at all,
in the same way as, but in a stronger degree than, Dr. Smet-
hurst was.* This gentleman was convicted of poisoning before

* Dr. T. Smethurst was convicted and sentenced to death at the Central
Criminal Court before Lord Chief Baron Pollock on 19th August, 1859, for
the murder by poisoning of Isabella Bankes. Serjeant Ballantine con
ducted the prosecution, and Serjeant Parry the defence. The verdict was
set aside by the Home Secretary on the ground of insufficient evidence of
guilt, and three months later Smethurst was sentenced by Baron Bramwell
to one year's hard labour for bigamy. A clear and impartial account of
the case will be found in volume iii. of Sir James Stephen's " History
of the Criminal Law."

1 68

N ">

0 V

Appendix III.

the Lord Chief Baron, who expressed himself satisfied with
the verdict, and gave him no hope ; yet, when, on a memorial
like this, he was respited, the accusation was found to be
false, and no one ever since doubted that he was wrongfully
convicted of the crime for which he was adjudged to death.
It is confidently hoped that a similar result would follow the
respite prayed for in this case."

The Times, llth November, 1864.
(To the Editor of The Times.)

" Sir, — The committee of the German Legal Protection
Society begg the powerful aid of your journal in making
known to the English public the fact that their committee
will sit en permanence at Seyd's Hotel, Finsbury Square, until
the answer to their memorial has been received from the Secre-
tary of State. The committee are stimulated to make this
special appeal by the circumstance that important evidence,
as tending, as they believe, to exonerate their countryman has
presented itself almost at the last moment before the presenta-
tion of their memorial. In the belief that other persons may
recall circumstances bearing on their task connected with the
evening of Saturday, the 9th of July, the committee earnestly
entreat all such persons to communicate with them at once
at Seyd's Hotel, where members of the German committee
will always be present and anxious to receive communications.
" I am, Sir, yours obediently,

" ADOLPH OPPLER,

"Hon. Sec., Deutscher Rechtsschutz-Verein
" (German Legal Protection Society) in London.

"November 10."

APPENDIX III.

(AN ACCOUNT OF THE EXECUTION OP MULLER.)

(From The Times, 15th November, 1864.)

Yesterday morning Muller was hanged in front of Newgate.
He died before such a concourse as we hope may never be
again assembled, either for the spectacle which they had in
view or for the gratification of such lawless ruffianism as yes-

169

Franz Muller.

terday found its scope around the gallows. While he stood
firm on the scaffold as the hangman turned the last bolts
beneath his feet, Muller, with his last words, owned his guilt.
His quiet and almost instantaneous death cut short what might
have been a full confession. The mere details, however,
matter not; enough at least was disclosed to show that the
sentence of mankind was right. In the quiet, earnest words
with which Muller bowed his head and said, " Ich habe es
gethan " (I did it), and so, in speaking, went before his God,
he told enough to vindicate man's justice; and in his late
repentance left those who saw him die to hope more than
justice for him in the world to come. Whether the scene
amid which the guilty man at last faltered out the late ad-
mission of his crime was one in which any human being
should have passed away is another question. The gallows
as a moraliser is at the best a rough one. It is not as a general
rule supposed to address the educated and refined, but to
preach its bitter lesson to the hordes of lesser criminals it
draws round it to see a greater criminal die. Viewed from
this aspect, and only as a solemn warning and example, it is
to be wished that this last and saddest offering to man's
justice could have been made less hideous than it was yesterday.
A great crowd was expected round the gallows, and, indeed,
a great crowd came. The barriers to check the crowd were
begun across all the main streets which lead to Newgate as
early as on Friday last, and all through Friday night, and on
Saturday and Sunday, a dismal crowd of dirty vagrants kept
hovering around them. These groups, however, were not
composed of the real regular habitues of the gallows, but of
mere young beginners, whose immature tastes were satisfied
with cat-calls in the dark, fondling the barriers, or at most
a hurried scrambling throw of dirt at the police when they
dispersed them. It was, however, different on Sunday night.
During the early part of the evening there was a crowd as
much of loungers as of drunken men, which stood the miser-
able drizzle with tolerable patience, while the public-houses
were open and flared brightly through the mist. But at
eleven o'clock a voluntary weeding of the throng commenced.
The greater part of the rough mass moved off, leaving the
regular execution crowd to take their early places. For a
little time there seemed something which was not alone con-
fusion but indecision in the throng, till the dirty chaos settled
itself down at last, and while noisy groups went whooping
and wrangling away, a thick, dark, noisy fringe of men and
women settled like bees around the nearest barriers, and
gradually obliterated their close white lines from view. It
was a clear, bright moonlight night. Yet though all could
see and well be seen, it was impossible to tell who formed the
170

Appendix III.

staple part of this crowd that gathered there so early. There
were well dressed and ill dressed, old men and lads, women
and girls. Many had jars of beer ; at least half were smoking,
and the lighting of fusees was constant, though not more
constant than the cries and laughter, as all who lit them sent
them whirling and blazing over the heads into the thicker
crowd behind. Occasionally as the rain, which fell heavily
at intervals, came down very fast, there was a thinning of the
fringe about the beams, but, on the whole, they stood it out
very steadily, and formed a thick dark ridge round the
enclosure kept before the Debtors' door, where Muller was
to die. This was at one o'clock, when the moon was bright
and the night very clear indeed, and everything could
be seen distinctly. Newgate was black enough in its blind
massiveness, except at one little point high over the walls,
where one window in the new wing showed a little gleam
of light, to which it seemed the crowd was never tired of
pointing as the spot where Muller lay in his condemned cell.
Truly enough, it had been known outside where he was kept,
and this miserable flicker in the black outline of the great
gaol, which only marked one wide division of its wards where
Muller was imprisoned, became the centre of all eyes, or at
least of very many. That all were not so occupied in gazing
was at least to be surmised, for every now and then came
a peculiar sound, sometimes followed by the noise of struggling,
almost always by shouts of laughter, and now and then a
cry of " Hedge." What this meant none then knew from
merely looking out upon the dismal crowd, which seemed to
writhe and crawl among themselves. As day dawned, how-
ever, all lookers-on understood it better. It is very cheap
morality to go to the " ring's " side and proclaim the brutality
of prize fights, or from beneath the gallows tree to preach
forth upon the demoralising effect of public executions; but
still the truth is the truth, and how the mob of yesterday
behaved must be told. As we have said, as the showers came
more or less heavily, so the crowd thinned or thickened in
its numbers; but there was always enough to mark, like the
lines of a massive grave, where the drop was to be brought
in. From its great quadrangle the sightseers never moved,
but from hour to hour, almost from minute to minute, grew
noisier, dirtier, and more dense. Till three o'clock it was
one long revelry of songs and laughter, shouting, and often
quarrelling, though, to do them more justice, there was at
least till then a half -drunken, ribald gaiety among the crowd
that made them all akin. Until about three o'clock not more
than some four thousand, or at the most five thousand, were
assembled, and over all the rest of the wide space the white,
unoccupied barriers showed up like a network of bones above

Franz Muller.

the mud. But about three the workmen came to finish the
last barriers, after the scaffold had been carried to the Debtors'
door, and from that time the throng rapidly increased in
numbers. Some one attempted to preach in the midst of the
crowd, but his voice was soon drowned amid much laughter.
Then there was another lull, not, indeed, of quiet, but
at least a lull from any pre-eminent attempt at noise,
though every now and then it was broken by that
inexplicable sound like a dull blow, followed as before
always by laughing, sometimes by fighting. Then, again,
another man, stronger in voice, and more conversant with
those he had to plead before, began the old familiar hymn
of " The Promised Land." For a little time this man sang
alone, but at last he was joined by a few others, when
another and apparently more popular voice gave out some
couplet in which at once, and as if by magic, the crowd joined
with the chorus of —

"Oh, my,
Think, I've got to die,"

till this again was substituted by the song of
"Muller, Muller,
He's the man."

All these vocal efforts, however, were cut short by the dull
rumbling sound which, amid cheers, shouts, whooping, clapping
of hands, hisses, and cries of " Why wasn't it brought out
for Townley?"* heralded the arrival of the dirty old gallows.
This was, for the time, a great diversion, and the crowd
cheered or hissed in parts, or as the humour took them, while
the horses were removed, and the rumbling black box was
worked back slowly and with difficulty against the door of the
gaol. The shouts and obscene remarks which were uttered
as the two upright posts were lifted into their places were bad
enough, but they were trifles as compared with the comments
which followed the slow efforts of the two labourers to get
the cross beam into its place. At last this was finished,
and then, amid such yells as only such sightseers, and so
disappointed, could give vent to, a strong force of police filed
in and took their places, doubly lining the enclosure round
the drop, right before the foremost of the crowd who had
kept their places through wet and dry since Sunday night.

