Skip to main content

Full text of "Trial Of Franz Muller"

See other formats

notable nglisb 

Franz Muller 


The Stauntons. Edited by J. II. 
Atlay, M.A.* Barrister -at- Law, 

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

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

William Palmer. Edited by 
Gco, II. 

Tde Annesley Case* Edited by 

Dr Lnmson, Edited by H. L. 

Mf*. Maybrick* Edited by H, B. 
Irving M.A.(C)ion). 

Lord Chlar B*rax PoiJook 

Trial of 


u 1 1 e r 


George H. Knott 

Barrister-al -Law 

K h F/.VA /> // r 
K r i c R. VV a I s o n 


,*' Joseph Siith 

Author oi *MCii|;eiic Arun'* 

(AUST.), LTD. 


(AU!rn>. LTD, 




n HA,S'J1N(;S 




WU.1MM IHifU.J ASfMMWA'n, till 








THB present report of the trial of Franz Midler 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. ovi. References to Muller'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. L, p. 402. 
The murder of Mr. Briggs and other railway outrages are 
dealt with in volume iL, chapter 25, of Pendlcton's "Our 
Railways " (1896). There is an account of Miilier in a 
little volume, " Celebrated Crimes and Criminals," published 
in 1890, under the signature "W. M." J am at liberty to 
divulge the fact ttiat " W. M." is my friend Mr. Willoughby 
Maycock, C,M.Gk, and to his kindness I owe the copy of the 
correspondence given in Appendix IV. relating to Muller'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. Harry 
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 Littlojohn, of Edinburgh, who 
has permitted the reproduction of the police bill for the 
apprehension of Lefroy. 

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


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. H. I. 

LONDON, May, 1911. 


Introduction, - 
Table of Dates, 

The Trial- 



The Indictment, -...... 
The Solicitor-General's Opening Speech, .... 

Evidence for the Prosecution. 

David Buchan, 
Mrs. Bnchan, 
T. Fishbourne, 
Henry Vernez, 
Sydney Jones* 
Benjamin Ames, 
William Timms* 
Alfred Ekin, - 
Edward Dougan, 
Dr. Francis Toulmin, 
Dr. Alfred H. Brereton, 
Dr. Vincent M, Cooper, 


George Greenwood. 
Lewis Lambert, 
Walter Kerressey. 
Dr. Henry Letheby, 
John Death. 


Godfrey T. 
John Haffa, 
George Death, 



Evidence for the Prosecution (continued). 

John Henry Glass, - 

Henry Smith, - 

Alfred Wey, - 

Charles Young, 

Jonathan Matthews, 

Mrs. Matthews, 

Godfrey 3T. Repsch (recalled), 

Mrs. Repsch (recalled), 

Joseph Hennadoart, - 

Edward Watson, 

Thomas H. Walker, - 


W. H. Tiddy, - 
James Gifford, - 
Jacob Weist, - 
George Clarke, - 
Inspector Tanner, 
Thomas J. Briggs 
Samuel Tidmarsn, 
Daniel Digance, 
Frederick W. Thorn, 
Mrs, Blyth (recalled), 



- 70 

- 70 

- 70 

- 72 

- 72 

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Speech for the Defence, 



Evidence for the Defence. 

Thomas Lee, .... 95 

George Byers, - 99 

William Lee, - - - - 99 

Alfred 0. Woodward, - - 100 


Mrs. Jones, . . - - 101 
Mary Asm Eldred, - - -106 
Thomas Beard, .... 108 
Charles Foreman, - - - 109 

The Solicitor-General's Beply, 110 

The Judge's Summing-up, 131 

The Verdict, 145 

The Sentence, 145 


L Extradition Proceedings at New York, 151 

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

III. An Account of the Execution of Muller, 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 


Lord Chief Baron Pollock, 

A "Miiiler"Hat, facing page xvi 

Handbill in Lefroy Case, xxxii 

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, 16 

Mr. James Hannen, 30 

Sir R. P. Collier, 109 

Mr. Hardinge Giffard, 64 

Mr. Serjeant Parry, 72 

Franz Miiller, 130 

Mr. Baron Martin, 144 

Franz Muller, 169 



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 looked up, taken to Chalk Farm station, end later 
brought back to Bow. 

About twenty minutes past ten on the same night the driver 
of a train of empty carriages from Hackney JSffiek 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 foot towards London and hia 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 fiereral 

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. Bobarts & 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 Fenchurch Street and Hackney Wick, or 
Victoria 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 
9.50 train for Hackney Wick. From that moment Mr. Briggs 
had been seen by no one until he was found insensible on the 

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 higb*ha,t 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; whfch 
wa arge, heavy, and stained with blood. Fiom the appear- 


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. Bobbery 
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 

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. Briggs 
on the night of his murder. He described tbe 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 cub 
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 
ratber singular name of Death. This box had been given to 
his little girl by a young German of the name of Franz Mittier. 
Mtiller had been at one time engaged to one of Matthews 7 
daughters, but, owing to his unreasonable jealousy, the engage- 
ment had been broken ofi. 

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 a a 
gunsmith, he had turned tailor, and had been working up to 
tile 2nd of July in the employment of a Mr. Uodgkinson. 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 ho 
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 tho police with another link 
in the chain of evidence against Muller. He identified tho 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 departures 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 lodgur 
an excellent character. "He was," she said, "a quiet, wril- 

ii^ yi 

i *H e J 



c* x ^ 

<* <:. 



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 
bod at eleven o'clock. On the following day, Sunday, she 
said that he had been in the best of spirits, laughing, chat Ling, 
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. Briggs. Since his 
departure for America Mrs. Blyth had received a letter from 
Miiller, posted from Worthing. It ran as follows: 

On the sea, July IGlh, in the morning. Dear friends, I am glad to 
confess that I cannot have a hotter time as I have, for the sun shines nice 
and the wind blows fair as it is at present moment, everything will go 
well. 1 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 Miillor had brought with him when he first camo to lodge 
at her house. It bore on it the name of Walker, Crawford 
Street, Marylebone, the name of the shop from which Matthews 
hud stated that he Lad bought the hat for Miillor. 

Tho police lost no time in getting on the track of the young 
Gorman 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 Matt/hewn, and a warrant 
granted by Mr. Henry, chief magistrate at Bow Street, 
for Mailer's arrest, loft Euston station for Liverpool. They 
sailed from there for New York on Tuesday, 20th July, by the 
New York and Philadelphia Company's steqpiship "City of 
Manchester." The steamer was timed to arrive at New York 
some two or throe weeks before the sailing ship that was 
carrying Miiller. The proceedings of the police in thia case 
bear some resemblance to those employed recently in the capture 
of Crippen, save that in 1864 there was no wireless telegraphy 
to aBHure the police officers that the " Victoria " had their man 
on board. Inspector Tunuer and his companions reached New 
York on the 6th 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 
n xvii 

Franz Muller. 

Muller, 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. 
MiiUer was represented by a Mr. Chauncey Schaffer. 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 



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

In England Mutter'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 largo headings to the news of Muller 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 Muller 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 Muller 
possessed $3000 or $4000 at the tune of his arrest in New Tork, 
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 Muller 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 Mutter'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 
Mullen 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 Muller 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. Muller 


Franz Muller. 

was reading " David Copper-field." 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 aUuded 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 Fi*anz 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 Punchy 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 Holloway 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 Mutter'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 


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 daring 
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 a ' ^t Franz Muller. 
This they returned on the following Wedu iay, and on the 
next day, Thursday, the 27th, Muller was put upon his trial. 
The prewiding 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 Who Earl of Halsbury, ex-Lord Chancellor of England, 
and the only survivor amongst the distinguished lawyers who 
took part in Muller's trial. Mr, Hannen had been appointed 
recently junior counsel to the Treasury, or, in legal wlang, 
"Attorney-General's devil.'' He was soon to b.e raised to hjgi 
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 memher 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 
stack " 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 MiiUer'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. 



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 Muller who had brought him Mr. Briggs's 
chain on the llth of July, which he had valued at 3 10s. 
Muller 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 Muller had been to his 
shop in the previous year, but Deatih and his brother were 
positive that they had neither of them seen the prisoner 
before the llth of July. 

Mrs. Blyth, Mtiller'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, Muller 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 Muller, gave important evidence. Muller 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, 
Muller 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. Muller 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 Muller had been wearing previous to 
this. To the best of her belief it was the hat found in the 
railway carriage. Cross-examined, Mrs. Repsch said that she 
particularly remembered this hat because of its peculiar 

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

acxiii % 

Franz Muller. 

hat a little too easy on the head, he had placed a piece of 
tissue paper inside the lining; some small fragment* of this 
tissue paper were remaining in the band of the hat when found 
in Miffler'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 prvus '* 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 bat found in the carriage had necessarily 
belonged to Muller. He deprecated warmly any intention of 
accusing Matthews of the murder. At the samo time, he 
suggested that the hat found in the carriage might just as 
well have been Matthews' as Miiller's. Matthews he described 
as an entirely unreliable witness, actuated solely by the desire 
to obtain the 6300 reward, and proved in one instance to have 
lied deliberately before both magistrate and coroner. 

AM regards Mr. Briggs's hat, he commented on tho 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. Miiller'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 ho was 
buying thorn 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 boon 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 mean* 



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's 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 
Mailer'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 
Feuchurch 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 carpot 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 CamberweU Gate at ten minutes to ten, it was 
clear that he could not have left Fenchuroh Street by the 9.50 

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 bo. "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 

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 tho unfortunate 

class, and that of the man and woman in whoso house she 

lived. Mtiller had formed an intimacy with the girl lldred, 

and, according to the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Jones, with 

whom the poor girl lodged, Muller had called at their house 

in CamberweU 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 bo 

had left. Jf the evidence of Mrs. Jones was absolutely correct, 

then Muller could not have reached Fenchurch Street from 

CamberweU in time to have caught the 9.50 train. But tho 

prosecution suggested that her evidence was not strictly correct. 

