\\ Iff) Iflotable ngltsb flrtate Franz Muller NOTABLE ENGLISH TRIALS. The Stauntons. Edited by J. B. Allay, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Franz Muller. Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon). Lord Lovat. Edited by David N. Mackay, Solicitor. William Palmer. Edited by Geo. H. Knott, Barrister-at-Law. The Annesley Case. Edited by Andrew Lang. Dr. Lams on. Edited by H. L. Adam. Mrs. Maybricfc. Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon). Lord Chief Baron Pollock (From a Photograph by Maull & Fox, London). Trial of Franz Muller Edited by H. B. Irving, M.A.(Oxon) Author of "The Life of Judge Jeffreys," "French Criminals of the Nineteenth Century," "Occasional Papers" EDINBURGH AND LONDON WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY PRINTED BY WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH 1911 TO THE BIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF HALSBURY, SOME TIME LORD CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND, THE ONLY SITRVIVOR, AND THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS OF THE MANY DISTINGUISHED LAWYERS WHO TOOK PART IN THIS TRIAL, THIS VOLUME IS BY KIND PERMISSION RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THE EDITOR. PREFACE. THE present report of the trial of Franz Muller is taken from that published in the Daily Telegraph, which has been care- fully collated with the report of the evidence as given in the " Central Criminal Court Sessions Paper," vol. lix., part 360. There is a fairly full report of the trial, and the summing up of the Lord Chief Baron in the " Annual Register " for 1864, vol. cvi. References to Miiller's case will be found in Major Arthur Griffiths' " Chronicles in Newgate," vol. ii., pp. 417 and 448, and " Mysteries of Police and Crime," vol. i., p. 402. The murder of Mr. Briggs and other railway outrages are dealt with in volume ii., chapter 25, of Pendleton's "Our Railways " (1896). There is an account of Muller in a little volume, " Celebrated Crimes and Criminals," published in 1890, under the signature "W. M." I am at liberty to divulge the fact that " W. M." is my friend Mr. Willoughby Maycock, C.M.G., and to his kindness I owe the copy of the correspondence given in Appendix IV. relating to Miiller's confession on the scaffold. I am indebted to the courtesy of friends in preparing the illustrations for this volume; to Mr. Ernest Pollock, K.C., M.P., for helping me to obtain a photograph of Chief Baron Pollock; to the Hon. Malcolm Nacnaghten, who kindly got me Lord Macnaghten's permission to have the portrait of Baron Martin photographed for this volume ; to Judge Parry for lending me a photograph of his father; and to Mr. Hairy Furniss for his sketch of the " Muller hat." I would thank, too, the Hon. John Collier for his courtesy in allowing me the use of a photograph of his father, Lord Monkswell, for repro- duction, and Professor Harvey Littlejohn, of Edinburgh, who has permitted the reproduction of the police bill for the apprehension of Lefroy. The account of Dickman's trial has been taken from the Newcastle Daily Chronicle reports of the various proceedings in the case. PREFACE. If justification were needed for the publication of the reports of these famous trials it would be found in the words of Edmund Burke, quoted by George Borrow, in the edition of " Celebrated Trials," of which he was the author. But, apart from their historical or psychological interest, to which Burke does ample justice, the full and accurate reports of great criminal trials must be of some practical value to any student who would acquaint himself with actual examples of forensic eloquence, the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the conduct of a case, the function of judge and counsel, and the administration of our criminal law. H. B. I. LONDON, May, 1911. CONTENTS. Introduction, - Table of Dates, The Trial FIRST DAY THURSDAY, 2?TH OCTOBER, 1864. PAGE xiii xlvii u The Solicitor-General's Opening Speech, .... 4 Evidence for the Prosecution. David Buchan, - 16 George Greenwood, - - 26 Mrs. Buchan, - 17 Lewis Lambert, - 26 T. Fishbourne, - 17 Walter Kerressey, - - 26 Henry Vernez, - 18 Dr. Henry Letheby, - 28 Sydney Jones, - 18 John Death, 29 Benjamin Ames, 19 Mrs. Blyth, 31 William Timms, 20 George Blyth, - 34 Alfred Ekin, - - : 21 Mrs. Repsch, - 35 Edward Dougan, ... 21 Godfrey F. Repsch, - - 39 Dr. Francis Toulmin, 22 John Haifa, - 40 Dr. Alfred H. Brereton, - 24 George Death, - - 42 Dr. Vincent M. Cooper, - 25 SECOND DAY FRIDAY, 28iH OCTOBER, 1864. Evidence for the Prosecution (continued}. John Henry Glass, 44 Henry Smith, ... 45 Alfred Wey, ... 45 Charles Young, - 45 Jonathan Matthews, - - 45 Mrs. Matthews, 60 Godfrey F. Repsch (recalled), - 62 Mrs. Repsch (recalled), - - 62 Joseph Hennaquart, 62 Edward Watson, - - 63 Thomas H. Walker,- - - 63 W. H. Tiddy, - 64 James Gifford, - - 64 Jacob Weist, - - 65 George Clarke, - 66, 69 Inspector Tanner, - 67, 72 Thomas J. Briggs, 70 Samuel Tidmarsh, 70 Daniel Digance, 70 Frederick W. Thorn, - - 72 Mrs. Blyth (recalled), - 72 Mr. Serjeant Parry's Speech for the Defence, 73 CONTENTS. THIKD DAY SATURDAY, 29-ra OCTOBBB, 1864. Evidence for the Defence. PAGE Thomas Lee, .... 95 George Byers, 99 William Lee, ... - 99 Alfred C. Woodward, - - 100 Mrs. Jones, .... 101 Mary Ann Eldred, - - - 106 Thomas Beard, - - - - 108 Charles Foreman, - - - 109 The Solicitor-General's Reply, ... 