* George Victor Townley was sentenced to death by Baron Martin at the
Derby Assizes on 12th December, 1863, for the murder of Miss Goodman
from motives of jealousy. He was respited on the suggestion that he was
insane, but, on further inquiry, was found not to be insane, and his
sentence commuted to one of penal servitude for life. There is a pub-
lished report of his trial and an account of it in the " Annual Register"
for 1863.

172

Appendix III.

Then, as every minute the day broke more and more clear,
the crowd could be seen in all the horrible reality in which
it had been heard throughout the long, wet night. All the
wide space in front of Newgate was packed with masses within
the barriers, and kept swaying to and fro in little patches,
while beyond these again, out to St. Sepulchre's and down
towards Ludgate Hill, the mob had gathered and was gather-
ing fast. Among the throng were very few women; and
even these were generally of the lowest and poorest class, and
almost as abandoned in behaviour as their few better-dressed
exceptions. The rest of the crowd was, as a rule, made up
of young men, but such young men as only such a scene
could bring together — sharpers, thieves, gamblers, betting
men, the outsiders of the boxing ring, bricklayers' labourers,
dock workmen, German artisans, and sugar bakers, with a
fair sprinkling of what may be called as low a grade as any
of the worst there met — the rakings of the cheap singing halls
and billiard rooms, the fast young " gents " of London. But
all, whether young or old, seemed to know nothing, fear
nothing, to have no object but the gallows, and to laugh,
curse, or shout, as in this heaving and struggling forward
they gained or lost in their strong efforts to get nearer to
where Muller was to die. Far up even into Smithfield the
keen, white faces rose rank above rank, till even where the
houses were shrouded in the thick mist of the early dawn,
the course of streets could be traced by the gleam of the faces
alone, and all, from first to last, from nearest to furthest,
were clamouring, shouting, and struggling with each other to
get as near the gibbet as the steaming mass of human beings
before them would allow. Then, and then only, as the sun
rose clearer did the mysterious, dull sound, so often men-
tioned, explain itself with all its noises of laughter and of
fighting. It was literally and absolutely nothing more than
the sound caused by knocking the hats over the eyes of those
well-dressed persons who had ventured among the crowd,
and, while so " bonneted," stripping them and robbing them
of everything. None but those who looked down upon the
awful crowd of yesterday will ever believe in the wholesale,
open, broadcast manner in which garrotting and highway
robbery were carried on. We do not now speak of those whom
the mere wanton mischief of the crowd led to " bonnet " as
they passed, or else to pluck their hats off their heads and toss
them over the mob, amid roars and shouts of laughter, as
they came from all sides and went in all directions, till some-
times even they fell within the enclosure round the drop, and
were kicked under the gallows by the police. The propriety
of such an amusement at such a time admits of question, to
say the least, even among such an audience. But even then

Franz Muller.

rough play sinks into harmlessness beside the open robbery
and violence which yesterday morning had its way virtually
unchecked in Newgate Street. There were regular gangs,
not so much in the crowd itself within the barriers as along
the avenues which led to them, and these vagrants openly
stopped, " bonneted," and sometimes garrotted, and always
plundered any person whose dress led them to think him worth
the trouble; the risk was nothing. Sometimes their victims
made a desperate resistance, and for a few minutes kept the
crowd around them violently swaying to and fro amid the
dreadful uproar. In no instance, however, could we ascertain
that " police " was ever called. Indeed, one of the solitary
instances in which they interfered at all was where their aid
was sought from some houses, the occupants of which saw
an old farmer who, after a long and gallant struggle with his
many assailants, seemed, after having been robbed, to be in
danger of serious injury as well. This, however, about the farmer
is a mere episode ; the rule was such robbing and ill-treatment
as made the victims only too glad to fly far from the spot
where they had suffered it, and who, if even they ventured on
giving any information to the police, could hope for no redress
in such a crowd. Such were the open pastimes of the mob
from daylight till near the hour of execution, when the great
space around the prison seemed choked with its vast multitude.
Latterly nearly fifty thousand people were crammed between
the walls of this wide thoroughfare. Wherever the eye could
rest it found the same dim monotony of pale but dirty faces,
which seemed to waver as the steam of the hot crowd rose high.
At last, when it was near towards eight o'clock, there came
shouts of " hats off," and the whole mass commenced, amid
cries and struggles, to wriggle to and fro as the bell of New-
gate began to toll, not as on Sunday inside the prison, loud
upon the ear of the fast dying man, but with a muffled and
foggy boom that never would have quieted the yells of that
fierce mob, but that they somehow seemed to yearn and listen
always for any token of the last scene yet to come.

Inside the prison, meanwhile, the scene had been very
different. On Sunday evening, about ten o'clock, Mr. Sheriff
Dakin paid a last visit to the prisoner in his cell, and before
leaving he again exhorted him with much kindness and earnest-
ness, as he had done on previous occasions since his conviction,
not to leave the world with a lie in his mouth if he was really
guilty. Laying his hand upon a Bible which the convict had
been reading, Mr. Dakin reminded him that the promises of
forgiveness it contained all assumed repentance and confession.
Muller listened kindly to the adjurations of the Sheriff, but
made no response. After Mr. Dakin had gone the convict
remarked to one of the warders placed over him that man

174

Appendix III.

had no power to forgive sins, and that it was of no use con-
fessing to him. In this state of mind he denied the crime
almost to the very last. He retired to rest at half-past ten,
and slept soundly for about four hours, but was anxious and
uneasy during the remainder of the night. He rose at six
o'clock and dressed. Shortly afterwards Dr. Louis Cappel,
minister of the German Lutheran Chapel in Alie Street, Good-
man's Fields, joined the convict in his cell, and remained with
him until the last. The interval was chiefly spent in religious
exercises, and as the hour fixed for the execution drew near
Dr. Cappel administered the sacrament to him, having first
received from the prisoner an assurance that he was innocent.
During the interview, which lasted nearly two hours, the con-
vict frequently clung to him and embraced him, observing,
with tears in his eyes, that he was the only friend he had then
in the world, and expressing his fervent gratitude for all the
kindness that he had shown him. About half-past seven
o'clock the Sheriffs of London, Mr. Alderman Dakin and Mr.
Alderman Besley, with the Under-Sheriffs, Mr. Septimus David-
son and Mr. De Jersey, went from the London Coffee-house, in
Ludgate Hill, where they had passed the night, to the Court-
house of the Old Bailey, where they remained until a quarter
to eight. There they were met by Mr. Jonas, the governor
of Newgate, and by Mr. Gibson, the prison surgeon, and,
forming themselves into a procession, the authorities passed
from the sessions-house to the gaol. The way lay through
a series of gloomy passages, some of them subterranean and
dimly lighted, and over the graves of malefactors who had
been buried there during the last thirty years. Emerging
at length into an open courtyard within the precincts of the
prison, they paused for a few moments, until a door at the
further end of the courtyard was unexpectedly opened and
Miiller presented himself, attended by a single warder, on
the way from his cell to the scaffold. He was pale, but
quite calm and collected, he walked with a somewhat measured
pace, with his hands clasped in front of him and looking
upward, with a touching expression of countenance. He was
dressed with scrupulous care in the clothes which he wore on
his trial. Since then he had improved much in appearance,
and upon the whole he was a comely-looking young man.
Without the slightest touch of bravado his demeanour at this
time was quiet and self-possessed in a remarkable degree.
From the courtyard he passed with his attendant into the
press room, followed by the authorities. There he submitted
himself to the executioner, and underwent the process of
pinioning with unfaltering courage. While all about him
were visibly touched, not a muscle in his face moved, and he
showed no sign of emotion. At this trying moment Dr.

175

Franz Muller.

Cappel approached and endeavoured to sustain him again and
again. Repeating in a docile and affectionate manner words
which the reverend gentleman put into his mouth, the convict
more than once said, "Christ, the Lamb of God, have mercy
upon me." Dr. Cappel repeatedly turned an anxious look
first on the prisoner and then on those about him, as if he
felt that all his efforts to induce him to confess if he was
really guilty were about to be unavailing. As the executioner
was removing his neckerchief and shirt collar, on the arrange-
ment of which some care had evidently been bestowed, the
convict moved his head about to allow of that being done the
more easily, and when these little articles of personal adorn-
ment were stuffed within the breast of his coat he remained
callous and unmoved. The process of pinioning over, Mr.
Jonas, the governor, approached the convict and asked him to
take a seat, but he declined the offer, and remained standing
until the prison bell summoned him to his doom. As he
remained in that attitude one could not help being struck with
the appearance of physical strength which his figure denoted,
and still more with his indomitable fortitude. Though short
in stature, he was compactly and symmetrically made, and there
were manifest indications of strength about his chest, arms,
hands, and the back part of his neck in particular. A signal
having been given by the governor, the prisoner was escorted
by the Sheriffs and Under-Sheriffs to the foot of the scaffold,
the Eev. Mr. Davis, the ordinary, leading the way, and reading
as he went some of the opening verses of the burial service.