It had been proved that Muller had left his friend Haffci at 

Jewry Street at eight o'clock that night. If he had gone 

straight from there to Gunberwdl he would have reached there 

about nine, the hour at which he must have known the girl 

xxviii ** 


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 
Fenohuroh 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, Muller 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. Muller listened to the charge with 
painful anxiety. The jury, who declined the off er 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," ho 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 Mullen 

No sooner had Miiller 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 Midler'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 Miiller 3 s neck. 
Punch waxed very sarcastic over these insinuations, and made 
them the subject of the following verses: 


The German who clapped when the Diet dared draw 

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

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

From 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 Uth 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 beol 
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 
bit i 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, who 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. Miffier had 

+ j <*J*C* U.U, 


since his 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 Miillcr'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 


Franz Mailer* 

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 -Miiller, 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 be alec 
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 

It is difficult at this distance of time to quite appreciate 
the extraordinary interest that the case of Miiller 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 bo 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- 


AND WHKEKiS Vertict of WILFOL MUBDBB ha. bwn ittoned bj . OorgW. Jury igvut 


WHOM Purvait ud Handwriting gma heretm, 


and who w described M bolng 22 yorn of fe, holffht ff ft 9 or 9 m., wry thin, hair (cut abort) dirk, amall dark whufcen , drew, 
dark frock coat, .and ahoefl, and Buinmawl low black bai (worn at back of head), had aoratahet fiom fingera on throat, aovend 
wound* on he* I, the dreeing of which ujvolvod the cmtm* of hair , receaU^ lodged Ht 4, Catboarfc Koad, Walllnffton, wa aeen 
t 9 80 ^ .mh ult, with Ii! hAad banilawd, at the Povor Ho^ital, Liverpool goad, lalmgton. Had a gold opeB-faW watch 
(which ho t likely to pledge), - Maker. Onffitha, Mile End Road, No I W6l. 

One Half of the above Reward ml! be paid by Her Majesty's Government, and One Half by the Directors of the 

------- a Brighton nod South Oonat Railway to any peraon (Other than a parson, belonging to a Police Force in the United Kingdom) 

who shall give such Information M ahatl lead to the diworer> and apprehonaion of the eaid PEROT LEFRQY MAPtETTON, or 
others, the Murderer, or Murderers, upon ht'a or their conviction , and the Secretary of State for the Home Depaitinent will idrw* 
the grant of Her Majeaty'a gracioua PARDON to any accomplice, not being the peraon who actually committed the Maider, who 
half give Mich evidence M shall lead to a like result 

Infonaadott to be given to toe Chief Coaatable of Blast Suaaex, Lewes, M any Police Station, or to 

The Director of Criminal Itwestigations, Qt Scot/and Yard. 

J * 




flairieon and Son*, Printer* IA Ordinary to ^er Mqeuty, St. Martin'i Lane. 

Reproduction of Handbill in Lefroy Case. 


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 throe month** later ho was more than suspected of the 
murder of Monsieur Poinsot, a distinguished judge, on the 
railway between Troyea and Paris. Though the guilt of Jud 
was clearly established, he WUB never captured. 

England had to wait for nearly twenty years before Mutter'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 (Joawfc Kail way 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 ahoc, which he said ho had placed there for safety. 
His Ktatementa were accepted, and he was allowed to go on his 
way* The credulity of the officials on this occasion exposed 
them to a grout deal of ridicule, which found highly humorous 
oxprawion in some Hutirical verses by the late H. D. TrailL 
During the same afternoon the body of Mr. Gold was found near 
the entrance to Baloombe Tunnel. There was a bullet wound 
iu his neck, and further wounde on his body, apparently 
inflicted with a knife. Lofroy, after his release by the police, 
disappeared. It was not until a week after the murder that 
<* xxxiii 

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 Dcvify 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 hour**. She 
then went on to Houn&low 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 


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 tiie 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 th&t he would not 
do her any further injury, if she said nothing about it. On the 
overling of his arrest George Henry Parker for that was the 
name of tho man made a full confession of the crime. He 
had been drinking heavily, and had formed the acquaintance 
of a woman who, ho said, had told him that she was unhappy 
at homo, and had asked him to take her away with him. It was 
to effect this purpose that ho had committed the crime. Parker 
TOS 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 tho 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 
Mcratham 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 
Hide of the tunnel, and her gloves were covered with soot. On 
the 16th of October tho coroner's jury found that Miss Money 
had met her death by severe injuries 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 MuILer, 
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 

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. Niabet 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 ooal 
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 XLO 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 



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 carnage, 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. Tt 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 Mullet. 

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. Dicfcman 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 Diokman 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 Hepplo was not mistaken and was 
telling the truth and his character made any other supposition 


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 nest 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 bo 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 
Lamb ton' 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 

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 " 3. 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 m&a, one of which, 
entering the brain, had caused death. At the conclusion of 
the evidence the magistrates decided that a prima fame 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. Diokmau 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 parity covered his faoe. I recognised 


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 

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 

The trial of Dickman commenced on the dth of July before 
Mr. Justice Coleridge. Mr. Tindal Atkinson, E.G., led for the 
Grown, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Mitchell Innes, 
K.C. In opening the case, Mr. Tindal Atkinson emphasised 
the fact that four persons bad seen Dickman in the company 
of the deceased on the morning of 18th March. A man named 
Haven 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- 


Franz Mullen 

duced a pair of sufede 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 Hie 
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. Tn cros|s-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 stains 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 havo been 
favourable to the prisoner. At the same time, it never 
emphasised unduly the strength of the circumstantial evidence 
against him. Ike 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 
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 


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 1" 

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 

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 more 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 Dotty Chronicle, in which he asked if anybody, 
after reviewing Dickman's own evidence, could, unless he 
lookod 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. 


Franz Muller. 

Dickman's appeal was held before the Court of Criminal 
Appeal, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alvcrstonc, 
and Justices Lawrance and Phillimore, on Friday, 22uc! July. 
Mr. Mitchell Innes, who appeared for Dickman, deoli, chiefly 
with the unsatisfactory character of Ha 11*8 identification of the 
prisoner, and the fact that Mr. Tindal Atkinson, in !iin con- 
cluding speech for the Crown, had commented on fche fuel rtuit 
Mrs. Dickman had not been called as u witness for the (Ideate. 
Hall was called before the Court, un<l examined by Mr. Mitcholl 
Innes, when it appeared that he had been aRsiHlcil rufhtT 
improperly by the police in his identification of thu prinoncr. 
But the Court held that this identification had HO lit lie bearing 
on the real merits of the case that it was impossible* to in tor- 
fere with the verdict of the jury on the ground of anything 
that had happened at the police station. As to Mr, IhVk- 
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 mindfl, 
they must re-consider their verdict; but the foranun lt:ul replied 
that the subject had never been mentioned amongst them. 
Without calling on Mr. Tindal Atkinson, the Court ditmriKHcd 
the appeal. 

On August the 5th the Home Secretary wrote that- ho UWM 
unable to advise any interference with the duo course of Jbe 
law in Diclonan's caso, and on the 9th of August Uiokmaii wan 
executed in Newcastle Gaol. Ho met bin ilcatb uufiiiwlihifrly* 
and made no confession. From the moment that Dickiuun 
contemplated the murder of Nisbet he seems to have net about 
it with a method and determination that were unfaltering. 
His journey to Stannington on 4th March was, no kmbt, us 
the judge suggested, in the nature of a rokounuil for tiro aotunl 
deed itself. Dickman, at the end of his reHOurcem luul 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 boon 
connected with the murder of a Jewish moneylender, which 
had occurred in Sunderland on the evening of the 8tli March, 
1909. It would seem that Dickman had undoubtedly had flume 



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? "WTiat 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. 


Leading Dates in the Muller Case. 



July 9. The body of Mr. Briggs found on 1&e 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. 6. " City of Manchester" arrives at New York. 

25. <c Victoria " reaches New York. Mfffler is arrested. 
27.----Commissioner Newton grants Midler's extradition. 

Sept. 3. Muller sails for England by steamship "Etna/* 
Inman Line. 

16. " Etna " reaches Liverpool. 


Franz Muller. 


Sept. 17. Muller is brought to London and charged at J5ow 

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

26. Coroner's jury return verdict of " wilful muixk-;* " 
against Muller. Magisterial hearing concluded, 
and Muller committed for trial ut Central Criminal 

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 Miiller 
is sentenced to death. 

Nov. 10. The German Legal Protection Society present 
memorial to the Home Secretaiy 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 



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 Esses, 
Kent, and Surrey within the jurisdiction of the Central 
Criminal Court. 

The Court met at Ten o'clock. 


THE LOED CHIEF BAEON (Sir Frederick Pollock). 

Counsel for the Crown 

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Svr R. P. Collier, Q.C., M.P.). 

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

Counsel for the Prisoner 

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

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

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

The PRISONER Not guilty. 

GLBRK 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. 

GLE&K OF 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 bos 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. 


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 OF 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 COUBT The gentlemen who are summoned as 
<a foreign jury need not stay any longer. 

(Several jurymen were then called, but Mr* Serjeant Parry 
exorcised his privilege of objecting to several*) 

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


Franz Mullen 

BABOW MARTIN There is no such Act of Parliament. 

SERJEANT PAERT I ask that the names be put in the box 
and drawn. 
BABON MARTIN-- I shall proceed according to law. 

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

The LOHD CHIEF BABON Mr. Avory was calling the iiumt 
of the gentlemen of the jury who had been summoned iron- 
Middlesex. I propose that, as counties send prisoners fo" 
trial to the Old Bailey, and there are pannels from each oi 
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 OF THE COURT said Gentlemen, the prisoner, 
Franz Mtiller, is indicted for that he did feloniously, wilfully, 
and with malice aforethought, kill and murder Thomas Briggw, 
and it is your duty to say whether he is guilty or not guilty. 