110 The Judge's Summing-up, - - * 131 The Verdict, - 145 The Sentence, 145 APPENDICES. I. Extradition Proceedings at New York, 151 II. Memorial presented by the German Legal Protection Society, - 161 III. An Account of the Execution of Miiller, 169 IV. Correspondence relating to Miiller's Confession on the Scaffold, - 179 V. Short Account of the Judges and Counsel engaged in the case, - 188 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Lord Chief Baron Pollock, Frontispiece X" A " Muller " Hat, - - facing page xvi Handbill in Lefroy Case, ... - ,, xxxii Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, 16 Mr. James Hannen, ,, Sir R. P. Collier, - - 109 Mr. Hardinge Giffard, - 64 Mr. Serjeant Parry, - - ,,72 Franz Muller, ,> Mr. Baron Martin, - ,, 144 Franz Muller, 169 FRANZ MULLER. INTRODUCTION. ON the night of Saturday, the 9th of July, 1864, a suburban train on the North London Railway left Fenchurch Street station for Chalk Farm at 9.50. It left the next station, Bow, at 10.1; Hackney Wick or Victoria Park, at 10.5; and arrived at Hackney about six minutes later. At the last station two bank clerks, who had taken tickets for Highbury, opened the door of a compartment of a first-class carriage. The carriage was empty. The two men got in and sat down. They had hardly done so when one called the other's attention to some blood on his hand. They alighted immediately from the carriage, and called the guard of the train. He examined the compartment, and discovered stains of blood on the cushions of the seat which backed to the engine on the left-hand side of the train going from London. There was blood on the glass by the cushion, some marks of blood on the cushion opposite, and on the offside handle of the carriage door. In the carriage the guard found a hat, stick, and bag. These he took out, the carriage was locked up, taken to Chalk Farm station, and later brought back to Bow. About twenty minutes past ten on the same night the driver of a train of empty carriages from Hackney Wick to Fenchurch Street noticed a dark object lying on the 6-foot way between the Hackney Wick and Bow stations. He stopped the train, alighted from the engine, and found that the dark object was the body of a man. He was lying on his back between the up and down lines, his feet towards London and his head towards Hackney, at a spot about two-thirds of the distance 1 mile 414 yards between Bow and Hackney stations. The body was taken to a neighbouring public-house, and a doctor summoned. He found that the unfortunate man was alive, but completely unconscious, that his skull had been fractured, and several Franz Muller. wounds inflicted on his head, presumably by some blunt instru- ment, while there were a number of jagged wounds near the left ear. The victim of this apparently atrocious assault was soon identified as Mr. Thomas Briggs, chief clerk in the bank of Messrs. Kobarts & Co., of Lombard Street. Mr. Briggs remained unconscious until late the following night, when he expired. At the time of his death he was close on seventy years of age, a gentleman greatly trusted and respected by his employers, and held in high esteem by a large circle of friends. He resided at Victoria Park, and was a frequent traveller between Fen church Street and Hackney Wick, or Viotoria Park, station. On the evening of 9th July Mr. Briggs had dined with some relations, and left their house at Peckham, carrying a black bag and walking stick, about half-past eight. He had walked from there to the Old Kent Road, where he had taken an omnibus to King William Street for the purpose of getting to Fenchurch Street station. At Fenchurch Street Mr. Briggs was seen and spoken to by the ticket collector, who knew him well, as he passed through with his ticket to enter the 9.60 train for Hackney Wick. From that moment Mr. Briggs had been seen by no one until he was found insensible on the railway. In the blood-stained carriage a bag, a stick, and a hat had been found. The bag and stick were both recognised as having belonged to Mr. Briggs, and been in his possession when he quitted his friend's house, but the hat was not his. The tall hat worn by Mr. Briggs had disappeared ; the hat found in the carriage was a black beaver hat, but lower in the crown than the ordinary high hat such as Mr. Briggs was in the habit of wearing. Inside the hat was the name of the maker, " Mr. J. H. Walker, 49 Crawford Street, Marylebone." This hat seemed to be the only possible clue to the identity of the assailant, for that Mr. Briggs had been the victim of a foul murder there could be no reasonable doubt. No weapon capable of inflicting the injuries on the head of the murdered man had been found; but it was thought possible, though by no means certain, that, wielded by a powerful arm, these might have been inflicted by Mr. Briggs's walking stick, which was large, heavy, and stained with blood. From the appear- Introduction. ance of the compartment it seemed likely that Mr. Briggs had been attacked while dozing, with his head against the corner of the carriage. Though nearly seventy years of age, he was described as a stout, stalwart man, who, had he been fully alert, would no doubt have made a desperate resistance. Whether he had been thrown on the line by his assailant or had struggled and fallen from the carriage