At the little porch leading to the gallows the Sheriffs and
officers stopped. Dr. Cappel alone ascended it with the
guilty man. The clergymen at once took their places on the
line of sawdust, which had been laid to mark the outline of
the drop which falls, and which without such a signal to denote
its situation, might easily have been overlooked in the dusky
black of the whole well-worn apparatus. Close after them,
with a light, natural step, came Muller. His arms were
pinioned close behind him; his face was very pale indeed,
but still it wore an easy and, if it could be said at such a
time, even a cheerful expression, as much removed from mere
bravado as it seemed to be from fear. His whole bearing and
aspect were natural. Like a soldier falling into the ranks, he
took with a steady step his place beneath the beam, then,
looking up, and seeing that he was not exactly beneath the
proper spot whence the short, black link of chain depended,
he shifted a few inches, and then stood quite still. Following
him close came the common hangman, who at once pulling a
white cap over the condemned man's face, fastened his feet
with a strap, and shambled off the scaffold amid low hisses.
While this was being done Dr. Cappel, addressing the djing
176

Appendix III.

man, said, " In a few moments, Miiller, you will stand before
God; I ask you again, and for the last time, are you guilty
or innocent?" He replied, "I am innocent." Dr. Cappel
said, "You are innocent?" repeating his own words in the
form of a question. Miiller answered, " God Almighty knows
what I have done." Dr. Cappel said, " God Almighty knows
what you have done?" again repeating the convict's own
words; "Does God know that you have done this particular
deed? " Miiller replied, " Yes ; I did it," speaking in German,
in which language the whole conversation was conducted. The
German expression used by the convict, according to his con-
fessor, was " Ich habe es gethan " ; and these were his last
words. Almost as soon as these words had left his lips his
kind spiritual guides quitted the platform, and the drop fell.
Those who stood close to the apparatus could just detect a
movement twice, so slight, indeed, that it could scarcely be
called a movement, but rather an almost imperceptible muscu-
lar flicker that passed through the frame. This was all, and
before the peculiar humming noise of the crowd was over
Muller had ceased to live, though as he hung his features
seemed to swell and sharpen so under the thin white cap that
the dead man's face at last stood out like a cast in plaster.
For five or ten minutes the crowd, who knew nothing of his
confession, were awed and stilled by this quiet, rapid passage
from life to death. The impression, however, if any real
impression, if it was beyond that of mere curiosity, did not last
for long, and before the slight, slow vibrations of the body
had well ended robbery and violence, loud laughing, oaths,
fighting, obscene conduct, and still more filthy language reigned
round the gallows far and near. Such, too, the scene re-
mained, with little change or^ respite, till the old hangman slunk
again along the drop amid hisses and sneering inquiries of
what he had had to drink that morning. He, after failing
once to cut the rope, made a second effort more successfully,
and the body of Muller disappeared from view. So greatly
relieved was Dr. Cappel by the confession that he rushed from
the scaffold, exclaiming, "Thank God! Thank God!" and
sank down in a chair, completely exhausted by his own
emotion. After recovering, he repeated in English, in the
presence of the Sheriffs and Under-Slieriffs and the representa-
tives of the newspaper press, of whom there were four, what
had just passed between him and the convict, precisely as it
has been related above. From this it will be seen that the
convict fenced with the questions as to his guilt down to the
latest moment of his existence, and that it was not until the
last ray of hope had fled that he confessed. Dr. Cappel
afterwards stated to the Sheriffs that in his interviews with
him the conversation of the prisoner, whenever it touched upon
x 177

Franz Muller.

the murder, appeared to be intended to produce an impression
that he was innocent. There were other sins of which the con-
vict said he was guilty, but whenever he was pressed with
reference to the murder he evaded the subject in some way,
or, to use Dr. Cappel's own words, " He hid that particular
sin under his garment, as it were." Mr. Sheriff Dakin asked
if the last words used by the convict, " I did it," conveyed to
the mind of Dr. Cappel the impression that he alone had done
it. The reverend gentleman replied in the affirmative. He
added that the hope of life was so strong in him that he appeared
to have made up his mind not to confess until the last moment.
That at least was his impression. He even declared he was
innocent while the sacrament was being administered to him.
Dr. Cappel went on to say to the authorities that he exhorted
him, in the name of the living God, if he had committed the
murder, not to deny it ; and that the convict made no reply.
From the interviews he had had with Muller he was convinced,
he said, he was not a common murderer. At one of those
interviews he said to the convict that there was perhaps a loop-
hole by which he hoped to escape — that if he had a hand in
the deed he perhaps yielded to a sudden temptation to take
Mr. Briggs's watch, and that in a struggle the deceased fell
out of a carriage or that he pushed him out; but, however
that might be, he (Dr. Cappel) believed he had had a hand in
it. To this the convict made no answer, but, evading the
question, said there were other sins of which he was guilty.

The time has been, and very lately too, when the dress in
which a felon died, or even a cast of his distorted features,
would have been worth their weight in gold. But nothing
of this catering for the wretched curiosity of the gallows is
permitted now. In whatever clothes our worst felons die,
these garments, whether good or bad, are burnt before their
burial, so that all that may be called the traces of their crime
are destroyed with its perpetrator. There is something as
just as it is painful, and as just as it is really useful, in this
cold obloquy of human nature against its worst dead. There
is a feeling among us all which impels us to reverence the
earth in which the bones of our departed kindred rest, but
from this last consolation even the nearest and dearest relatives
of murderers are debarred. For, for those that die upon the
scaffold, there is no tomb but Newgate — a tomb such as the
few who love the felon best can only leave with shuddering
hope that it may be forgotten. In Newgate there is no
solemnity of burial ; it is a mere hurried covering of the body
of one who was not fit to live among mankind. So with the
corpse of Muller. It had died publicly; the surgeon had
certified to its shameful death. Towards the middle of the
day the rough deal box which held it was filled with shavings
178

Appendix IV.

and quicklime, and the warders carried it to the hole where
it had to be thrust under the flagstones of a narrow, bleak,
gaol pathway. There, below the massive cross-barred grat-
ings which almost shut out the light of day — there, where none
pass the little hidden grave save those who, like himself must
go over it to their great tomb, the body of Muller rests. In
a few days the cruelty and singularity of his great crime
will be commemorated by a rough " M " cut in the gaol stone
near his head, just as Greenacre, Good, and others of the
worst are marked beside him. In that foul Aceldama will
his bones bleach with theirs till the great day, when he
must rise with them and answer for his great crime.

It is understood that Muller prepared a paper some days
before his execution, and that it came into the hands of the
Sheriffs on Sunday night. This, it is said, was not a con-
fession, but was, on the contrary, little else than what has
already been made public at different times by the German
Legal Protection Society. In consequence of the confession
actually made by Muller it is understood that the Sheriffs did
not consider it just to other persons referred to in the paper
to make any use of it; that they sealed the document, and
will probably make some communication to the Court of
Aldermen in reference to it to-day.

APPENDIX IV.

CORRBSPONDHNOB RELATING TO MuLLER's CONFESSION ON THB
SCAFFOLD.

On 12th March, 1887, in a series entitled " Celebrated Crimes
and Criminals," then appearing in the Sporting Times under
the signature, " W. M.," an account was given of the murder
of Mr. Briggs and the trial and execution of Muller. The pub-
lication of this account led to the following correspondence,
which commenced in the Sporting Times of 19th March and
was continued on subsequent dates.

MULLER'S DEATH.
(To the Editor of the Sporting Times.)

Dear Corlett, — In your account last week of the trial and
execution of Franz Muller, whose defence, you may remember,

179

Franz Muller.

was entrusted to my care, you state that Muller 's last words,
in reply to Dr. Cappel's question, were, " Yes, I have done it."
This is incorrect. What he said was, " Ich habe." He had
no time to finish the sentence, which might have been " Ich
habe es nicht gethan" (I have not done it). His innocence
or guilt, therefore, so far as his own confession is concerned,
must ever remain a moot point. Your giving publicity to this
will oblige, yours faithfully, THO. BEARD.

10 Basinghall Street.

MULLIR'S LAST DYING SPEECH AND CONFESSION.
(To the Editor of the Sporting Times.)