_ The SoLiorroB-GENERAirGentlemen of the jury, it is mj 
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 JK 
one which, as we all know, has been canvassed and discussed in 
almost every newspaper, I might say almost every house, in 
the kingdom j 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 

The Solicitor-General's Opening. 

favourable manner every argument that can be made in 
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. 
Kobarts & 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 9fch 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 
iiomo at Clapton Square. Mr. Buchan walked with him as 
far as tho omnibus which went to King William Street, where 
he would got 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 tbe 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- 
class 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 
Cteneral ^^ ^ g at & gt ^.^ ^ ^ orted out. Thf 

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 wefc on the cushion, 
and upon examination they found it to bo 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. Ho found also fche black 
bag, the stick, and a hat, in respect of which I may have 
some remarks to make by and by. The guard, of coums 
caused all the passengers to leave the carriage, locked it up., 
and sent it on to the Chalk Farm station, where it was receive* i 
by Mr. Greenwood, and sent to Bow station, where it remained 
from that time to this, and where it is now in the same Ktatt 
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. Ho 
called the attention of the driver to it; it proved to bo the 
body of a man, who was still breathing, but insensible* Ho 
was taken to the Mitford Castle Inn, and it was then discovered 
that this person was Mr. Briggs. Gentlemen, Mr. Brigga 
never recovered his consciousness, but lingered in that state 
until the next evening, when he died, having boen convoyed 
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 ho was found.. 
I am informed he had several Revere wounds, appar- 
ently inflicted by a blunt instrument, used with groat force* 
The skull had been fractured in several places. There wore* 
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 wert* 
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 

The Solicitor-General's Opening. 

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

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 boing struck in the train. This blood in the carriage 
lias 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 
enepa 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 aloue 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 Jit ono end, Tle 
stick was covered with blood, and it is now covered with blood. 
It is possible that the stick might have become blooded in tlio 
carriage withoub having been used as a weapon ; hub you will 
see it, and you will judge, assuming the murderer to huvc 
been on the opposite side, whether the wounds miglifc 
Lave been produced by that weapon. But whether produced 
by that weapon, or a life-preserver, or other weapon, it IK a 
matter on which I am not able to give you any diiifcinct infor* 
mation. Gentlemen, you may bo disposed to ask whether, 
on the part of the Crown, we are disposed to rcprcwui. tins 
as a premeditated murder or a fortuitous one. On thai, point, 
again, I cannot offer any distinct information, hut it v/onld 
appear to me that the murder was the result of sutne suddi'ii 
determination. It may be that the murderer, seeing Mr. Briggs 
in the carriage, and being able to get in, or being in lh,,t 
carriage alone with him, he might have been soixcd with tho 
sudden impulse to possess his watch. T am told u person 
with a second-class ticket might have got into that carriage, 
because, the train being late, the tickets were not o.;"mmod. 
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 mo 
to enter. I have described to you the state of Mr. BriggR'n 
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. Brigg>K 

The Solicitor-General's Opening. 

stick. There was also found in that carriage a hat, and that Soliettoip- 
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 lie was seen to do it. 

It ia now proper for me to give somo description of the prisoner 
at the bar, and to state the circumstances which point to his 
guilt. The prisoner, Franz Miillev, is a German. He cume 
to England about two years ago, and worked as a tailor for 
several employers, the last being Mr. Hodgkinson, Great Queen 
Street. Miilior 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 M tiller 
contemplated going to America, and' therefore the fact of his 
going there is not the slightest evidence against him. Mtkller 
had a watch and chain of his own, which ho was very fond of 
displaying, but his necewsities were such that ho was obliged 
to pawn thia watch and chain. He pawned the wateli for 
<3 and the chain for 1. Miiller lodged al the house oC a 
Mrs. Blyth in the Victoria Park, and it is a fact not altogether 
undeserving of consideration that the railway station would 
be on hit* way home or, at all events, would not be out of 
Iris wuy home. Now, what wore his whereabouts on the 
Saturday night of the xmmlorf After ho left his employer, 
Mr. Hodgkinson, he was in the habit of pawing a goo<l deal 
of time at the house of Mr. Repsch, a tailor living in Old 
Jewry Street ; and on this night he was at Mr. Kepsch't*. Ho 
left tliere about half-past seven o'clock, saying he was going 


Franz Muller. 

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 Cheapside, 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 in this 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 gives, 
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, ho left, 
the box, and gave it to Mrs. Matthews's little girl. 

Now, gentlemen, Muller therefore clearly had Mr. Brigga'p 
chain on Monday morning at ten o'clock, and exchanged it for 
another. It may be proper for me to state to you what ho 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. 9 he goes to the pawn- 
broker and redeems his own watch. The next thing to do 

The Solicitor-General's Opening. 

is to get his chain out of pawn, which, as I have told you, he Solicitor- 
pawned for 1. 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 6s. What does he do with this? Why, having got this 
money, he goes to the London Docks that was on Wednesday 
lie 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 aatisfied that at this time, before he left the country, 
Muller had not only Mr. Briggs's chain, but Mr. Briggs's watch. 
The wutch is never seen in England. He says nothing about 
the watch 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 ol canvas. The account Midler 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 hud it two years. I think, therefore, you will come to 
the conclusion that Miillcr 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 
tho 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 
Ueneral ' 

the case. 

Before I pass to another part of the case let me 
remind you that the stolen property is found on MiiJler 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 ; bub 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 lei'b 
in the railway carriage, and beyond all doubt it is not Mr. 
Briggs's hat. The hat bears the name of " H. Walker, 4i) 
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- 
men, I believe I shall be in a position to satisfy you that thiw 
was the hat of Muller, and that he wore this hat on that very 
night. I will very shortly stale 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 u 
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 lit 
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 MiiUer to buy it himself. The 


The Solicitor-General's Opening. 

cabman bought this hat for him for 8s. 6d., and Muller 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 Muller on the 
Monday, not wanting the box a gave it to Matthews' s little 
child. Matthews observed on it the name of Death. Ee 
saw a placard announcing that the murderer of Mr. Briggs had 
exchanged Mr. Briggs 3 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 Muller's," and he gave L 
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 Miiller'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 MuUer, and the murderer may not have had a hat of 
Walker's. Gentlemen, Muller had a hat of Walker's, and if 
not in the box, where is this hat of Walker's 1 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, but he took 
away Mr. Briggs's hat. You 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 Miiller's possession. It was found in 
his possession when he was apprehended in America, Muller 
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 Mullen 

Solicitor- said, s ' My father's hat was higher in the crown than this." 
General ^ ^ ag p er f ec ^y right. This hat has been cut down an inch 
or an inch and a half. I will call before you the man who 
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 Mtiller 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. Mtiller, on being ques- 
tioned, said he had this hat a year. This hat is clearly found 
in Muller'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. Eepsoh 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 Soiieita*- 
attention to it, and said, "You have got a new hat. 31 He 
said he had had it two months. " Why," Mr. Kepsch said, 
"this is a guinea hat." "No, 53 Muller said, "I gave 
14s. 6d. for it." You, gentlemen, will judge of the value of 
this evidence. I will further observe that, on Mutter'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 

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 carnage ; 
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. 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. 


David Buchan DAVID BuoHAN, 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 ho 
was in time for his train. The nest morning I went to tlic 
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 

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

Was he in good spirits? Tes. 

He was in perfect self-control? Tes, 

You are quite sure of that? Tes; I am quite certain of thaL 

Is your wife here? Tes. 

Was she examined before the coroner? Tes. 

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? Tes. 

Tou say that this omnibus that he got into goes up the Old 
Kent Road? Tes; through the Borough and over London 

And from London Bridge to King William Street? Tes. 

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

Mr. Serjeant BaUantme. 

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 
so? 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 BALLAOTENE 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 
fiiznplv corroborating my husband's statement. 

Huvo you over hoard any one use any threats towards Mr. 
Brings? Not personally. 

Wlutt do you moan by not personally? Not from any one's 
lips, Imt T Lftvc 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. 

SmTEANT 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 queHtion waw not repeated, and the witness retired. 

THOMAS FiHiiBOimra, examined by Mr. HANNBN I am a ticket T-Fishbowne 
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 loading to the platform. Thero is a 
considerable flight of stairs up to the platform which passengers 
have to pass after they leave mo. I knew the late Mr. Briggs 
o I7 

Franz Muller. 

T.Fishbourne by sight. 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 PAKRY I only look at the 
tickets to " nip " them. I " nip " all for the North London 

Henry Voraez HENBY VEKNBZ, examined by Mr. BBASLEY I Jim a clerk in 
the employment of Messrs. Robarts & 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 lo 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 wo got out. Two other 
persons besides us, who had got into the carnage, alno 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 PABKY I havo no questions to ak the 

Sydney Jones SYDNEY JONES, examined by Mr. BHASLEY I live at 10 Bams- 
bury Park, Islington. I am also a clerk in the employment 
of Messrs. Kobarts <fc 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 

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. 

Gross-examined by SERJEAJSTT 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. 

BENJAMIN Ams, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL 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 

Franz Mullet. 

B. Ames Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY There was a good deal 
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 siae 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. I 
had nothing to do with the discovery of the body. 

Re-examined by the SoLrdTOR-GHNHRAL -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: TIMMS, examined by SHBJEAOT BALLAKTINB I aia 
a guard on North London railway. I brought a train of' 
empty carnages from Hackney Wick station on 9th July. I 
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 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

lying on his back, with, his head towards Hackney. He was Wm. items 
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 SEBJEAOT 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 

ALFRED EKIN, examined by Mr. HANNEN I was the engine- Alfred Ekin 
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 

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

EDWARD DOTTGAN (Police Constable K71), examined by B. Dongaa 
Mr. BBASLBT I was on duty in Wick Lane, Bow, about 
twenty minutes past ten on the night of the 9th of July. 


Franz Muller. 

Dougan In consequence of a cry I beard on the line I went up fee 
embankment, about eight or nine steps up. There is a 
kind of path made there by persons going up and down at 
fbe corner of the bridge. I saw several persons carrying a 
gentleman down off the line. I accompanied those persons ic 
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. 

, Toufcnin Mr. FRANCIS TOULIOT, examined by SERJEANT BALLAN- 
OOTB 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. 1 


Evidence for Prosecution, 

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

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. 

SEBJBAITT BALLANTHNB 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- 


Franz Muller. 

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

Cross-examined by SEBJEANT 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 J 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 HENKT BBBEBTON", examined by the SOLIOITOB- 

am a surgeon, residing at the Old Ford Koad. 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 n, 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 au 
upper room, and laid on a mattress on a table, I attempted 
to restore reaction by different methods, but could not succeed. 

By BABON MABOSN 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 car 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 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

-think that those on the left side of the head were owing to Alfred H. 
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 1 No. I was with 
him during the whole night until six o'clock the nest morning, 
when he was attended by Mr. Toulmin. 