in his endeavour to escape was a matter of conjecture, though here, again, the probability was that he had been flung on the line. Robbery had been the motive of the crime; though some 5 in money had been left in the pockets of the murdered man, his gold watch and chain, and gold eye-glasses were missing, only the gold fastening of the watch chain being left attached to the waistcoat. Great public interest and indignation were aroused by the crime. It was the first murder on an English railway, of a char- acter very alarming to a public less inured to such crimes than we are to-day. The Government and Messrs. Robarts' Bank offered each a reward of 100 for the discovery of the murderer, and these offers were followed shortly after by another 100 from the North London Railway. The first clue to the identity of the murderer was furnished by a jeweller of the not inappro- priate name of Death. He stated that on the morning of Monday, the llth of July, a man of about thirty years of age, of sallow complexion and thin in feature, apparently a German, but speaking good English, had called at his shop in Cheapside, and had exchanged for a gold chain and a ring to the total value of 3 10s., a gold albert chain, which Death recognised from the published description as the chain worn by Mr. Brigga on the night of his murder. He described the man as having been perfectly self-possessed during the quarter of an hour he was in his shop, but noticed that he placed himself all the time in such a position as not to be exposed to a full view. For another six days rumour was busy and speculation rife as to the nature of the crime and the identity of the murderer. Some suggested that the crime had been an act of revenge on the part of an employee of Messrs. Robarts' Bank whom Mr. Briggs had, in the course of his duty, seen fit to discharge. But on the 18th of July a cabman named Jonathan Matthews made a statement to the police, which seemed to indicate clearly Franz Muller. the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. Matthews, who appears to have been a man of very moderate intelligence, and certainly no great reader, had, according to his own account, heard nothing of the murder that was agitating all London, until talking of the crime with a man on the cab rank, his attention was arrested by the name of the jeweller Death. He then recollected that he had seen in his own house a few days previously a jeweller's cardboard box bearing the rather singular name of Death. This box had been given to his little girl by a young German of the name of Franz Muller. Muller had been at one time engaged to one of Matthews' daughters, but, owing to his unreasonable jealousy, the engage- ment had been broken off. Muller was a native of Saxe-Weimar, twenty-five years of age. Apprenticed as a gunsmith in his native country, he had come over to England about two years' before the murder of Mr. Briggs. Failing to get work as a gunsmith, he had turned tailor, and had been working up to the 2nd of July in the employment of a Mr. Hodgkinson. Muller was not satisfied, however, with the conditions of work in England, and had declared his intention of going away to seek his fortune in America. In accordance with this intention he had left England on Friday, the 15th of July, by the sailing ship "Victoria," bound from the London Docks for New York. The cabman Matthews supplied the police with another link in the chain of evidence against Muller. He identified the hat found in the railway carriage as a hat which he had himself purchased for Muller at the shop of a Mr. Walker in Crawford Street, Marylebone. He was able to supply the police with a photograph of Muller, and the address of the house in which Muller had been lodging immediately before his departure for America. The photograph was shown to Death, who at once identified it as that of the man who on Monday, the llth of July, had visited his shop and exchanged Mr. Briggs 's gold chain for another. Muller had been lodging last with a Mr. and Mrs. Blyth at 16 Park Terrace, Bow, so that he had been in the habit of travelling on the same railway line, to and from Fenchurch Street, as the late Mr. Briggs. Mrs. Blyth gave her lodger an excellent character. " He was," she said, " a quiet, well- Introduction* behaved, inoffensive young man, of a humane and affectionate disposition." She stated that on Saturday, the 9th of July, the day of the murder, Miiller had gone out as usual in the morning, but had not returned home when she and her husband went to bed at eleven o'clock. On the following day, Sunday, she said that he had been in the best of spirits, laughing, chatting, and enjoying his meals. On the Monday evening Miiller had shown Mrs. Blyth the gold chain which he had got from Death in exchange for that taken from Mr. Brigge. Since his departure for America Mrs. Blyth had received a letter from Miiller, posted from Worthing. It ran as follows : On the sea, July 16th, in the morning. Dear friends, I am glad to confess that I cannot have a better time as I have, for the sun shines nice and the wind blows fair as it is at present moment, everything will go well. I cannot write any more only I have no postage, you will be so kind as to take that letter in. Besides this letter Mrs. Blyth showed the police a hatbox which Miiller had brought with him when he first came to lodge at her