Sir, — I am astonished that Mr. Beard should attribute in-
correctness to the version published in the Sporting Times of
the last words uttered by Muller, and which are now, it may
be said, a matter of history. Surely Dr. Cappel, who stood
close to the wretched culprit on the scaffold at the last moment,
is the only man entitled to speak with any degree of certainty
as to what Muller did or did not say? And what is Dr.
Cappel's version 1 I would respectfully refer Mr. Beard to the
Times newspaper of 22nd and 24th November, 1864. In the
former is a letter from Dr. Cappel to the Hermann, giving
Miiller's last words verbatim, and as they were given in my
recent article. The next day Dr. Cappel himself addressed
the Times as follows : —

" Sir, — In answer to the letter signed, ' The Writer of the
Notes,' in the columns of the Times of to-day, I beg to say
that your reporter, after the execution, carefully took down the
last words of Muller from my own lips, and that they were
correctly given in your journal of Tuesday, the 15th inst.,
where they are stated to have been, ' Yes, I did it.' The
account given to me by the editor of the Hermann corresponds
exactly with that of the Times. — I am, sir, your obedient
servant, " Louis CAPPEL, D.D.

" November 23."

This letter, so far as I am aware, terminated the controversy,
such as it was, and it would probably interest many others
besides myself if Mr. Beard would tell us what grounds he has
for saying, with such apparent confidence, that Miiller's inno-
cence or guilt, so far as his own confession is concerned, must
ever remain a moot point. — Yours faithfully, W. M.

1 80

Appendix IV.

MULLER'S LAST WORDS.
(To the Editor of the Sporting Times.)

Dear Corlett, — Before your correspondent, " W. M.," takes
exception to my correction, may I ask him to reconcile the
various statements he puts into the mouth of Muller? In your
issue of March 12th it was, "Yes, I have done it"; on the
19th, "Yes, I did it"; and, turning to Dr. C'appel's letter,
to which he refers me, I find Muller did not speak in English
at all, but in German. When " W. M." has made up his
mind what Muller did say, he shall have the reply of yours
faithfully, THOS. BEARD.

10 Basinghall Street, London, E.C.

MULLER'S LAST DYING SPEECH AND CONFESSION.
(To the Editor of the Sporting Times.)

Sir, — I had hoped that my " last words " respecting Muller's
" last words " had already been tolerably explicit; but, as Mr.
Beard asks me to " make up my mind " as to what they were,
I must crave space for another letter.

In the account I wrote in the Sporting Times of March 12th,
I said that those words* (being interpreted) were, " Yes, I have
done it." Of course I know the conversation was in German,
and I said so in the article. Surely Mr. Beard must know that
the German words, " Ich habe es gethan," are as equally cor-
rectly translated by " I have done it " as by " I did it "1 In
one letter Dr. Cappel uses the first, and in the other the second
expression. But the words are exactly synonymous, and it
seems to me mere hair-splitting on Mr. Beard's part to attempt
to establish any distinction between them.

I append a letter from Muller's spiritual adviser to the
editor of the Hermann, published in the Times of November
22nd, 1864, and can only again ask Mr. Beard to substantiate
his assertion that I was* incorrect, and that Muller might have
said, " Ich habe es nicht gethan," a hypothesis in support of
which I have failed to discover anything in the correspondence
of the period; for, if Dr. Cappel was not in the best position
to hear the last words uttered by Muller, who, may I ask, was?
—Yours faithfully, W. M.

ill

Franz Muller.

Honoured Editor, — I hereby discharge the duty intrusted to
me by Franz Muller shortly before his death, of thanking the
German Legal Protection Society for the efforts they made to
save him. At the last moment the unhappy man admitted his
guilt, with a firm, clear voice, and in the full possession of his
senses ; and it has all the more signification because of the care-
fully chosen words he used. The last words exchanged between
him and me on the scaffold are as follow : —

Question — " Muller, in a few minutes you will stand before
your God. I ask you again, and for the last time, are you
guilty or innocent? " (Miiller, in wenigen Augenblicken stehen
Sie vor Gott; Ich frage Sie nochmals und zum letzten Male, sind
Sie schuldig oder unschuldig?)

Answer — "I am innocent" (Ich bin unschuldig).

Question — ' ' You are innocent 1 ' ' (Sie sind unschuldig ?)

Answer — " God knows what I have done " (Gott weiss was
Ich gethan habe).

Question — "God knows what you have done; does he also
know if you have committed this crime? " (Gott weiss was Sie
gethan haben ; weiss Er auch dass Sie dies Verbrechen gethan
haben ?)

Answer — " Yes, I have done it " (Ja, Ich habe es gethan).

An hour and a half before his execution Muller had declared
himself innocent. I then told him that I would not press him
further, but that my last words to him would be, " Are you
guilty or innocent? " With an earnest and passive look he
remained one or two minutes silent, standing before. He then
suddenly cried out, with tears in his eyes, and throwing his
arms round my neck, " Do not leave me; remain with me to
the last." I judged by this that he had determined to make
a confession. That this resolution was formed only at the
last moment is quite in keeping with the firmness of his strange
character, which kept steadily to a denial of the crime with
friend and enemy until the very last glimmering of hope had
disappeared; and really his uniform quietude and his mild and
seeming open disposition were enough to enlist the sympathy
of any one, to disarm distrust, and to deceive completely even
the most experienced judges of human nature. The persistency
of Muller in his denial was probably owing to his strong love
of life, and his seeming frankness partly explains itself by the
supposition — of which I am fully convinced — that no murder
had been intended, but that the robbery led to the death of the
victim. Happily for him that even with his last breath he has
atoned for his heavy sin to God, to men, and to his friends,
through the acknowledgment of his guilt. I never could
believe in his complete innocence, but after he had repeatedly
requested it, I attended him in his cell, with the honest resolu-
tion of accomplishing my duty with forbearance and humanity,
182

Appendix IV.

and I carry in my heart the grateful conviction that I refreshed
the unfortunate man in his sorrowful hours and prepared and
strengthened him for eternity. The proof of this is the sincere
love he had for me, and in the name of which he confided to
my care his last and dearest possessions — a letter to his father
and a document he wrote in prison. I express my dearest
thanks to all my German countrymen for the great and touch-
ing proofs of sympathy and confidence I received from them
on all sides. But to the German Legal Protection Society and
you, Mr. Editor, who, penetrated by the persuasions of his
innocence, have spent night and day in endeavouring to save
Muller, and have gladly sacrificed quietness, sleep, and health
— to you, before all, are the thanks of Germans due, and in
the name of every friend of humanity I warmly press your
hand. — Highly respectfully, your devoted,

DR. Louis CAPPBL,

Pastor of the German Lutheran Church, St. George, in
Little Alie Street, Goodman's Fields.

MULLER' s LAST WORDS.
(To the Editor of the Sporting Times.)

Sir, — As I happen to be the only person now living who was
on the scaffold when Muller uttered his last words, I am able
to contribute something definite to the controversy which the
article in the Sporting Times has provoked. I remember the
whole of the circumstances as if they had occurred last week,
and I believe I shall never forget them.

The great public excitement caused by the murder of Mr.
Briggs, and the striking incidents connected with the capture
and conviction of Muller, was followed by more than ordinary
desire to be present at the hanging. The Sheriffs made un-
usual preparations outside the prison, and resolved to admit
none inside beyond those whose duty it was to be there, and
three representatives of the Press. The three selected were
the late Mr. Sarlsby, of the Times', the late Mr. Potter, of
the Globe ; and Mr. Clyatt, who was to represent all the rest of
the papers. I was at the time a sub-editor on the Globe, and,
as I felt my education would not be complete without having
seen a hanging, I arranged that I should take Mr. Potter's
place. I had an additional incentive in the fact that Mr.
Gilpin's perennial motion for the abolition of capital punish-
ment was making way, and most people supposed that, because

183

Franz Muller.

he was persistent, he would succeed. I was not alone in think-
ing it likely that Muller would be the last man hanged in this
country, and I propose to tell the story of what occurred on
that memorable morning.