I believe you made some examination of the railway car- 
riage? That was at sis 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 

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- V. Coop 
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? 1 
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 GEOUGE GREENWOOD, examined by the 

j am the statiomnaster 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 

JL Lambert LEWIS LAMBERT (Police Constable K311), examined by the 
SOUOITOR-GENERAIJ I am a police constable. I went, on the 
afternoon of Sunday, 10th July, to the Chalk Farm station, 
und 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 wore 
owned by young Mr. Briggs, but the hat he know 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. BriggR 
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 (thai 
belonging to Mr. Briggs). 

w. Kerressey WALTER, KBfBRESSBT (Police Inspector K), examined by Mr. 
BEASLBT 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 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

to Bow station, about ten in the morning. I there saw in a W. Kerressejr 
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 flbie 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 obsei-ved 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. tt 
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 SBRJEAOT 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 thisi case. I know Thomas Lee. He was not 
examined before the coroner in my presence. I heard he was 

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 1 

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

SBRJ^AKT PARKY 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. 

CHTOF 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-esainination 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. 1 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. 

>r,H.Letheby Dr. HENRY LETEEBY, examined by the SOUCITOB-GBNEEAL I 
am a professor of chemistry at the London Hospital. I mado 
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, 26lh 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 bo human l>loo<l. 
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, ao that the Wood 
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 tho sisse of sixpence**. Such an effect would havo 
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 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

side. In fact there was blood on all four of the cushions. 
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 SERJEA:NT 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. f" 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 

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 PABAY 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 

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 Pfwtograyh by the London Stereoscopic and Mmttigraphic Co , Ltd.). 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

shop, and pay you Is. 6<L for it? Certainly not, to my John Death 

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, 

BARON 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 Miller'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 
i,hink I should have remembered him. 

Look again at that chain (No. o) and tell me whether a 
link has been broken 1 This chain has been mended. I 
cannot say whether it is my work or not. I cannot remember 
it ; in fact, I am sure T have never seen this chain before. 

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

The CHIEF BAIIW Had you not better send for the brother 
of Mr, Death} 

SmwflANT BAtLAiniNB We have sent for him, and he will 
be here very shortly. 

Mrs. Buunr BLTTH, examined by Mr. HANOTN I am the wife Mrs. Blyth 
of George Blyth, ti 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 Uth 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 
tho morning of Saturday, 9th July. T saw the prisoner at 
eleven o'clock that morning. When he went out I did not 
him homo 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 SJIYV 
the prisoner next morning between eight and nine o'clock. 
He breakfasted with us, and stopped at homo till day. In the 
evening we my husband, myself, and the prisoner went out 
together and returned together. He spent the day with UF 
on Sunday. On Monday morning I saw him between seven 
and eight o'clock. He breakfasted with us, and lei % t tiic 
house about eight o'clock. I saw him next between eight and 
nine on the same evening. He spent some time with us, ami 
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 Rimilnr 
to it. He said nothing about it. He remained Tuesday anil 
Wednesday, and left on the Thursday morning. When lie 
came to us he brought a hatbox and a long black box. This 
hatbox (the one produced) has the same name, " Walkor, 4<.) 
Crawford Street, Marylebone," upon it. I found Unit, 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 SBIOTANT PAimy -He passed Ihc- day on 
Sunday much the same as usual, and there was nothing 
different in his manner. I have known the prisoner nioiv 
than twelve months, and have found him a quiet, moftoiiHi\v. 
well-behaved young man. I have had plenty of opportunity* 
of judging of his temper, as he used to take hi mail* with 
us. He took every meal with us on that Sunday. I consider 
he was of a kind and humane disposition. Wo uAiiallv look 
a Sunday walk together. He walked out with m on tin- 
Sunday, and exhibited the aame manner ho uHuulIr wrMIiitiil. 
My husband has not been examined cither brfwMlm coroner 
or before the magistrate. He ha not boon oniminoil at all. 

Did the prisoner wear the stime dress on the Sunday thai 
he wore on tlie Saturday? YOR. 

Did he wear the same dress on the Monday , on t,h< 
Saturday and the Sunday *-I cannot recolloct whether i 
tiousers he wore were light or dark; but he wore the nme 
coat I have seen the coat since, and have recognised it M the 
one he wore, (Coat produced and handed to the witncH.) 

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 gavo that slipper 

to Inspector Tiddy with the hatbos. The prisoner got lamo 

on the Thursday. lie 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 Mth of July. He told us when Le left the name of 

the ship ho 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. (Latter read.) Tt ia 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 pea, July 16, in the morning. 

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

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 SOLIOITOR-GHOTKAL Wo were walking 
from six to nine o'clock on the Sunday night. 

By BABON MARTIN The prisoner hud a pair of glippertt. lie 
took one slipper out with him on Saturday. This is the one 
he wore on his bad foot, the cue he took out with him. The 
other slipper he left at Mrs. Repsch's. 

D 33 

Franz Muller. 

George Blyth GEORGE BLYTH, examined by Mr. GOTABD 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 bod. On the Monday evening he got home 
after I got home. It was between eight and nine. Ho and 
a man named Haffa came in together. I noticed that ho had 
a new chain. I had not noticed whether lie had been wearing 
a chain for some time previously. He had not ono 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. MBTOALFB He ceased to go to work 
with me on the 7th, which was about the time ho hurt his 
foot. A cart, he said, had run against it and hurt it. Ho 
used to wear a slipper up to the Sunday. He wore a slipper 
on Sunday morning. We walked all the timo, 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 tLe 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 

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

Evidence for Prosecution. 

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

Mrs. ELIZABETH SARAH RHPSOH, examined by the SOLICITOR- Mrs. Repseh 
G:ENBRAJL I am wife of Mr. William Sepsch, a tailor, 12J 
Jewry Street, Aldgate. I am an English woman born of 
"German parents. My husband is a German. I have known 
the prisoner Midler 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, Miiller 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 htxd 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. Gd. 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. 1 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 tho hat. 
The merino and the lining are the same. As far us 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 it* 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 Multer'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 

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 Haifa 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, J produce a slipper which was left at my house on the 
Saturday. He must has-e taken the right slipper with him. I 
do not knov* of my own knowledge that he left in a slipper; 
only from what I have heard Haifa say. I understood that 
Muller 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. 1 can't say whether he used to romance 
a little or not. He told us that he had told Mrs. Blyth that 
Mr. Hodgkiiison was Bonding him to New York. Of course 
we knew better. He did not tell me that he had said he was 
to have ,-6150 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 
Muller 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 Muller '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. 
Now 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. Repseh Did you ever ask the prisoner to lend you 5s. 1 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 suro 
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 Midler wore the same dress on the Monday as on the 
Saturday, or whether he had the velvet-collared or morning 
coat on. 

Ke-examined by the SOLICITOR-GEOT&AL 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 6s. 
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 aud 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 Mutter's hat until I saw his hat. I said, when 
he took it brand-new out of the bandbox, <4 Wha1 peculiar 
lining," I have seen him put letters behind tho lining more 
than once. 

Re-cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY Did you pledge a 
coat for Muller on the Wednesday before he loft? 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 ho had not sufficient 
money to pay his passage. He asked me to pawn it for him; 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

that was on Wednesday, the 13th, and I palmed it for 6s. Mrs. Repsch 
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 ; hut 
the old ones that he wore during the day were left behind, 
and those he came in in the morning were gone. 

TINE I am husband of the last witness. I have 
been acquainted with the prisoner some time. He 
used to work at my shop. Muller 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 whioh 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 SERJEAOT; PARRY I had seen Muller 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 Muller 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. Haf a 
was 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. Repseh 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 hud 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 

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. Jle 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. Itepsch'y about two 
o'clock. I noticed a chain on him which 1 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 Hepsch's 
and went to my work. When I returned in the evening he 
was still there. We then left Eepsoh's together, and I went 
with him to his lodgings. I remained there that night. I 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

afterwards lent him 12s. Mr. Eepsch told me Mr. Franz John Baffa 

Miiller had not sufficient money for his passage ticket; he 

wanted 12. I gave Mr. Eepsch 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. Eepsch had the ticket for a 

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

got the ticket from Mr. Eepsch. 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 larne. 1 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 Eepsch'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. 1 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 JTOOB You say that you could not see Muller's clothes 
when ho 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. 

George Death GEORGE DEATH, examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINB I am 
a brother of tho 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 perBon. 
I had never, to my recollection, seen him before. 

Cross-examined by SBRJEAN.T 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. Thisi 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? Ilia 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 
several jewellers. Our jobbing jeweller is Mr. Evan$, of 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

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

Re-exammed by SERJEANT BALLANTIKB 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 ihe 
day before find the chain he had just redeemed. We got ,4 
on them. Mliller 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. 

Gross-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 ho has borne a kind 
and humane character. I have been in the habit of asso- 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

ciating with him, and have had full opportunities of judging John 
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. 

HENET 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 Miiller 
who redeemed it, but I did not deliver it myself. 

Cross-esamined by SERJEANT PABRY 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 Miiller, 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. 

I think you are a cab-driver? Yes. 

Do you know Miiller? 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 1 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 time? 
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, 

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. 


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. 6U. 

Did Miiller pay you again? No. 

Not at all? No. 

Did he seUle 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 

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. 

H 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 

SERJEANT PARRY Speak up, sir, do. 

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

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

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

When did you first see it? On the Tuesday morning the 
Tuesday week following the murder. 1 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, end 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 OF THE COUKT produced tlie depositions. 

SBHJBANT PAHUY 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 nut 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 unit 

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 

Evidence for Prosecution, 

signature, and then ask him a question. I wish to hare it j. Mattli 
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 SOUOZTOR-GHKERAL 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 SOLICJITOB-GBNEBAJ. I think the deposition should be read 

SERJEAOT FAERY He has sworn that, as one means of 
identifying it 

BARON MARTIN Wait one moment. You must put in the 

SERJEANT PARRY Certainly. (To Witness)! 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 hats you bought? I 

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. 

B 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 

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 

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

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

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

SERJEANT PABBT 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 6s. 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. Matthei 
examined before the coroner there was no such shop as Downs' 
'in Long Acre?- I 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' M ? 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 1 A detective officer. 

You found out that? I told Mir. 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 

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 & public-house 
visitor. Perhaps I may go there sometimes. 