house. It bore on it the name of Walker, Crawford Street, Marylebone, the name of the shop from which Matthews had stated that he had bought the hat for Miiller. The police lost no time in getting on the track of the young German tailor. Matthews made his statement at ten o'clock on the night of the 18th of July. At half -past six the following morning the officers called on Mrs. Blyth, and the same night Inspector Tanner and Detective-Sergeant Clarke, taking with them the jeweller Death, the cabman Matthews, and a warrant granted by Mr. Henry, chief magistrate at Bow Street, for Muller's arrest, left Euston station for Liverpool. They sailed from there for New York on Tuesday, 20th July, by the New York and Philadelphia Company's steamship " City of Manchester." The steamer was timed to arrive at New York some two or three weeks before the sailing ship that was carrying Miiller. The proceedings of the police in this case bear some resemblance to those employed recently in the capture of Crippen, save that in 1864 there was no wireless telegraphy to assure the police officers that the " Victoria " had their man on board. Inspector Tanner and his companions reached New York on the 5th of August. They had to wait twenty days before the " Victoria " came into port. By that time New York had become as excited as London over the expected arrival of a xvii Franz Muller. Miiller, and in their excitement some foolish persons all but pre- vented the police from taking Muller alive. As the " Victoria " was waiting in harbour for the pilot boat containing the officers to come out to her, a party of excursionists passing near the vessel shouted out, "How are you, Muller the murderer ?" For- tunately Muller, who was on deck, did not hear them. Had he done so, he might have evaded capture by timely suicide. As soon as the officers came on board the captain ordered all the steerage passengers aft for medical examination. Muller was called into the cabin. He was charged with the murder of Mr. Briggs on the North London Railway on the night of the 9th of July. He turned very pale, but said that he had never been on that line. His keys were taken from him, his box searched, and in it were found the watch and what was believed to be the hat of the late Mr. Briggs. Muller said that they were both his property, that he had had the watch for two years and the hat for about twelve months. Muller on landing in New York was an object of great interest to the public. He is described as short, with light hair and " small grey, inexpressible eyes." He had behaved fairly well on the voyage out, but had got into trouble once or twice on account of his overbearing manner. On one occasion he received a black eye for calling a fellow-passenger a liar and a robber. He had no money with him, but tried to raise some by offering to eat 5 Ibs. of German sausage. He failed in this laudable endeavour, and was compelled to stand porter all round, a penalty he could only fulfil by parting with two of his shirts. On the 26th of August extradition proceedings were com- menced before Commissioner Newton, and concluded the follow- ing day. Death, Matthews, and the police officers gave evidence. Muller was represented by a Mr. Chauncey Schafier. In addressing the Commissioner on behalf of his client, Mr. Schaffer made no reference to the charge against him. He indulged in a harangue in the true "Jefferson Brick " vein, punctuated by loud applause, in which he denounced the British for their flagrant iniquity in regard to the ship " Alabama," which had been destroyed in the previous June, and said that by our own treachery and gross misconduct we had made any Extradition Treaty a dead letter. The Commissioner, while tactfully complimenting Mr. Schaffer on his address, did not yield to his singular arguments. He xviii Introduction. granted Miiller's extradition, and on the 3rd of September Miiller and his captors left for England on the steamship " Etna " of the Inman Line. In England Miiller's arrival was no less eagerly awaited than that of Dr. Crippen some months ago. The dramatic flight and capture of the young German had given the case a degree of interest which it had failed to awaken at the outset. Even the Times accorded large headings to the news of Miiller which was coming from America, and gave to his arrival a journalistic importance which in recent years it has denied to occurrences of this nature. For the moment the news of Miiller seemed almost to eclipse in importance that of the Civil War then raging in the United States between North and South. It was pointed out by some English newspapers that had Miiller possessed $3000 or $4000 at the time of his arrest in New York, he might have procured bail from the Commissioner, and been quietly spirited away into the ranks of the Federal Army. According to these newspapers, American law at this time allowed bail to all accused persons, whatever the nature of their offence. But Miiller was penniless and without friends. There was to be no military career for him he was not to lose his life upon the field of battle. During his absence from England the question of Miiller's guilt had been widely discussed. The weight of the evidence against him, especially that of the cabman Matthews, had been made a subject of newspaper correspondence. To such lengths had this improper discussion been carried that