We met the Sheriffs in the London Coffee-house, on Ludgate
Hill, at seven o'clock, and shortly afterwards went round by
way of Paternoster Row to a hole that had been made in the
wall, through which we passed into the Court-house of the Old
Bailey. After a short halt we passed into the chapel yard of
the prison, and there we came in view of Muller, standing beside
his gaoler, uncovered and apparently unconcerned, waiting for
us. The grey light of the chill November morning gave the
pair a weird look as they stood on the other side of an open
doorway, for it was impossible to divest the scene of the know-
ledge of what was about to happen. As we approached, the
gaoler led the way with Muller through other courts, and then
through a corridor with black stone walls on each side, stone
pavement underfoot, and an iron grating overhead, between us
and the sky. I have often wondered since whether Muller knew
that this corridor was the burial place of those who were hanged,
and the place where he would be buried a few hours afterwards,
buried in quicklime under those heavy paving stones, with no
record but his initials rudely carved on the stone wall, and that
only because he was a more than ordinarily famous murderer.
From this grim sepulchre we passed to the Press room, a small
chamber, low in the ceiling, and very much like a kitchen, with
a deal table and some wooden chairs in it. Here we met Cal-
craft, and the duties of the gaoler were at an end. I had never
seen Calcraft before, and I was very much struck with his
benevolent and even amiable appearance. His snowy- white
hair and beard, and his quiet, self-possessed manner, was in
ridiculous contrast to everything in the nature of violence, and
I could hardly conceive it possible that one of us dozen people
in that little room was going to be hanged in five minutes.
Calcraft, however, was as quick in his movements as he was
noiseless. Scarcely had Muller been placed with his back to
Calcraft, and we who had followed him arranged ourselves in
a half circle in front of him, than Calcraft had buckled a broad
leather belt round Miiller's waist. Two small straps, fixed
to this belt in the middle of the back, were as rapidly passed
round the man's arms, and in a trice his elbows were fixed
fast to his sides. Muller clasped his hands in the most natural
manner, and in this position they were strapped together by a
pair of leather handcuffs. The man was pinioned past re-
demption ; and then began a scene that gave a thorough wrench
to my nerves. Calcraft, still noiseless and unimpassioned,
was moving around his victim with ominous precision. The
belt was tight, the arms were fixed, the hands clasped, and
184

Appendix IV.

the whole frame at his mercy. He then removed the necktie,
and after that the collar. With gruesome delicacy he tucked
both within the waistcoat, and Miiller was prepared. " You
may sit down," said Caloraft quietly, but Miiller declined.
Cool beyond any one in the room, unless Calcraft excelled
him, he stood with his short round neck fully exposed, and
well placed on a pair of broad shoulders and a firm, round
chest. There was not much need to argue the question
as to whether Miiller could or could not handle poor old Mr.
Briggs. Muller was a small man, but he was the personifica-
tion of strength, and with a jaw that meant dogged, resistless
obstinacy of purpose. He did not appear to pay much heed
to Dr. Cappel, the minister, who spoke to him in the intervals
of the pinioning, and he listened, apparently without concern,
as the Lutheran became more earnest in his invocation after
the preparations were complete. Calcraft left the room, and
we all guessed where he had gone to. It was at that time I
felt as if a little more callousness would have served me well.
To be a passive spectator at such a scene is not a sedative.
The imagination will not leave the bare neck and the pinioned
arms. One thinks of the hangman examining his rope and
the hinges and bolts, and one feels a terribly eerie feeling
creeping over one. I had to take myself seriously in hand,
and I had resource to an odd expedient. I ate a piece of
biscuit, and the distraction carried me over the horrid interval,
which was made all the more impressive by the constant tolling
of the bell of St. Sepulchre's Church. Presently, to my great
relief, Calcraft reappeared, and the action was renewed. Dr.
Cappel stood aside, and the chaplain of the gaol, Mr. Davis,
led the way to the scaffold, reading the burial service. The
journey was short, and those who remember the old hanging
days know that the scaffold was erected outside the gaol in the
Old Bailey. It was through the doorway, known as the
debtor's entrance, that it was approached from the prison, and
it was up a flight of about ten steps that Calcraft led Miiller.
Mr. Davis remained below, his duty ended there; but Dr.
Cappel followed the hangman and his victim, and I followed
Dr. Cappel. No one else went up, and it occurred to me that
perhaps Mr. Jonas, the governor of the gaol, to say nothing of
the Sheriffs, regarded my presence on the scaffold as an in-
trusion; but nothing seemed to me more proper, and I was
well repaid for my temerity. I saw the people. Far as the
eye could reach, to Ludgate Hill on the one hand and right
away to Holborn on the other, the entire space, broad and
distant as it was, presented an unbroken mass of human faces —
types of every unholy passion that humanity is capable of —
a seething sea of hideous brutality, that had been surging over
the space the live long night, and was now almost still with

185

Franz Muller.

expectation. The mouths of the myriad of grimy, yellow
faces were open, and all the thousands of eyes were upturned
upon the spot where I stood with an intentness that was more
appalling to me than the methodical movements of Calcraft
and the unimpassioned attitude of Muller. The contrast was
marvellous. The hangman was curiously busy. He passed
a strap round Muller 's legs' and buckled it; he put the rope
round Miiller's neck, and tightened the slip knot just under
his right ear; he slipped a noose at the other end of the rope
over an iron hook depending from the crossbeam of the scaffold,
and last of all he pulled a dirty yellow bag over the man's head
to his chin. He then stood aside, and the conversation about
which all the dispute has arisen commenced between Dr. Cappel
and Muller. The minister stood close to Muller, with his feet
on the very edge of the drop; I stood just behind him, but
nearer the outside of the scaffold. The conversation was
hurried. On Dr. Cappel's part it was earnest and excited,
but Muller preserved the same stolid, unimpassioned manner
that had characterised his attitude throughout. Calcraft, I
noticed, disappeared as soon as they began to speak, and I
can see Dr. Cappel now leaning forward, with both hands
extended, as if to draw Miiller's words to him as the drop fell
and Muller disappeared. Calcraft had done his work well.
One strong convulsion and all was over. But Dr. Cappel didn't
stay to see this. As soon as he recovered from the surprise
and alarm caused by the unexpected fall of the drop he dashed
down the stairs with his hands aloft, and shouting as he ran,
"Confessed, confessed, thank God!" After one more look
at the crowd, now a roaring tumult swaying to and fro, I
followed close at his heels, and the whole company pressed
round him in the chaplain's room, where he told the story of
Miiller's last words. Three times he repeated the story within
ten minutes of the scene on the scaffold, and each time he told
it I took down his words, not partly, but wholly and com-
pletely, and the story did not vary. I take it that no evidence
can be clearer of what Muller said than what was thrice
repeated, by the only man who heard him, immediately after
he did hear him. And what Dr. Cappel said was this —

" When he was standing on the drop, and all was ready, I
said, ' In a few moments you will stand before God. I ask
you again, and for the last time, are you innocent of this
crime? '

" He said, ' I am innocent.'

" I said, ' You are innocent? '

" And he said, ' Yes, I am innocent; God knows what I have
done.'

" I said this — ' God knows what you have done, but knows
He that you have done this particular deed? '
1 86

Appendix IV.

" And then, instead of answering me ' No,' he said, ' Ich
habe es gethan ' (' I have done it ').

" He had confessed, and I spoke to him — ' Christ have
mercy upon your soul ' ; and I believe his very last words were
as he fell, ' My God, I feel sure of it.' '

After each recital of this story, Dr. Cappel made running
comments on Muller 's demeanour and previous conversations he
had with him. These I also took down, and the tenour of
them was that Mtiller had never denied unequivocally that he
had attacked Mr. Briggs ; he always fenced the question, and
Dr. Cappel's theory was that Mliller declined to admit himself
guilty of murder because he had not premeditated it.

Dr. Cappel evidently afterwards desired to make the con-
fession a little more definite than his first record justified; and
in his subsequent accounts of what occurred he inserted the
word " Ja," or " Yes," before the " I have done it," making
out that Muller answered " Yes " to his question whether God
knew that he had done this particular deed. In his original
account he says, " Instead of answering ' No,' he said, ' I have
done it.' ' In his subsequent accounts he seems to have
assumed that Muller said " Yes " because he did not say " No."
In this Dr. Cappel was> wrong.

The curious will find in the record of the execution in the
Times second edition a true version of the story. In the next
day's Times the "Yes " was inserted, so that it is probable
Dr. Cappel may have thought of the " Yes " before nightfall.
I am certain the " Yes " was added, because it happened that
Mr. Sarlsby did not take down Dr. Cappel's account of the
matter. I read my notes to him before leaving the prison,
and, as we were doing so, Dr. Cappel came up, and not only
approved their accuracy but actually wrote the important sen-
tence, " Ich habe es gethan," in Mr. Sarlsby's notebook. He
did not write " Ja " before it. Still, it may be taken that
Muller confessed to the fact, but declined to admit that he had
committed murder. Dr. Cappel's words were as I have set
them down, and every one can construe them for himself. —
Yours, &c., FREDERICK WICKS.

Glasgow.

MULLER'S LAST WORDS.
(To the Editor of the Sporting Times.)

Sir, — I have read with much interest the letter of my old
friend, Mr. Frederick Wicks, on this subject, and from the
accounts which my late father (whose name you misprint

187

Franz Muller.

Sarlsby) used to give of the incidents of the execution, I can
entirely corroborate all that Mr. Wicks so ably narrates. As
he states, the Rev. Dr. Cappel wrote in my father's notebook
the exact words in German which had fallen from Muller
immediately before the drop fell — viz., " Ich babe es gethan."
There can be no doubt that in Dr. Cappel's mind this amounted
to a confession by Muller of his guilt of Mr. Briggs's murder —
a confession which he had purposely delayed until the failure
of every effort for a reprieve had brought him to the very
brink of eternity. This was my father's fixed impression on
the matter, and perhaps no one had a better opportunity of
forming a judgment upon it. — Yours truly,

WILLIAM J. SOULSBY.
75 Victoria Street, S.W.