Franz Mullen 

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 t 

Every day? Yes, sir, 

Do you take in a newspaper? Sometimes I do. 

Any particular newspaper! No. 

A Sunday paper? Yes, Lloyd'*. 

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, Bast 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* 

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? Tes. 

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 Bepsch after you gave information 
to the police? r 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 

How long have you been a cabman? I have been licensed for 
'eight or nine years. I cannot say exactly. 

Have you been anything else? Tes. 

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 
<JamberweIl, 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? 

Never? Never. 

Did you know a gentieman of the name of Luaklater? Yes. 

Were you his coachman fc No. 

Did you live with him? No. 


Franz Muller. 

X Mftttfcaws 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 ouft 
of it. I owed money, and I was not able to pay it. 

Are you still in that position? Yea. 

Have you stated to your creditors that as soon as ever your 
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? 

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 do* 
expect a portion of the reward? H 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 have done my duty the same. 

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

Then you do expect it. Why did you not answer me before* 
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 
bfflB offering 500. But if it had been a shilling I should 
have done my duty the same. 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

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

By BARON MABTDST 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 1 Yes, leaving my situation without giving due 

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 Norwichi^ I was there in I860. 


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 i 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 SoLiciroR-GsHmAirYou 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 

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 My? 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 

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

By the SOMCSITOR-GBNBRAL 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.) 

SBBJHAKT PABBY -You said to the waterman 

The SoHCEPOB-G3sarasRAif--I object. 
SBBJEANT PARRY I am quite proper'-- 

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

SBRJBAOT PABBY 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 so. 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

The SoiacmR-GEOTRAL That being so, I think he must give J. Matthews 
as the whole account of what took place. 

SERJEAOT PABBT That I object to. 

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

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

The SouoEEOB-GBaspRAi. I understand you to object to any- 
thing he said to the waterman or the waterman to him. 

SBBJEANT PARK* -The witness gave it. 

The SOLIOITOB-GENEBAL You must have the whole. It is not 
fair that you should only have part. 

BAKON 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 CHEAP 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 PABBT Ask the jury if they heard it. 

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

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

The SoLiorroR-GENERAir 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 CHXBB 1 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. 

3. XMttiews whole of the conversation. I think that the Solicitor-General 
is entitled to it. 

SERJEANT PARRY If your lordship so rales. 

The CmsB 1 BARON -We cannot take part of the conversation. 

The SoHCiTOR-GEramr Tell us all that took place. 

SERJEANT PARRY Subject to my objection. 

BARON ILABTTET I did not hear it. 

The SoudTOK-GmBRAL 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, 

SBRJEAJTO PARRY Will your lordship take my objection to- 

The GOTF 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. 

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

The CmBF BARON I have got to this" WEle the horse was- 
standing and drinking I saw the bill and read it." 

The SoLiciroa-GENEBAL 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. 

SBRJEAHT 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 Station 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? 


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 1 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. 

4. Matthews You were cross-examined respecting your hat? Yes; a good 
deal, and I was not prepared to answer questions about my 
bats 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^ 

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. 

IPS. Matthews ELIZA MATTHEWS, examined by SHRJHAOT BALi^NmtE 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 

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. Mtiller 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 PABRY 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 

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? 

Very naturally. Did you notice that afternoon that Muller 
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 Mullen 

wu 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. 

Be-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. Repseh Mr. EtoPSOH (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. 

s. Repseh Mrs. RKPSOB (recalled) said I did not see Miiller for three 
or four weeks on a Sunday. I did not generally see him on 

Mr, Repseh (A question being raised by Serjeant Parry whether Mr. 
Bepsch, 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.) 

JoSBPH HMWWHKP. examined by Mr. GOTARD I am 
foreman to Mr. Hodgkinson, tailor, in Threadneedlo Street. 
The prisoner was in Mr. Hodgkinson's service for six weeks 
before the 9tfc 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 hit 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 


Evidence for Prosecution. 

at piecework, and discharged himself a week before the murder, Joseph 
on the 2nd of July. He was not engaged to go to America in Henna41ia]rt 
Mr. Hodgkinson's service. 

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

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

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

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

EDWABD WATSOW, 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' si 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 SHRJEAOT PABKT 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 CHEEBP BARON Do you mean three or four hats, or 
Hxree or four pieces of lining We buy the lining already out. 
This lining was one of a lot of sample linings which Mr. Walker 
bought, and I do not tbmk there were more than three or four 
of this particular pattern. I do not know from whom he bought 

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. Kddy WILLIAM HENRY TiDDT, Inspector of Metropolitan Police,, 
examined by SERJI&NT BALLANTTNE 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 PAEET The slipper you received 
from Mrs. Blyth? Yes; I received it from Mrs. Blyth. It is 
the slipper for the right foot. 

James Glfford JAMBS GIFFOKD, examined by Mr. GIFFABD 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 
came 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 canvas. 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 

Mr. Hardinge Giffards 

Evidence for Prosecution. 

Cross-examined by SEBJEAOT PABBY The prisoner would have Jamas Gifford 
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 Mullor, and his age, twenty-four years. 

Ke-examined by Mr. GIFFABD 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. GIFFABD I am in the employ Jacob 
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 SBBJBAOT PABRT 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 

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

F 65 

Franz Muller. 

G. Clarke GEOBGB CJLAKO, examined by Mr. BBASLBT I am a sergeant 
of the detective police. On the 24th of August I went on 
board the " Victoria " in New York. Mr. Ticrnau, 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, "Ton are charged with the murder of Mr. 
Briggs." I, finding that Tiernan did not recollect the par- 
ticulars, followed up with, " Tes, on the North London rail- 
way, between Hackney Wick and Bow, on the Oth 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 off ' f He 
said, " The key of my box." I said, " Where is your box? " 
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 wan 
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 wat* 
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. lie 
replied, " It is my watch." I then took out a hat which wan 
standing in the box, and said, " Is this your hat? " Do Raid, 
" Yes." This is the hat (taking up tho ono suppOHctl 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^KJBANT? PABBY The prisoner answered 
my questions about the watch and the hat readily, and with- 
out the slightest hesitation. 

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. Bid he not 
say, " I know nothing about it; I never was on the line "? 
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 
^aid 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 f ound after that 
deposition that they were shirts which had not been worn 
probably more than once or twice. 

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


Franz Muller. 

"Yes, I have/' He then said he had not lost it; it must 
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 fr 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 Miiller 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 

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

Cross-examined by SERJEANT PASJRT 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 froat 

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 anftw 
white stone upon it, he at once said, "No; it has got a head 
'upon it/ 9 and that he had bought it in Cheapside for 7s. 6d. 
I did not hear M say in New Tork 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 
Bold 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. 

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

The bench assented. 

CHOUGHS CLARKE, recalled, and examined by SERJEANT PAKR.T G Clavte 
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 SoiaoiTOB-GENEitAi -The prisoner had 
a 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 
tfon't recollect that anything else passed between us with 
respect to his clothes* 

SBRJBAOT PAKRY 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 t I believe they were closely examined, but, not to my 

knowledge, analysed. 


Franz Muller, 

TJ,Bpigffs THOMAS J^HKES BRIGQ& I am the second son of the lato 
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 
lOtifcx 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 timew 
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. 

5. ndmapsh SAMUEL TIDMABSH 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 trado to 
enter the number of a watch we have to repair in our bookft* 
I have looked at the number of the watch produced. I know if, 
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 tradeperhaps not more than 
T. The original price was very likely about 26, or perhaps 
30 it is an old-fashioned gold watch. 

* Dlgance DAOTL DHUNOB-- 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 Diganee 
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 1J 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 

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 

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. Diganee By SERJEANT PAKRT 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. Tborn 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 1J 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 

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 aw this 
is marked. 

At the request of Serjeant Parry, Inspector TANWHU 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. 

Biyth 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 it?~0n Thursday, the 14th of July. 


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. 


Mr. SBRJRAOT PARRY Hay it please your lordships and 
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 n>-Tn, was guilty of this murder. 
Articles have been written in the public Press proving that he 
could 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. 

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 Siuch 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- 


Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening. 

men, the true test of a man's guilt or innocence is the evidence Mr. Serjeant 
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 
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 bo 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 pf 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-Geneva! said distinctly that that was the evidence 
upon which he relied for a conviction. Now, gentlemen, I 
will Bhow 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. 
Repack and Jonathan Matthews, the cabman have spoken at 


Franz Mullen 

Jfp. Serjeant all decidedly upon that point. Now, gentlemen, you will be 
good enough to bear in mind that there is a vast difference 
between whether Miiller 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 Miiller 
ever had a hat like that, and this being Mutter'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, 
Miiller, and she was positive that this hat was his. But if 
there were another hat similar to the hat Miiller 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 Miiller 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 

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening. 

entered into my mind. Gentlemen, I should be indescribably M*. Serjeant 
foolish and wicked if I were to make such a statement. Except FaPPSr 
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 unsatisfactoiy 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 nay that suspicion is pointing to him. Matthews 
could not say where he was on the night of the murder, but 
now ho 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 ho gave Miiller the hat in exchange for the waistcoat, in 
November, 1863. Now, Matthewis 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 
evidencc-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 Miiller. 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 batter 
of the name of Mr. Downs there at that time. It is, then, 
very important to know where is the hat which exactly resembled 
Mutter's. We had Mr. Walker and his foreman here. Mr. 
Walker and his foreman both say that there might have been 


Franz Mullen 

r. Serjeant three or four hats with this kind of lining in them, or there 
* appy 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, Matthewsi should have purchased one for Miiller 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 Miiller. I appre- 
hend you cannot be sure of anything of the kind. There was 
another hat resembling Midler's, and resembling it in every 
possible respect. Where is that hat? 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. Bepsch's to me when she said that Midler said his 
hat been thrown into the dus thole. 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 respectsi? 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 

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening. 

in the evidence which he gave which I think ought to induce MP. Serjeant 
you to disbelieve him. He had been convicted of a tnunpery Pawy 
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 hat? 
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. Repsoh 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 course 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. 

not actually true. He had said that Mr. Hod^kinson 
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. Bepsch 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. 

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening. 