the Daily Telegraph published a leading article warning the public against forming a premature judgment of the case against Miiller. To help him to secure the best assistance at his trial the German Legal Protection Society announced that they had undertaken his defence. The " Etna " arrived at Queenstown on the evening of the 15th, of September. A representative of the Daily Telegraph visited Miiller in his cabin, and found him quiet and cheerful. On his undertaking, willingly given, that he would cause no trouble, the officers had dispensed with the use of handcuffs. The young man seemed greatly interested in a shoal of porpoises, and pointed out some cows on the Irish coast which could only have been descried by a man with extremely good sight. Miiller zix Franz Muller. was reading " David Copperfield." He had been given " Pick- wick " at the commencement of the voyage, and had enjoyed the book so well, especially the account of the trial of Bardell v. Pickwick, that he had asked for another work by the same author. His conduct during the voyage had been exemplary; he alluded with evident pleasure to the fact that as a prisoner on the " Etna " he was enjoying much better food than had been supplied to the steerage passengers on the " Victoria." Liverpool was reached on the night of Friday, the 16th, There a strange incident occurred. A well-dressed and apparently gentlemanly person walked into the room where Muller was waiting, and, going up to him, said, " And you are Franz Muller. Well, I am glad to see you and shake hands with you. Do you think you will be able to prove your innocence? " To which Muller replied " I do." " You know, Muller," said the gentleman in a loud voice, "this is a very serious charge." Here one of the detectives interposed and told the man to leave the room, which he did, but with some reluctance. His fatuous conduct was made the theme of a stinging rebuke in Punch, under the heading of " An Awful Snob at Liverpool." At nine o'clock on the Saturday morn- ing Muller left for London, reaching Euston at a quarter to three. A large crowd greeted him with hoots and groans. He was taken at once to Bow Street, and charged, after which he was removed to Hollo way Prison. On the following Monday the magisterial hearing commenced at the Bow Street Police Court before Mr. Flowers. Mr. Hardinge Giffard now Lord Halsbury appeared to prosecute for the Crown, and Muller was defended by a well-known solicitor, Mr. Thomas Beard, who had been instructed by the German Legal Protection Society. The evidence, which was substantially that given afterwards at the trial, need not be recapitulated here. One important new piece of evidence was that of the hatter Digance and his assistant, who had been in the habit of making Mr. Briggs's hats. They declared that the hat found in Muller's box was a hat made by them; that it had been cut down an inch and a half and sewn together again, but not in such a way as a hatter would have done it; a hatter, they said, would have used gum. They stated that it was their custom to write the name of the customer for Introduction. whom the hat had been made on the band of the hat inside the lining. This part of the hat had been cut away from the hat found in Miiller's box. Muller was remanded from Monday, the 19th, to Monday, the 26th of September. That day, at eight o'clock in the morning, he attended the last sitting of the coroner's inquest at the Hackney Town Hall, when the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against him. From Hackney he was taken to Bow Street at eleven o'clock, and at the end of the day's hearing Mr. Flowers committed him for trial at the Central Criminal Court. No evidence was called on behalf of the prisoner. The magistrate asked Muller if he had anything to say. He answered, " No, sir, I have nothing to say now." Throughout the proceedings Muller had appeared cool and collected, only betraying anger on one occasion during the evidence of Matthews, the cabman. The Sessions at the Central Criminal Court opened on Monday, 24th October, when the Recorder, Mr. Russell Gurney, advised the jury to bring in a true bill against Franz Muller. This they returned on the following Wednesday, and on the next day, Thursday, the 27th, Muller was put upon his trial. The presiding judges were the Lord Chief Baron, Sir Frederick Pollock, and his son-in-law, Mr. Baron Martin two of the most distinguished judges on the bench. In these more leisurely days a law officer of the Crown did not disdain to conduct the prosecution in a sensational trial for murder. On this occasion Sir Robert Collier, Solicitor-General, led for the Crown with a very strong team of assistants at his back. First and fore- most among them was Serjeant Ballantine, one of the most popular advocates of the day, noted more particularly for his great skill as a cross-examiner. His juniors were Mr. Hardinge Giffard, Mr. Hannen, and Mr. Beasley. The first of these is now Ihe Earl of Halsbury, ex-Lord Chancellor of England, and the only survivor amongst the distinguished lawyers who took part in Miiller's trial. Mr. Hannen had been appointed recently junior counsel to the Treasury, or, in legal slang, " Attorney -General's devil." He was soon to be raised to high judicial office, and is best known to history as President of the Divorce Court for more than twenty-five years, and of the Parnell Commission in 1888. Serjeant Parry led for the defence. His tact and skill as Franz Muller. a verdict getter, his great powers of persuasion with a jury, made Parry one of the most popular and successful advocates of his time, whilst his kind and genial nature had rendered him no less popular as a man. Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Besley were his juniors, the latter, until a few years ago, a well- known member of the Old Bailey bar. Needless to say, the Court was crowded throughout the trial. The Lord Mayor Lawrence accompanied the judges on the bench. Muller is described as pale and anxious, following the proceedings closely and communicating frequently with his solicitor, Mr. Beard. Sir Robert Collier opened the case for the Crown in a short and business-like speech. He sug- gested that Mr. Briggs had been attacked while dozing in the corner of the carriage, and that the weapon with which the deed had been done had been undoubtedly Mr. Briggs 's walking stick " a formidable weapon, large, heavy, with a handle at one end." As motive for the crime the Solicitor-General suggested a sudden desire that had come over the murderer to possess the gold watch and chain which stood out conspicu- ously on the waistcoat of his victim. He attached great importance to the hat found in the railway carriage " If you discover with certainty," he said, " the person who wore that hat on that night, you will have the murderer, and the case is proved almost as clearly against him as if he was seen to do it." He showed how by his dealings with pawnbrokers and others, commencing from the exchange of Mr. Briggs 's watch chain with Death, the prisoner had become possessed of about 4 5s. in cash with which, on the Wednesday following the murder, he had bought his passage to America. He dealt with the evidence as regards the two hats, the one found in the carriage, which he would prove to have belonged to Muller, and the other found in Muller 's box in New York, which he would prove to have belonged to Mr. Briggs. " Mr. Briggs," concluded the Solicitor-General, " is robbed and murdered in a railway carriage ; the murderer takes from him his watch and chain, and takes from him his hat. All the articles taken are found on Muller ; he gives a false statement of how he got them, and the hat left behind is the hat of Muller." If these circumstances were proved by witnesses, then, in the opinion of the Solicitor-General, a stronger case of circumstantial evidence had rarely, if ever, been submitted to a jury, xzii Introduction. The first witnesses called were those concerned in the finding of Mr. Briggs and the medical gentlemen who had examined his body. It was with the appearance of Death, the jeweller, that the real interest of the case began. Death was clear that it was Miiller who had brought him Mr. Briggs's chain on the llth of July, which he had valued at 3 10s. Miiller said that he would prefer to take another chain in exchange instead of money, upon which Death gave him a gold chain worth 3 5s. and a 5s. ring to make up the balance. The chain he had put into a box identical with that which the prisoner had given to Matthews' little girl. In cross-examina- tion it was suggested to Death that Miiller had been to his shop in the previous year, but Death and his brother were positive that they had neither of them seen the prisoner before the llth of July. Mrs. Blyth, Miiller's landlady, gave evidence as to the prisoner's movements at the time of the murder. In cross- examination she bore testimony to the quiet and inoffensive disposition of the prisoner. She said that owing to an injury to his foot, Miiller was wearing a slipper on one foot the day of the murder, and she admitted that he had spoken of going to America some fortnight before the murder of Mr. Briggs. Her evidence was supported by that of her husband. Mrs. Repsch, the wife of a German tailor, a fellow-workman with Miiller, gave important evidence. Miiller had been at their house the evening of the murder, and had left them about half -past seven or eight o'clock. On Monday, the llth, Miiller had shown Mrs. Repsch the chain which Death had given him in exchange for that of Mr. Briggs. He had told her what was not true : that he had bought it in the docks. She noticed that he was wearing a different hat. Miiller said he had bought it for 14s. 6d., upon which her husband had remarked that it looked more like a guinea hat. She recol- lected the hat which Miiller had been wearing previous to thia. To the best of her belief it was the hat found in the railway carriage. Cross-examined, Mrs. Repsch said that she particular!