APPENDIX V.

SHORT ACCOUNT OF THIS JUDGES AND COUNSEL ENGAGED IN THB

CASE.

SIR JONATHAN FREDERICK POLLOCK (1783-1870) was the son
of David Pollock, saddler, of Charing Cross, and brother
of Sir David Pollock, Chief Justice of Bombay, and Field
Marshal Sir George Pollock, the hero of the Afghan war, in
1842. Frederick Pollock was born in London on the 23rd
of September, 1783, and educated at St. Paul's and Trinity
College, Cambridge. He was Senior Wrangler in 1806, and
in the following year was elected Fellow of his college. He
was called to the bar in 1807, at the Middle Temple, and
joined the Northern Circuit. By his industry, ability, and
wide legal knowledge he soon acquired a very large practice
both in London and on circuit. After twenty years of
ever-increasing success he took silk in 1827, and in 1831 was
elected as Tory member for Huntingdon, which town he repre-
sented continuously until his elevation to the bench. Sir
Robert Peel made him Attorney-General in 1834, and again,
when he resumed office in 1841. Sir Frederick Pollock held
this office till 1844, when he was appointed Lord Chief Baron
of the Exchequer, in succession to Lord Abinger, and sworn
of the Privy Council. He presided over the Court of Ex-
chequer for twenty -two years, retiring on a pension in 1866,
when he accepted a baronetcy. His judicial career was
1 88

Appendix V.

honourable and distinguished. In spite of his deep legal
learning, " his leaning was ever to the side of substantial
justice rather than to mere technical accuracy. Kind, gentle,
and courteous, he made an admirable President of his Court,
and there was no judge more fitted to conduct great criminal
trials with dignity and distinction." It fell to his lot to preside
over four famous trials for murder : those of the Mannings
for the murder of O'Connor, in 1849; of Mullins, for the
murder of Mrs. Elmsley, at Stepney, in 1860 ; of Muller ; and
of Kohl, for the Plaistow Marshes murder, in 1865. In the
obituary notice of the judge in the Times, the writer de-
scribes how at Muller 's trial " his emphatic eloquence moved
the deepest feelings of the audience, among whom every sound
was hushed, and every nerve painfully strained, as the full
force of some apparently trivial point of evidence was pointed
out, and its bearing explained to the jury." Pollock survived
his retirement for four years, dying of old age on the 23rd
of August, 1870. He was then eighty-seven. Married
twice, the Chief Baron had eighteen children, distinguished
among them being Sir William Frederick Pollock, Queen's
Remembrancer, scholar, and man of letters, and Sir Charles
Edward Pollock, Baron of the Exchequer (1873-1897), the last
survivor of these now extinct dignitaries. Among the
living grandsons of the Chief Baron who have achieved dis-
tinction in various walks of life may be reckoned Sir Frederick
Pollock, Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1883-1903,
and a well-known writer on legal subjects; Walter Herries
Pollock, critic and man of letters; Ernest Pollock, K.C.,
member for Warwick in the present Parliament; and Dr.
Bertram Pollock, ex -headmaster of Wellington, now Bishop of
Norwich.

SIR SAMUEL MAKTIN (1801-1883) was the son of Samuel
Martin of Culmore, Co. Londonderry; he was born in 1801.
On leaving Trinity College, Dublin, he entered Gray's Inn in
1821 ; he was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in 1830,
after practising two years as a special pleader. He was
" devil " to Sir Frederick Pollock, his friend, and later, in
1838, became his son-in-law. He joined the Northern Circuit.
A good commercial lawyer, he won his first great success as an
advocate in 1839, in the " Bloomsbury " case, in which he
recovered for the plaintiff, Mr. Ridsdale, the Ascot Derby stakes
that had been won by his colt, " Bloomsbury," but had
been refused to him on the ground of a misdescription of the
horse. Mr. Martin took silk in 1843, and entered Parliament
as the Liberal member for Pontefract, 1847. Three years later
he was appointed a Baron of the Exchequer. He sat as a

189

judge for twenty-four years, revered for his practical knowledge,
good sense, and pleasant humour. Severe in his punishment
of crime, his severity was always tempered by a natural kind-
ness of heart. Increasing deafness alone compelled him to
retire from the bench in 1874, when he was sworn of the Privy
Council. He survived his retirement eleven years, dying on
the 26th of January, 1883, at the age of eighty-two. His
only child, a daughter, married Mr. Macnaghten, who in 1888
was created a Lord of Appeal, and still, at the age of eighty-
one, continues to be one of the shining lights in that august
tribunal.

SIB ROBERT PORRETT COLLIER, first Lord Monkswell (1817-
1886), was the elder son of Mr. John Collier, merchant, of
Plymouth. After being educated partly at Plymouth and
partly under private tuition, he went to Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. Ill-health obliged him to give up a University career.
He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1843,
joined the Western Circuit, and first won success by his defence
of the Brazilian pirates, at Exeter, in 1845. He was appointed
Recorder of Penzance, and entered Parliament as Liberal
member for Plymouth, in 1852. He was appointed somewhat
unexpectedly Solicitor-General in 1863. When the Liberal
Government returned to office in 1868 he became Attorney -
General. His appointment as a member of the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council, in 1871, excited some scandal, not
j on account of any want of merit on his part, but on account of
the circumstances under which it was made. By the Privy
Council Act it had been stipulated that two of the members of
the Judicial Committee should be chosen from among the judges
of the superior Courts' at Westminster. In order to technically
fulfil this qualification, Collier was appointed to a puisne judge-

Iship in the Court of Common Pleas ; he held this office for only
a few days, sitting in the ill-fitting robes of his predecessor;
he was then promoted to the Privy Council. The two Chief
Justices, Cockbura and Bovill, protested strongly against such
a violation of the dignity of the judicial bench, and the matter
was taken up warmly in Parliament by Lord Westbury and
Lord Cairns. At the same time no question was ever raised
as to the fitness of Collier to hold the position. He sat on the
Judicial Committee until his death, which occurred at Grasee
on the 27th of October, 1886. In 1885 he had been
created a peer, taking the title of Lord Monkswell. In addition
to his high legal reputation, Lord Monkswell was an accom-
plished scholar, a writer of verse, and a painter. His son, the
second Lord Monkswell, who died in 1909, was Chairman of
the London County Council in 1903, and another son, the Hon.
John Collier, is the well-known artist.
190

Appendix V.

WILLIAM BALLANTINB (1812-1887) was the eldest son of
William Ballantine, police magistrate; he was educated at St.
Paul's and Ashburnham House, Blackheath, and called to
the bar at the Inner Temple, 1834. He joined the Home
Circuit and the Central Criminal Court. One of his first suc-
cesses was his cross-examination, in a suit in the House of
Lords, to annul the marriage of an heiress, Esther Field, on
the ground of coercion and fraud, in the year 1848, when he
was opposed alone to Sir Fitzroy Kelly and a number of dis-
tinguished counsel. From that moment his professional pro-
gress was steady, and he soon acquired a reputation as one
of the most successful advocates of his day. In 1856 he was
made Serjeant at Law, but it was not till 1863 that he obtained
from Lord Westbury his patent of precedence. His name is
connected with almost all the causes celebres of this period. He
was counsel for the Tichborne claimant in the original action
for ejectment, after which he was wise enough to withdraw
from the case. In 1875 he went to India at a fee of £10,000 to
defend the Gaekwar of Baroda, who was* accused of attempting
to poison the British Resident. He succeeded in procuring the
acquittal of his client. This case was the last of his great
successes. Not long after he retired from active work at
the bar, and died in comparative poverty. In 1882 he pub-
lished his " Experiences of a Barrister's Life," a careless and
disappointing work. Ballantine's gifts, particularly as a
cross-examiner, were remarkable, his knowledge of human nature
astute. Had he possessed greater stability of character, there
can be no doubt that he would have risen to a place of far
higher dignity in his profession. Montagu Williams, who
knew him well, thus describes him — " The Serjeant was a
very extraordinary man. He was the best cross-examiner of
his kind that I have ever heard, and the quickest at solving
facts. It was not necessary for him to read his brief; he
had a marvellous faculty for picking up a case as it went
along or learning all the essentials in a hurried colloquy with his
junior. There is no point that the Serjeant might not have
attained in his profession had he only possessed more ballast.
He was, however, utterly reckless, generous to a fault, and
heedless of the future. His opinion of men could never be
relied upon, for he praised or blamed them from day to day,
just as they happened to please or annoy him. He often said
bitter things, but never, I think, ill-naturedly. His fault was
probably that he did not give himself time to think before he
spoke." Montagu Williams adds that Ballantine had great
charm of manner, was never afraid of a " dead " case, and
" was always cheery and bright."