Briggs, too, was frequently getting his hat lined afresh. Gen- HP. 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 Miiller? 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. Bepsch said that two months 
before the murder she asked Miiller 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. 
Bepsch did not see Mm on the Sunday, and therefore it is 
clear 'that, whatever hat Muller wore on the Sunday, Mrs. 
Bepsch 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, Miiller 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, ho 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- 


Franz Muller. 

HP. Serjeant ever that he would get them at an inferior price, and he must 
apry have known that he was doing a suspicious act* But it does 
not follow that he knew anything of the murder. If ho 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 ducks, where 
he might expect to find purchasers who would Hnn l^ivu the 
country with them? Muller said ho had hud the watch for 
two years. There can be no doubt that is untru~* : Iwl, gentle- 
men, if you consider for a moment, you will e that the 
prisoner at the bar, perfectly irrespective of ih<* murder, hud 
some reason to believe that, in buying the wafdh 'ind chain, 
he was doing something that would bring him into trouble, 
and then the observations that had been mude about hi* having 
told untruths about them tiro oawily to bo accounted for, He 
told Mrs. Repsch that ho had bought Mr. Death 'K chain at, the 
docks. That was not true; but Hfcili, if he made Hie jwrchaRO 
in the docks that morning, the falsehood was in *f. M< great an 
it would have been if he had made no purchano iti all, Thare 
is one very ouriouH quality whioh HUB young man jmHMHHodL 
He was always cither buying waiHtuoutK or hats, making 
trousers, or pledging troiiKWH, or pawning wafrlieM. Hit WAH 
always getting them* things, and he wan a j*ntiug man who 
might easily be tempted into making purduuwM nf thin deHftrip- 
tion. Uiul he any money? I do not intend to #** through tho 
various means he adopted after Monday of ruining money by 
pledging the watch arid chain. It in a curious 
that he had pledged bin own watch and chain, tine! h* 
to have pledged a coat. There i no d(nrf>t tlmt h<? w then 
raising money to pay hin paswago on Wednewlay. 

But^ gentlemen, it hatt been proves! Ixiforo you that Huff a 
saw him in possession of sufficient money to pay hin {wwwgu 
a week before the 19th of July* Then what han J(Hsom <rf 
that money? Gentlemen, it haH gone fmmcw 
only 11s. is found upon him. The prisoner hud th<? 
therefore, of purchasing this watch aud chain, for it would be 
idle to suppose that, in disposing of these article iti the dookn, 
the seller would get more than one-half of their value. Now, 
Miiller was at the docks on Monday morning. My learned 
friend has called Gilford, the clerk, to ahow that thu prisoner 

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening. 

came there on the Wednesday morning, and he was there. He * Serjeant 

calls another young man, a German of the naane of Jacob PftWy 

Weist, who says he saw Muller 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 Muller 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 ihe 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 proHciitctl us 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 &nd chain at thu docks that morning, mippose ho knew 

that, for that Hiuall sum of money lio know he Lad, ho 

could get a gold watch an<l chain, he would have some HUS- 

picion thut tho chain was not a good one or the watch not a 

good one, and therefore, in onl<r to remove that Huspicion or 

confirm it, he taken the chain to Mr, Death, the jeweller, to 

ascertain whether it is gold that ho IWN got. By exchanging 

the chain at Mr. Death's ho laid himself open to miHpiciou the 

aamo an if ho had pawned it. I believe lie said to Mr* Tanner, 

" I bought it in Gheapnide, and gave 7s. 6d. for it," which 

is almost the truth. lie mentioned that he had been in 

Chcapside, where Mr. Death lived. He never denied having 

boew ut Mr. Death's, and I think I am free to way that his 

visit there i open to the interpretation I have put upon it. 

I leave it, however, entirely to your judgment. 

Now, gentlemen, what I have fmbmitted to you munt leave 
an impression short of anything like couclunivc&OHR as to the 
guilt of the young man at the, bar. If tho, two hatu hiw not 
been witisfaetorily shown to yon to be one belonging to Muller 
and the other to Mr. BriggB, and if, as regard** the- watch and 
chain, IUK conduct hafl been what I suggest, then 1 my that, 
UB respects the posHCswon of this property, the facts arv fairly 
open to the interpretation which 1 IIHVU pxxt upon them. 

Now, gentlemen, there if* a portion of the evidence which h 
produced by the Crown in which the prosecution ban attempted, 
and I think 1 HlutH prove they have completely failed, to nhow 

Franz Muller, 

Mr. Serjeant the guilt of the prisoner. In the first place, they have said he 
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 foe 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 

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. Gifiard 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? " 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 IS 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 
<crizne 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. 

Kr. 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, h-^ 
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 -'this 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 founo 
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 JftiTiTr 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, 

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 hi 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 
for four years, also says he was a kind and humane young 


Franz Midler. 

MP, Serjeant man. Mr. Haifa says the same. And this is the man who 
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 .teither 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 an 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 BO. Mr. Lee, I under* HP. Se*je*x 
stand, is a gentleman of independent means. He is the son Pawy 
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.* 9 Nothing else passed between them. He 
saw 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 
<did 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 iihink 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 
y 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 ixc 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 cmbarraH 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, Leo 
said that at the time he saw Mr. Briggs that gentleman had 
his hat on. Here you put an end to tho suggestion that thia 
is the hat of Mr. Briggs, for, if he had it on at tho time of tho 
first blow, it must have been crushed. 

Gentlemen, if this were a case of a cfilO note, if it wcw 
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 miserably Hquabbk; 
between a hackney cab and a dust cart, I should bo per- 
mitted to sum up the evidence for tho defonce. But this 
is simply a case of life or death, and tho law of England 
forbids that to be done. I feel very strongly on this Hiihji'ct; 
but we are in a Court of justice, and not in a Court ol" 
legislature, so I forbear to express my opinion further. You 
may remember that the prisoner said he was going to wwt 
his sweetheart at Camberwell, and ho gave the namo of tho 
girl he was going to see, who Haffa said was a girl of the 
town. He had known her before, and had boon iu the habit 
of visiting her. Haffa did not know whether she know Miillor 
by his right name, but she will tell you that when you sou her. 
Her landlady, Mrs. Jones, lives at Stanley Cottage, Jaie& 
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 bo- 
given. This young girl knew a person of tho 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 ton, 
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 win remember 
that it is clearly proved that upon the night of the murder 

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening. 

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

also at Caxnberwell. 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 Mliller 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 these 
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 aa 
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 Muller's visit to Mrs. 

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 tike 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 

Mr. Serjeant Parry's Opening. 

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

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 

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 


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. 

Jfe. Serjeant Gentlemen, when you retire after the final charge of the 
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. MBTCALFE 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 
ho 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 SQUCH&&Qwm*ir-~l 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 tibink 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 publio-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. 1 
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 a*n not quite certain that 

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 SouciTOR-G-EHSfBBAi/ 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 SHEJBANT PJUBRY 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 tho 
Solicitor-General to-day. Mr. Board asked me oao 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 Mtillcr before in my 
life. I have known Mr. Briggs in the way I havo described for 
two or three years. He was rather of a cheerful, affable dis- 
position. He generally used to sleep going homo 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 

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 JuKOJRr When Mr. Briggs was asleep he would keep his 
hat on, 

GEORGE BTERS, examined by Mr. BESLEY I live at 4 Bridge George Brent 
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. Gutting 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 
Muller's possession handed to witness.) This is not done as Z 
should 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 BAEON 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 JXTBOR 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 j I should not cut it ofi. I should 
put a new leather in. 

WILLIAM LEB, examined by Mr. BESLHY I am a hatter, resid- William Leo 
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. 

William 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 SBBJBANT BAMJANTIOTS 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 da 
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 1 
become more saleable after being so treated. 

Re-examined by SERJEANT PARRY Have you, as regards, 
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 the 
head having injured them? I have never done so. 

By a JUROR I should not put so many stitches in a hat as 
are in tliis; 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. AuratED COOPER WOODWARD, examined by Mr. MBTOALFB I 
00 wa 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 shatt 
come without fail. -Yours in haste, Alexander Gill Strachan." 
It was received on the 9th of July, at the Mincing Lane office* 

Evidence for Defence. 

-at 4.30 p.m., and sent about twenty-five minutes to five. It Alfred c. 
might be half an hour or less reaching its destination. Woodwax 

By the SoucmR-GENBKAL~The date is on the top of the 

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 Muller 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 
Oerman, 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? " 


Franz Muller. 

Wrs, E* Jones The SouoraoE-GENBRAL objected to a conversation being given, 
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? 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 BALLANTINE I suppose Misa 
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 Jones. 
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 omuibus. 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 Camberwel)' 
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 so 
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. 

Evidence for Defence. 

What time do you generally dine? Sometimes at one and KPS, 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 Midler came but for 
what Mary Anne Bldred 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 
Muller 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 tfeen Miss Eldred 

went out. 

When were inquiriesi 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 MiiUer arrived in England do not understand your 

(Question repeated) It is about seven or eight weeks ago, 1 


Who called first? A German gentleman and another gentle- 

Did you know that Muller was suspected? We had heard it, 
but we did not know whether this wasf 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 Miiller. 

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 tables-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. 

Franz Mullen 

Mrs. E. 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. She 
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 MSttler 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 


Evidence for Defence. 

-and I had any conversation about the telegram may be three Mrs. B 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? 
-iShe 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 Eidred. 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 
bo 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 SBBJRAKT PAKBT -Would you not have been 
able positively to fix the date of Miiller's calling unless the 
telegram had been found! I knew that it was on a Saturday. I 
bulieve 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 Mifller had called, he had been in the habit of 
visiting our house, and had called on the Saturday. We 


Franz Muller. 

E. 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 JUROR Muller had a hat on when he called. 

ML A. ffldred MART ANN ELDRED, examined by Mr. METOALFE Where did 
you live in July last? Lant Street, in the Borough. 

Where did you live before you came to Peckham? Lant 

Where did you live before that? In Islington. 

Did you ever live at Camberwelll 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 

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 tfll 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 1 
-Yes; I generally went out about that time at nine arid 
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* 


Evidence for Defence. 

When did you first make a communication to any one about M. 
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 

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? Tes. 

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 SOMCITOII-GENEBAL 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 Miiller 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 
Miiller 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 itt I can't say the time, but it 
was towards the afternoon. It might have been one or two 


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. 


Franz Muller. 

. A. sidred 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 Miiller's hat? 
No, sir ; I have not noticed it. 