/ remembered this hat because of its peculiar lining. John Haffa, a journeyman tailor, and friend of the prisoner, deposed to having pawned his own coat on the Wednesday before Franz Muller. Miiller sailed for America in order to help his friend to buy his passage ; but in cross-examination he admitted that before the 9th of July he had seen Muller in possession of a sum of money sufficient to have paid for his passage. On the second day of the trial the Crown commenced by calling evidence as to the exact financial position of Muller immediately before and after the murder. It then appeared that in June Muller had raised 3 by pawning a gold watch and chain at the shop of a Mrs. Barker, in Houndsditch. On Monday, the 1 1th of July, he got from Death in exchange for Mr. Briggs's chain a gold chain valued at 3 5s. This he pawned on the Tuesday for 1 10s., and with the money so obtained he took his own watch out of pawn from Mrs. Barker's. By borrowing 1 from a man of the name of Glass he redeemed his own chain also, which he had left with Mrs. Barker. Glass and he then pawned this watch and chain a second time with Messrs. Cox, of Princes Street, Leicester Square, for a sum of 4. This pawn ticket Muller sold to Glass for 5s. ; thus Muller had altogether 4 5s., and it was with this sum that he had purchased his passage to America. If Muller were the murderer of Mr. Briggs, he had perjured his soul for the paltry sum of 30s. The evidence of Jonathan Matthews, cabman, was awaited with some excitement. His severe cross-examination at the Police Court by Mr. Beard had led to the expectation that the defence might seek to prove Muller's innocence of the murder by suggesting Matthews as having been the guilty man. But Serjeant Parry was wise enough not to adopt so dangerous a course. His cross-examination was directed entirely to damage the credit of Matthews as a trustworthy witness. Matthews identified the hat found in the carriage as one with a peculiar striped lining, which he had bought for Muller at his own request at Mr. Walker's, in Crawford Street. Serjeant Parry showed that on the question of his purchases of hats Matthews' statements at the trial differed materially from those he had made before the coroner and the magistrate, and he questioned him pointedly as to what had become of his own old hats, particularly the one which he had bought at Mr. Walker's, the one to which Muller had taken such a fancy that he had asked him to get him another like it. At the Police Court Introduction. Matthews could give no account of his movements on the night of Mr. Briggs's murder. Now he said he had made inquiries, and had found that he had been on the cab-stand at Paddington station from seven to eleven o'clock. Matthews adhered to the statement that he knew nothing of the murder until the 18th of July when he saw near his cab-stand the bill offering a reward for the apprehension of the murderer. He denied that it was a desire to receive the .300 reward that had prompted him to give his evidence against Miiller. A new fact Serjeant Parry elicited as damaging to Matthews' good character, though it cannot be said that it told very heavily against his credibility as a witness in this particular instance. In 1850, at the age of nineteen, Matthews had undergone twenty-one days' imprisonment for theft. He had been at that time conductor of a coach at Norwich, and had absconded from his situation, taking with him in his box a bit, a spur, and a padlock belonging to his employer. Matthews preferred to describe this incident as a " spree," which, he said, had been construed harshly into an act of theft, and he protested that the things had been put into his box " unbeknown " to him. He had never been in trouble since. Severe as was the cross-examination of Matthews, in the judgment of those who heard it, it had not shaken the weight of his evidence in any material degree. Mrs. Matthews gave evidence as to the jewellers' box given by Miiller to her little daughter. In cross-examination she admitted that she had known of Mr. Briggs's murder on the Monday following, though her husband would appear to have known nothing of it until the 18th of July. One fact came out unexpectedly in the evidence of Walker, the hatter, and his foreman. They stated that the lining in Muller's hat, which Matthews had bought for him at their shop, was very peculiar in character, and had not been used by them in the lining of more than two, or, at most, three or four hats. The evidence of the police officers who had arrested Miiller in New York was followed by that of Mr. Briggs's son and his hatter, Digance. Mr. Thomas Briggs identified both the watch and hat found in Muller's box as having belonged to his father. Digance said that as Mr. Briggs had found his last Franz Muller. hat a little too easy on the head, he had placed a piece of tissue paper inside the lining ; some small fragments of this tissue paper were remaining in the band of the hat when found in Muller's box. It was half-past two when Serjeant Parry rose to make his speech for the defence. He spoke for two hours and a half. It was the only speech then allowed by law, and the Serjeant complained with some reason that, though he was about to call evidence for the defence, he was forbidden to sum up his case to the jury, a privilege that would have been accorded him if he had been engaged at nisi prius " in some miserable squabble between a hackney cab and a dust cart." By the Act 28 Viet. cap. 18, section 2, " Denman's Act," passed in the following year, the grievance alluded to by the learned Serjeant was removed. The Serjeant commenced by dealing with the evidence that had been called for the Crown. He warned the jury that, though they might be satisfied that Muller had had a hat similar to that found in the carriage, they must not therefore assume that the hat found in the carriage had necessarily belonged to Muller. He deprecated warmly any intention of accusing Matthews of the murder. At the same time, he suggested that the hat found in the carriage might just as well have been Matthews' as