JAMBS HANNBN (1821-1894) was the son of James Hannen,
wine merchant. He was educated at St. Paul's and Heidel-

191

Franz Muller.

berg University, was called to the bar in 1848, and joined
the Home Circuit. After a successful career as a junior, he was
appointed Attorney-General's " devil," in 1863, and in 1865
stood unsuccessfully for Parliament as a Liberal candidate. He
was appointed a puisne judge of the Court of Queen's Bench,
and knighted in the year 1868. In 1872 he was transferred as
judge to the Court of Probate and Divorce, and in 1875 became
President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of
the High Court of Justice. It was while President of the
Divorce Court that he was placed at the head of the Parnell
Commission, with Sir John Day and Sir A. L. Smith. He ful-
filled the difficult duties of that place with tact, dignity, and
discretion. In 1891 he was made a Lord of Appeal, and held
that office until his death, in 1894. It is not too much to say
that no judge has left behind him a higher reputation for fair-
ness, dignity, and learning.

SIB HARDINGB GIFFABD, first Earl of Halsbury, the third son
of Stanley Lees Giffard, editor of the Standard newspaper,
was born on the 3rd of September, 1823. He was educated
privately and at Merton College, Oxford, whence he graduated
B.A. in 1845. Entering at the Inner Temple in 1846, he
was called to the bar, 25th January, 1850. Attaching himself
to the South Wales Circuit, and attending regularly at the
Central Criminal Court and Middlesex Sessions, he from the
first showed great capacity asi an advocate, and in 1861 he
became one of the standing counsel for the Treasury, a post
which he vacated on taking silk in 1865. He figures largely
in the most important prosecutions of the day, including the
trial of the Fenians for the Clerkenwell explosion of December,
1867. He appeared for Governor Eyre at the Market Drayton
Sessions in the same year, and for some of the defendants in
the Overend and Gurney case ; in the ejectment action of Tick-
borne v. Lushington he was led by Serjeant Ballantine for the
claimant. He unsuccessfully contested Cardiff in the Con-
servative interest in 1868 and in 1874, and he was returned
to Parliament for the first time as member for Launceston in
March, 1877, having been appointed Solicitor-General, though
without a seat in the House of Commons, in November, 1875,
when he received the honour of knighthood. As law officer
he appeared, together with Sir John Holker, in a series of
sensational trials, to which reference has already been made.
In the 1880 Parliament he played a prominent part, being
especially conspicuous in the opposition to Mr. Bradlaugh, and
he enjoyed a large practice at nisi prius. His most famous
verdict was that of £5000 for the plaintiff in Belt v.
Lawcs. He became Lord Chancellor under the title of Baron
192

Appendix V.

Halsbury, in June, 1885, and, following the fortunes of his
party, he received the seals again in July, 1886, and June,
1895. In 1898 the dignity of an earldom was conferred upon
him, and his son bears the courtesy title of Lord Tiverton.
Whether on the woolsack, in the Privy Council, or in the Court
of Appeal, he has shown himself a judge of the highest rank.
A good authority has> declared that he is in the widest sense
the greatest master of the common law since Lord Mansfield.

" He quitted the bar in the heyday of his fame. The dis-
appearance of Holker had left him perhaps the most successful
advocate of his day in that class of case where the appeal is
to the sentiment, the emotions, or the prejudices of the jury.
An admirable speaker and a fine cross-examiner, his pugnacious
and combative spirit was kept in strict subordination to the
needs of the hour, while it used to be said of him that he was
the only man at the bar who would stand up to Charles Russell
with absolute and unmistakable confidence." — Atlay,
"Victorian Chancellors," ii. 441.

JOHN HUMFPRETS PARRY (1816-1880) was the eldest son of
John Humffreys Parry, solicitor, better known to fame as a
learned Welsh antiquarian. Brought up to commerce, Parry
preferred a place in the printed book department of the British
Museum to a seat in a merchant's office. While there he
studied for the bar, to which he was called at the Middle
Temple in 1843. Like many celebrated advocates, he com-
menced his career in the criminal Courts, attending the Home
Circuit, the Central Criminal Court, and the Middlesex Sessions.
He soon acquired considerable civil business, was made Serjeant
at Law in 1856, and granted a patent of precedence in 1864.
He appeared in many celebrated cases. He defended Manning
for murder in 1849, was one of the counsel for the prosecution
in the trial at bar of the Tichborne claimant, and appeared
for the plaintiff in the action of Whistler v. Euskin in
1878. He stood twice for Parliament as an advanced Liberal,
unsuccessfully contesting Norwich, in 1847, and Finsbury, in
1857. He died in London on the 10th of January, 1880.

Montagu Williams, in his "Leaves of a Life," draws a very
pleasant picture of Parry — " Remarkably solid in appearance,
his countenance was broad and expansive, beaming with honesty (
and frankness. His cross-examination was of a quieter kind
than that of Serjeant Ballantine. It was, however, almost as
effective. He drew the witness on in a smooth, good-humoured,
artful, and partly magnetic fashion. His attitude towards his
adversary also was peculiar; he never indulged in bickering,
was always perfectly polite, and was most to be feared when
he seemed to be making a concession. If in the course of a

o 193

Muller Trial.

trial he, without being asked, handed his adversary a paper
with the words, ' wouldn't you like to see this,' or some
kindred observation, let that adversary beware that there was
something deadly underneath." The author of a delightful
little book of legal reminiscences recently published (" Pie
Powder." By a Circuit Tramp) places Parry as an advocate
in certain respects pi*e-eminent among those he recollectsi;
"though," he says, "he may not have had the force of
Russell, the silver tongue of Coleridge, or the incisive skill of
Hawkins as a cross-examiner," he declares that in sheer power
of persuasion with a jury Parry has never had an equal within
his experience. No man was ever more popular with his pro-
fession. A good friend and a genial host, Parry must have
been a delightful companion. He married the daughter of
Edwin Abbott, a well-known writer on education, and for some
time headmaster of the Philological School at Marylebone,
where Parry had been educated. He left two sons, the second
of whom, Edward Abbott Parry, recently appointed County
Court judge at Lambeth, held for some time that office in Man-
chester, and is not only a most popular and worthy judge, but
a well-known author and dramatist.

194

UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME.

NOTABLE ENGLISH TRIALS.

Already published. Price 5s. net each.

THE TRIAL OF THE STAUNTONS (The Penge Mystery).
Edited by J. B. ATLAY, M.A., Barrister-at-law.
Dedicated to Sir Edward Clarke, K.C.

"The Penge case has been admirably edited by Mr. J. B. Atlay,
M.A., one of the most brilliant and best informed of our modern
criminologists." — GEORGE R. SIMS in The Referee.

" Not only a welcome addition to an interesting body of literature,
but a valuable reinforcement of legal libraries." — Manchester Guardian.

" It is a fascinating story which the editor has presented ; a tale of
real life with real characters." — Morning Post.

" The editor has produced a most interesting and readable volume,
and is to be congratulated on an excellent piece of work." — Scots Law
Times.

THE TRIAL OF FRANZ MULLER. Edited by H. B.
IRVING, M.A.(Oxon), Dedicated to Lord Halsbury.

The following trials are in preparation and will be
published in due course : —

THE ANNESLEY CASE. Edited by ANDREW LANG.

WILLIAM PALMER. Edited by GEORGE H. KNOTT,
Barrister-at-law.

LORD LOVAT. Edited by DAVID N. MACKAY, Solicitor.
Dr. GEORGE H. LAMSON. Edited by H. L. ADAM.
Mrs. MAYBRICK. Edited by H. B. IRVING, M.A.(Oxon).

NOTABLE SCOTTISH TRIALS.

THE object of this series is to present a full and authentic record
of the more notable Trials that have a place in the annals of our
Scottish jurisprudence. Of many of these Trials the details are at
the present time not readily accessible, being either confined to the
pages of official reports or buried in the files of the daily press ; and
the volumes issued include such a narrative of our more important
causes c'elebres as shall prove not only of interest to the general
reader, but also of utility to those concerned, professionally or
otherwise, with the study and application of the legal principles
involved in the various cases to be dealt with.

To each Trial a separate volume has been assigned; and, where
available, the evidence has been reproduced in full, special care
being taken to ensure accuracy of detail.

The series is founded upon careful research into every available
source of information, and, so far as permissible, the opportunity has
been taken of consulting with and acquiring reliable information from
gentlemen who may have been authoritatively associated with any of
the Trials in contemplation.

"A remarkable series." — Glasgow Herald.

"Altogether a most interesting and welcome series these 'Notable Scottish
Trials.'" — Law Journal.