T.Bea*d 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 
Camber-well 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 Cburt? 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. 

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 Mutter'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 BALLANTIKE 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. METOALFE I am an c. Foreman 
omnibus conductor, living at 7 Norfolk Street, Montpelier 
Square, Peckham. I conduct an omnibus belonging to Mr. 
Barwick, Jftymaster, 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. 


The Solicitor-General's Address to the Jury. 

The SOLICITOE-GENHRAL 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 
Mutter 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 fhe 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 have 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, lie proceeded to dwell on them 

himself. la fact, the staple of his speech has been proba- 
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 Miiller, 
worn at the time on that night, what follows? That Miiller 
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 Miiller 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 
lact of his hat having been found in the railway carriage. I 

Franz Muller. 

Solicitor- should have been glad to hear the suggestion of Miiller having 1 
n 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 Chat 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 carnage being the hat of Miiller. 

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-examinaftion 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 
was 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. Eepsch only for the purpose. I will put aside 

Matthews, of whose evidence I shall have a word to say 


Addresses to Jury. 

presently. I will put Matthews* evidence altogether out 
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 Prance. 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 Mir. Walker says in one or two hats 
only, and he believes only in one. What does Mrs. Repsch 
say? She noticed Miiller with a hat with that particular lining. 
When Miiller got the hat he brought it to her, and she observed 
the peculiarity of the lining. She had seen Mm 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. Bepsch never appeared before a jury. She had no 
quarrel with Miiller. 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, Miiller 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 
1 113 

Franz Muller. 

Solicitor- been committed by one of two men. If it were not by Muller, 
ne 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 Mtiller'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 

Addresses to Jury* 

complicity ; therefore my learned friend must forgive me if I Soiieitop- 
supposed, when Matthews was so cross-examined as to his where- Oenepal 
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. Mutter, 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 lor me. I should like to have it larger. Buy me a 
hat at Walker's, and I shall be much obliged." This was 
vo.ry natural, because Walker's shop was out of Mutter'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 n hatbox, and he called one day at my place 
imil took it." To the question, " What did you pay for it, 
and did Miiller pay you again? " Matthews replies, " Well, he 
did not exactly pay me ; but he made me a waistcoat of the 
viihi* of 8s, 6d., and took the hat." A more probable account 
wafi never given* In the whole course of the cross-examina- 
tion my learned friend introduced a great deal of, as I tiink, 
irrelevant matter as to where Matthews was on the night of 

Franz Muller. 

the murder ; but not one question did he ask Matthews about 
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 Mutter's life? No one could impute anything of the 

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. 
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 ho 


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 General 
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 
moflt 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 Miiller, and that Midler 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 Miiller, he 
went to Walker's, bought a hat, and gave that hat to Miiller. 
Matthews recollects that Miiller said, * Make it as like your hat 
as you can/ 9 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 Miiller 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 Miiller, and he could not tell if the linings 
of both were alike. 

SHRJBAKT PABRY The cabman stated that the lining of both 
hats was alike. 

The LOUD CHIEF BAKON I have nothing of that kind on 
my notes, and we must go by what is here. 

BABON MABTIN 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. 


Franz Mullet. 

Solicitor- The SOLICITOR-GENERAL That has escaped me. If that be 
General ^ ft mafceg 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 castoff hat, it would not fit 
Mtiller. It was too small for him, because, you recollect, he 
tried it on in Matthews' room, and found it would not fit. 

SERJEANT PABBT That is not proved. 

The SoLiOETOB-GENHRAirYes; 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, Mtiller 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 is a 
hatbox bearing the name of Messrs. Walker & Co., which was 
found in MtiHer*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 

Addresses to Jury. 

not rest here. The murderer, whoever he was, in the Soitettop- 
confusion and hurry with which the crime was com- 0enwal 
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 downf 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 

SERJEANT PAEET He said he would not have put in so 
many stitches. 

The Souc^OB^BKBRAirThe 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? M you 
believe the other hat was his, it was rather a high-crowned 


Franz Mullen 

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 out 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 

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. Bepsch 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 nmst 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/ 1 He said he 
gave Us. 6d. for it, and Mr. Bepsch said it was a guinea hat. 
Now this is a very striking fact. The first liting on Monday 
morning he is seen witih 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. 


Addresses to Jury. 

Gentlemen, that is the evidence as to the two hat*. I Solicitor- 
now pass on; but, if you are satisfied with the propositions Cem>ini1 
I have stated, that Miffler 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 MUller. The chain is proved to bo in his 
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 IMS 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 doue. 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 Muller 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 1 Why, the lowest 
value of the watch and chain was about .10; the watch was 
originally worth 25. Haffa, a respectable man, who knew 
Muller, and naturally enough was anxious to say something 
in his favour, said he saw Muller before the murder with some 
money he believed his passage money but he did not count 
it. But Midler 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 2 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 win see that my learned 
friend has failed to grapple with these strong facts. It was 


Franz Mullen 

in vain for him to attempt to 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. la 
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 fee 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 Solicitor- 
doubt, that the blows were inflicted on the head of Mr. Briggs GeMPal 
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 prisonar 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 Mialler 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 Ms imagination. As, I have said, my learned friend 


Franz Muller. 

- represented Mlffler 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? Ha 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 


Addresses to Jury. 

not point the other way. If it had been committed by a solicitor* 
gang of men, would they have left four sovereigns in his Genep * 1 
pocket, the silver snuffbox, and the diamond ring on his 
finger? We can suppose that a gang of thieves, if they BUS* 
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 Ms body or pushing him out if he moved to the door 

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 Miiller 
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. Bepsch, 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 MuUer's clothes : it appears, no doubt, that lie 
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. 


Franz Mullen 

Solicitor- Miiller appears to have worn the same clothes on the day 
General ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ Mrg j^p^ gavg ^^ on ^ Monday 

his clothes were slightly different. On the other hand, it is 
to be said that the pair of trousers which Miiller 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 Miiller 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 Miiller 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 Miiller 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 Miiller 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 

Addresses to Jury. 

" Tom," and yet, according to Mr. Lee's own statement, though 
three or four minutes before Mr. Briggs was murdered, he saw Genepal 
two men in the carriage with him whom he can identify, he 
gave no information of the circumstance for some days 1 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 I 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 I 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; 


Franz Mullen 

Solicitor- that the guard was called, 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 nave 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. 9 " 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 

Addresses to Jury. 

most alibis there is a certain amount of truth. An altogether SoHcitor- 
fictitious alibi one seldom meets. Usually the story is correct General 
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 Muller 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 Muller 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 Muller 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 Muller 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 kdy 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 Muller had called a little after nine, 
that would be quite consistent with the case for the prosecution. 
K 129 

Franz Mullet. 

lenerai" ^ at does ol<i MrSl Jf nes know as to ^ et ^ e r Miiller called 
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 Miiller 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 

Franz Muller 

a Photograph taken by the New Yoik Police). 

Charge to the Jury. 

time last summer a gentleman rode in his omnibus who wore 
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 Miiller, 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 
necoaaary 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, T think you come to this inquiry of three days I 
may aay 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 Mullet. 

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 


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 aPOW 
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 


Franz Muller. 

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. Tou 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 tt 
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 

Franz Muller. 

Lord Chiel Wick. The carriage that went from Fcnchurch Street to 
* POB ILickney Wick warf taken back without being turned round. 
That accounts in part for what appears on the depositions 
ami in the evidence before the coroner, for what on going 
Uowii Tv;t* the near sside would in returning be the offside, and 
the oiLule would he the near side. Mr. Briggs was found 
about one-third of the distance from Hackney Wick. His 
botir had in some way been removed from the carriage to the 
six-ioot way, and then; he was found, with his head towards 
IL:ckney Wick and his feet towards London. Gentlemen, I 
think it right that some of you may have remarked the circum- 
stance us well as myself. The head pointed towards Hackney 
Wick. The consequence of that is that his feet must have 
tuuched 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 fo 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 

Charge to the Jury. 

was known about it, but fl according to the evidence, Mr. Death Lord Chief 
was applied to on the following Thursday, and was asked if BaP n 
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 


Franz Mullet. 

Lord Chief the bar was on the Monday morning in possession of the watch 
1 ^ n 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 Lis 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 os., 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 

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 Bawm 
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 CHEBP 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 

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 CHEBF 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 Mullen 

Lord Chief illegal means, that is as good as any other day. Property 
n taken illegally on Saturday and sold on Monday morning^ is 
not so likely ti 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 ahout 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 bo Mr. Brirg^s to such an extent that my learned brother 
Parry did not deny that it probably was the hat. 

SJBBJEAXT PJJIIIY I admitted that it was a hat sold by 
Mr. Digance, but never thut it was Mr. Briggs's. 

The LOBD CHIEF BAROS - My brother Parry does not admit 
anything. Xo 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, ic 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 

Charge to the Jury. 

established for the protection of their countrymen, and Lo*4 Chief 
that no expense has been spared by them to get all the B ** 11 
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 PAKRY 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. Bepsch said it had a remarkable lining, 


Franz Muller. 

Lord Chief and that she never saw any other hat with the same kind of 
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 

Charge to the Jury. 

evidence that on the Sunday he was walking from six to nine <** 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 Muller 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 BIS. 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 CHOP 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 
sai3, "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 
n 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 CLBEK 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. 

Mr. Baron Martin 

fium a Painting by Sir Francis Grant, P R A , in the possession of Lor& Xamaghten). 

The Sentence. 

The jury stood up to answer to their names. The foreman 
(Mr. Igfeac Moore) and the others having duly answered to 

the qajf, 
* ,>'*' 
< The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS said Gentlemen, are you agreed 

ugofl your verdict? 

: The FOREMAN We are. 

The CLERK OF 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 OF ARRAIGNS That is the verdict of you all? 


Mr. Baron Martin here entered the Court. 

The CLERK OF 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! 

The prisoner did not reply. 

The CRIER OF THE COTTRT 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 g 
the black cap, then passed sentence. Franz Mutter, 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 

Franz Mullen 

Mis 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 minutoly, 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. Biyth 
about eleven o'clock. You remained at the house of Mrs. 
Repsch until seven or eisrht, 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 JOTI 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 

The Sentence. 

for me to pass upon you the sentence of the law which is 
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 " Yes." 