"Messrs. William Hodge & Co. are doing distinct service not only to the legal
profession, but also to the general public by the publication of ' Notable Scottish
Trials.' " — Dundee Courier.

" Messrs. William Hodge & Co. are doing good public service in issuing a series of
volumes dealing with ' Notable Scottish Trials. ' Since many of these trials took
place a new generation has arisen, to whom most of the persons tried are mere names,
and the series promised by Messrs. Hodge & Co. will necessarily take the form of
educative works of considerable historic value." — The Scotsman.

"While abounding in the dramatic interest of the 'higher crime," they are edited
with all the completeness and accuracy and attention to the legal issues involved of
reports intended for lawyers ; and there is no class of reading more useful for students
of law than the study of the laws of evidence as they appear in practice during such
trials. At the same time for the general reader they have the intense fascination of
revelation of the darker side of human nature. " — Saturday Review.

Notable Scottish Trials

THE TRIAL OF MADELEINE SMITH. Edited by A. DUNCAN
SMITH, F.S.A.(Scot), Advocate. Dedicated to Lord Young.
Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 400 pp. Price 53. I9°5-

" As a record of one of the most remarkable criminal trials of modern times, the
book will be found of supreme interest." — The Scotsman,

" The publishers are to be congratulated on their selection of Mr. Duncan Smith as
the editor of the present number. He brings to his task a delightful freshness, and
unfolds the romantic tale in a truly romantic manner. . . . It is only when we
come to the appendices that the real importance of Mr. Smith's report is apparent.
Those show an amount of research unequalled in any report of the trial yet issued.
. . . It is not too much to say that, if the succeeding volumes maintain the high
standard of work which marks the present number, the series should have a ready
and abundant market," — Glasgow Herald.

THE TRIAL OF THE CITY OF GLASGOW BANK DIRECTORS. Edited
by WILLIAM WALLACE, Advocate, Sheriff-Substitute, Oban. Fully
illustrated from contemporary photographs. Demy 8vo, 500 pp.
Price 53. 1905-

"The evidence on both sides is given verbatim, and the entire work of editing has
been exceedingly well done by Mr. William Wallace. There are some excellent
portraits." — Glasgow Citizen.

"Mr. Wallace, the editor, has discharged his duty admirably, and his skilful
guidance is exceedingly helpful and valuable. The introductory chapter is a
singularly lucid and effective piece of writing." — Aberdeen Daily Journal.

THE TRIAL OF DR. PRITCHARD. Edited by WILLIAM ROUGHEAD,
W.S., Edinburgh. Dedicated to the late Sheriff Brand, Ayr. Fully
illustrated. Demy 8vo, 346 pp. Price 55. 1906.

"The narrative is most interesting, and one which lawyers and laymen alike will
read with fixed attention." — Law Times.

" Mr. Roughead's highly interesting book." — Lancet.

" One of the most absorbing of a remarkable series. "—Glasgow Herald.

Notable Scottish Trials— continued.

THE TRIAL OF EUGENE MARIE CHANTRELLE. Edited by A.
DUNCAN SMITH, F.S.A.(Scot.). Dedicated to Sir Henry D. Little-
john, M.D., LL.D. Demy 8vo, 250 pp. Price 53. 1906.

"The book is a thoroughly well-edited chapbook."— Daily News.

" Apart from its undoubted interest as a tragic story, the book is valuable as a
judicial record." — Glasgow News.

" Apart from its interest for lawyers and medical men, the book possesses a strong
fascination for the general reader. It is full of human tragedy." — Dttndee Courier.

" Mr. Duncan Smith may be congratulated on the able manner in which he has
executed his task." — Law Times.

THE TRIAL OF DEACON BRODIE. Edited by WILLIAM ROUGHEAD,
W.S., Edinburgh. Dedicated to the Honourable Lord Dundas.
Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 280 pp. Price 53. 1907.

" The work forms a valuable addition to the series of ' Notable Scottish Trials.' "
— The Scotsman.

" This volume admirably edited by Mr. Roughead. . . . The editor has con-
tributed a very full and well-handled introduction." — The Daily News.

"The volume is edited by Mr. Wm. Roughead, whose introduction, giving a
succinct account of the Deacon's career, is a thoroughly capable piece of work." —
The Tribune.

"This biography . . . more interesting than many novels." — The Daily
Telegraph.

THE TRIAL OF JAMES STEWART (The Appin Murder). Edited
by DAVID N. MACKAY, Writer, Glasgow. Dedicated to Alex-
ander Campbell Eraser. Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 386 pp.
Price 53. 1907-

" In compiling this addition to an important and valuable series of criminal trials,
Mr. Mackay has shown singular assiduity and industry. He has ransacked the
records and chronicles of the time with care and diligence. His introductory sum-
ming up of the case is lucid, judicious, and complete, grasping the facts with a firm
and sure hand, and exposing the hollowness of the theories of the prosecution with
convincing force." — The Scotsman.

" The volume deserves a permanent place in one's library not only because of its
deep human interest, but by reason of its political and literary association." —
Aberdeen Free Press.

" Mr. D. N. Mackay has done his work well, and it will doubtless tjive rise to fresh
controversies and be the mine from which new theories will be dug." — The Tribune.

Notable Scottish Trials— continued.

THE TRIAL OF A. J. MONSON. Edited by J. W. MORE, B.A.
(Oxon), Advocate, Edinburgh. Dedicated to the Lord Justice-
Clerk. Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 480 pp. Price 53.

" Mr. More has done his work of editor well, and he contributes a brief but well-
written introduction covering the facts of the whole case. . . . This book gives
an accurate account of the most famous Scottish trial of this generation. " — Edinburgh
Evening News.

" The volume is got up with the same scrupulous care that has been bestowed on
the others of the series, and is illustrated in a manner which greatly assists the reader
in following the evidence." — Evening Dispatch.

" The publishers have been fortunate in securing the services of Mr. More as editor.
He has done his work well. . . . Everything has been done to make this report
accurate and full." — Scotsman.

THE DOUGLAS CAUSE. Edited by A. FRANCIS STEUART, Advocate,
Edinburgh. Dedicated to the Honourable Lord Guthrie. Fully
illustrated. Demy 8vo. Price 53.

"Out of the mass of material at his command, the editor has woven a narrative
of surpassing interest which will appeal to the layman as strongly as to the lawyer.
Not the least attractive part of the volume is the appendix, containing the letters
written by Lady Jane Douglas. " — Scotsman.

"The volume is not the least important of the series to which it belongs, and
should have a place in every well-equipped library." — Dundee Advertiser.

THE TRIAL OF CAPTAIN PORTEOUS. Edited by WILLIAM
ROUGHEAD, W.S. Dedicated to the Honourable Lord Ardwall.
Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo. Price 53.

•'The reader who has mastered its contents may rest content in the knowledge that
he has exhausted the subject, so thorough and complete have been the researches of
Mr. Roughead. " — Scotsman.

" Mr. Roughead's introduction seems to us the best thing yet published on the
subject. It is admirably written, and the conclusions are sober and convincing. " —
The Spectator.

" It is a deeply interesting problem as set forth with painstaking scholarship by
Mr. Roughead."— Outlook.

" This trial is one of the best of a very attractive, unique, and ably edited series."
— Saturday Review.

Notable Scottish Trials— continued.

THE TRIAL OF OSCAR SLATER. Edited by WILLIAM ROUGHEAD,
W.S. Dedicated to the Honourable Lord Guthrie. Demy 8vo.
Fully illustrated. Price 53.

" One cannot but admire the skill with which the introductory chapter is drawn,
the analytical examination of the evidence, the new light thrown upon some aspects
of the tale, and the fresh and patient collection in their proper order of the facts and
circumstances adduced. " — Scots Law Times.

" In this interesting dramatic narrative are more than glimpses of the tortuous,
wicked paths some men tread. The volume has an abiding interest for the lawyer
and jurist, but it will also have a large constituency outside the profession." — Aberdeen
Free Press.

THE TRIAL OF MRS. M'LACHLAN. Edited by WILLIAM
ROUGHEAD, W.S. Dedicated to Andrew Lang. Demy 8vo.
Fully illustrated. Price 55.

"The fifty -year-old mystery is as much a mystery now as in the sixties, and Mr.
Roughead's book will find many readers among those interested in the study of
crimes. " — Westminster Gatette.

" The editor, who has justly established for himself a recognised position in this
particular domain of literature, has written an introduction which eclipses all his
former achievements. . . . The editor has obviously spared no trouble to present
this embarrassing trial to his readers in a clear and coherent form, and no better or
fuller statement of the case could well be given." — Scots Pictorial.

WM. HODGE & CO., EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW.

Series 9482

A 000 91 1 860 5

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Trial of Franz Muller"

See other formats