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 ! 
shall die innocent. 

The prisoner was then removed, and the Court adjourned. 




(Daily Telegraph, Monday, September 5, 1864.) 

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 Muller 
respecting the murder of Mr. Briggs-. 

September 6, 1864. 

Arrest of Mtiller. 

The following telegram was received at Mr. Renter'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 Muller. 

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 
Midler. In the course of the day, however, letters are 

12th, 1864. 
Extradition of Mtilhr. 

New York, Aug. 30 (Evening). 

On the L'7th 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, us 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. Mnrbury, for the British Government, opposed the 

Mr. Bkmkman 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 M as being u pirate sent out 
by Ensrlish subjects. 

Inspector Tanner having been re-esamined 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. Brigga 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 

Appendix I. 

(From the New York Herald.) 

The following detailed report of the last day's proceedings in 
the case of Miiller i& 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 Schafier 
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 (Muller) 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 


Franz Muller, 

prisoner'* wrest 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 thai he (Mr. Beehe) would have been present :o defend 
him on the day fixed for the examination. The depositions in 
the case had lieen handed to the two able counsel subsequently 
(in consequence of the absence of Mr. Beehe) assigned for the 
defence, and those gentlemen were present yestenky 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 
gyring whether this man was absolutely guiltv or not, but 
whether there was a sufficient degree of suspicion of criminality 
against him to justiiy 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 und Hackney, he had been murdered between 
Twenty-seventh Street and Harlem, under precisely similar cir- 
cumstances as appear in this, 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 tlie due course ;tnd progress of law. He (Mr. 
Marbury) would extremely dislike to do anything beaiing 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 


Appendix I. 

for the prosecution, urging anew his motion for a brief adjourn* 

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 1 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 ihe 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 lor 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 arc asked to surrender this man to be tried for his 
lii'e 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 as the broad prairies o 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 

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 ihe 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 betore 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 Mullen 

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 asf 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 expeiience 
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 
deUcte 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 


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, co have belonged to Muller, 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. Muller, 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 
Muller 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 Muller'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 Haifa, 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. Muller 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 he 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 tibte 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 Tie 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. 


Appendix II. 


(From The Times, 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 Mutter'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 Miiller, 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 Gheapside, 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 (Miiller) 
when he did so.** 

(Then follows a brief summary of the evidence against 
Miiller; 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. Bepsch 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 Miiller 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 iihat 
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 Uth 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 Bepsches saw him cut it down, and 
when he was ironing it Bepsch 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 aay 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 llth 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 Miiller did not feel disposed to give 
more than M, 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. Miiller left the docks, and when 
crossing Tower Hill he doubted the genuineness of his purchase 


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. 

1 ' 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 bos 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 Miiller several times at the London Docks. He 
now adds that three or four days before Miiller 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 Tork should have asserted this fact, and 
that it should be discovered to be true in the most material 
particulars, that a respite of Miiller 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 Miiller'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- 


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 hare 
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 Miiller 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 Mialler 
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, Mutter'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 Miiller 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 


Appendix II. 

omnibus to CamberweU Gate. It takes twenty-five minutes 
to ride from Graceclmreh Street to CamberweU 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 CamberweU 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 aU 
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 CamberweU Gate 
in the omnibus at 9.55. 

" The Lord Chief Baron told the jury as foUows 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 CamberweU. 
There was plenty of time for him to have gone to CamberweU 
and to have returned. 9 It is submitted that on the figures 
just quoted this direction of the learned judge was too un- 
qualified. Those figures are aU 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 foUowing important evidence 
was given by Townsend, a ticket porter at Hackney Wick 
station, who coUected 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 
Rent, which is steep, and not traversable by a man who 
liinped, as Muller did on that night. Observe, also, that 


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 hfrn 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 haa 
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. 

ttj? j 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 1. His hair was dark; 

he had an alpaca coat and dark trousers. F M *s 

wife was with him, and she says she thinks she would know 

the watch again. F M refused to buy tike 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 iihe 

place where F M met him. A circumstance so 

pointedly singular as this demands a rigid and immediate 

" 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 

Appendix II. 

in a minute or two, ready armed and prepared with a deadly 
instrument. Such an hypothesis is fallacious. All his ante- 
cedents negative the idea. It is more likely that Briggs, the 
bank 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," 
which 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 
to 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 wa 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 Muller'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 
spaco 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 Mifller was not shown to have ever possessed such an 
instrument as would have inflicted the wounds found on Mr. 


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 Midler, 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 likely \ 
it is the well-known market day of the Petticoat Lane thieves 
and dealers. 

" The Lord Chief Baron likewise told tEe jury that it was 
not required of them in finding a verdict of guilty against 
Miiller that they should have no doubt of his guilt, but they 
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 the 
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 proba- 
bilities of success to justify them in doing so and running 
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. It 
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- 

" No imputation is intended to be conveyed on the finding 
of the jury, who, on the imperfect facts presented to them on 
Midler's behalf, could have probably arrived at no other ver- 
dict than that which they did. Miiller 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 Mifller 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-Smethwst 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- 

^^ eP r e w tio % and ? e ' ieant I**** * de ** ce - ** ^rdiot wL 
set aside by the Home Secretary on the ground of insufficient evidence of 
grit, and three months later Smethurst was sentenced by Baron Bramwell 

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 tiheir 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, 


"Hon. Sec., Deutscher Reohtsschutz-Yerein 
" (German Legal Protection Society) in London. 

"November 10." 



(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- 


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 lull 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 whfle 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 dear, bright moonlight night. Yet though all could 
see and well be seen, it was impossible to tell who formed the 

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 bis 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 ward 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 straggling, 
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 Mullen 

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 
orowd, but his voice was soon drowned amid much laughter. 
Then there was another lull, not, indeed, of quiet, but 
at least & 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 

"Mfiller, 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 bos 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 Hiss Goodman 
from motives of jealousy. He was respited on the suggestion that he was 
insane, but, on farther 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 99 
for 1868. 


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 ec 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 7 ' 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 harmlessnessi 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 fanner 
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 Hie 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 

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. Gappel 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 Mir. 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 
Muller 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. 


Franz Mullen 

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 Bev. 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 Miiller. 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 
nun close came the common hangman, who at once puffing 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 dying 
176 7 5 

Appendix III. 

man, said, " In a few moments, Muller, 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. Muller 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? " Muller 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-Sheriffs 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 
ir 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. Cappers 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 

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 wDl 
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. 



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. 

(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, 


Franz Muller. 

was entrusted to my care, you state that Miiller'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. BBABD. 

10 Basinghall Street. 

(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. 
Cappers version? 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 Mtiller's inno- 
cence or guilt, so far as his own confession is concerned, must 
ever remain a moot point. Yours faithfully, W. M. 


Appendix IV. 

(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, <k Yes, I have done it"; on the 
19th, "Yes, I did it"; and, turning to Dr. Cappel's letter, 
to which he refers me, I find Midler 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. BBARD. 

10 Basinghall Street, London, E.G. 

(To the Editor of the Sporting Times.) 

Sir, I had hoped that my " last words " respecting Miiller'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 Twnes 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 " I In 
one letter Dr. Cappel uses the first, and in the other the second 
eipres&ion. 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 Mutter'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 - *' 


Franz Muller. 

Honoured Editor, I hereby discharge the duty intrusted to 
me by Franz Muller shortly before his death, of thanking th 
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 et Mtiller, in a few minutes you will stand before 
your God. I ask you again, and for the last time, are you 
guilty or innocent? " (Muller, in wenigen Augenblicken stehen 
Sie vor Gotfc; Ich frage Sie nochmals und zum letzten Male, sind 
Sie schuldig oder unschuldig?) 

Answer et I am innocent " (Ich bin unschuldig). 

Question " You are innocent? " (Sie sind unschuldig?) 

Answer " God knows what I have done ** (Gott weiss was 
Ich gethan babe). 

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 Yerbrechen gethan 

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 Mttller 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, 


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. Loins CAPPBL, 

Pastor of the German Lutheran Church, St. George, in 
Littie Alie Street, Goodman's Fields. 

(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. 
Gflpin's perennial motion for the abolition of capital punish- 
ment was making way, and most people supposed that, because 

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 Midler, 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 
bhat 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 ha'nged 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 


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 Calcraft 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 Muller 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. Capgel, 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 tbe 
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 toe 
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 

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 Miiller's legs and buckled it; he put the rope 
round Muller'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. CappeFs 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 Mutter'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 
Muller'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 thiice 
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, ' 1 am innocent/ 

" I said, ' You are innocent? * 

" And he said, ' Yes, I am innocent; God knows what I have 

" I said this * God knows what you have done, but knows 
He that you have done this particular deed? ' 

Appendk 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 hare 
mercy upon your soul * ; and I believe his very last word 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 Midler had never denied unequivocally that he 
had attacked Mr. Briggs; he always fenced the question, and 
Dr. Cappel's theory was that Midler 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. CappeFs 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. Cappers words were as I have set 
them down, and every one can construe them for himself. 


(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 


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 Miiller 
immediately before the drop fell viz., " Ich habe es gethan." 
There can be no doubt that in Dr. Cappel's mind this amounted 
to a confession by Miiller 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, 

75 Victoria Street, S.W. 




SIB JONATHAN FREDEBICK 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 

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 Miiller ; 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 Miiller '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 

SIE SAMUEL MABTIK (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 


Franz Muller. 

_ i 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 

SIR ROBERT PORBBTT 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 
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- 
ship 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, Cockbum 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 Grasse 
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. 


Appendix V. 

WILLIAM BALLANTIKB (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 cilebres 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 hi 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 HANKBN (1821-1894) was the son of James Hannen, 
wine merchant. He was educated at St. Paul's and Heidel- 


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 GIFPARD, first Earl of Halsbury, the third son 
of Stanley Lees Gifard, 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 as> 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 Tich- 
borne v. Lushingtan 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. 
Lowes. He became Lord Chancellor under the title of Baron 

Appendix V. 

Halsbury, in June, 1885, and, following the fortunes of his 
party, he received the seals again in July, 188C, 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 o cuse 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 HmtFFREYS 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. RusHn 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 *93 

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 pre-eminent among those he recollects; 
"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 dramatis*:- 4 , ***** .