Muller's. Matthews he described as an entirely unreliable witness, actuated solely by the desire to obtain the 300 reward, and proved in one instance to have lied deliberately before both magistrate and coroner. As regards Mr. Briggs's hat, he commented on the fact that the prosecution had called no witness to prove that, on the day of his death, Mr. Briggs was wearing such a hat as that found on Muller. Muller's false statement as to the way he had become possessed of the watch and chain he attributed to the fact that the prisoner had bought them at the docks under circumstances which must have convinced him that he was buying them from some person who had obtained possession of them in a suspicious way. He pointed out, and very justly, that no blood-stained clothes had been found on Muller, and that the evidence given to prove that he had changed or got rid of some of his clothes after the murder was highly incon- clusive. He scouted the idea that a slight and by no means Introduction. muscular young man such as the prisoner could in three minutes, the time taken by the train to go from Bow to Hackney Wick station, have murdered, robbed, and thrown out of the carriage a man 5 feet 9 inches in height and weighing 12 stone. The crime, he contended, and he was going to call evidence to prove it, must have been the work of two men. Nor would he accept the Solicitor-General's suggestion that Mr. Briggs'a stick had been the weapon with which the crime had been committed. "A pair of shears," he said, "had been taken out of the pocket of the prisoner; he did not suppose that even now the Solicitor-General would suggest that the murder was com- mitted with them." A curious comment on this statement is contained in a letter written to the Times two days after Muller's execution by Mr. Toulmin, the surgeon who had made the post-mortem on Mr. Briggs. In this letter Mr. Toulmin expressed the opinion that the " tailor's shears found on Muller, some 13 inches or 14 inches long, and weighing about 2 Ibs., was the only instrument he knew of that might have inflicted the wounds found on Mr. Briggs," and he quoted the statement of a journeyman tailor to the effect that a tailor who did not take away his shears every day from his workshop would very quickly lose them. Serjeant Parry said that he should call as the first witness for the defence a Mr. Lee, a respectable gentleman who had given evidence at the inquest, but for some reason had not been called by the Crown. Mr. Lee would say that he had seen Mr. Briggs in a compartment of a first-class carriage at Fenchurch Street station on the night of the 9th July; that, knowing him, he had said "Good-night" to him, and that he had then seen two men sitting in the carriage with him. The Serjeant said that he should further prove an alibi; he would prove that between nine and ten o'clock on the night of Mr. Briggs's murder Muller had been at a house in James Street, Camberwell. He would also call an omnibus conductor, who would swear that about ten minutes to ten on the Saturday night a passenger had got on to his omnibus at Camberwell Gate, wearing a carpet slipper on one foot. He was not prepared to swear that the passenger was Muller, but it had been proved by the prosecution that, owing to the injury to his foot, Muller was wearing a slipper on that night, and, if Franz Muller. X he were at Camberwell Gate at ten minutes to ten, it was clear that he could not have left Fenchurch Street by the 9.60 train. At the conclusion of the learned Serjeant's speech the Court adjourned until nine o'clock on Saturday, the 29th November, when Mr. Thomas Lee, the first witness for the defence, was called. Mr. Lee swore that he had seen Mr. Briggs sitting with two other men in a first-class compartment of the 9.50 train from Fenchurch Street on the night of the murder. He swore that he had said " Good-night, Mr. Briggs," to which Mr. Briggs had replied, "Good-night, Tom." He could not swear to the prisoner being either of the men. Mr. Lee was positive and unshaken on the main point of his evidence, in spite of severe cross-examination. When asked why he had not made his statement to the police until more than a week after the murder, he answered that it was because he thought it unimportant, and knew what a bother it would be. " I have something to do," he said; " I collect my own rents " a frame of mind which the Chief Baron, with some reason, declared threw general discredit upon Mr. Lee's views and motives. After some evidence that the cutting down and stitching of hats was a usual method of procedure in the second-hand hat trade, the defence proceeded with the proof of the prisoner's alibi. This rested on the evidence of a girl of the unfortunate class, and that of the man and woman in whose house she lived. Muller had formed an intimacy with the girl Eldred, and, according to the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Jones, with whom the poor girl lodged, Muller had called at their house in Camberwell at half-past nine o'clock on the night of the 9th July. The girl Eldred was out, and Muller had remained talking to Mrs Jones for five or ten minutes, after which he had left. If the evidence of Mrs. Jones was absolutely correct, then Muller could not have reached Fenchurch Street from Camberwell in time to have caught the 9.50 train. But the prosecution suggested that her evidence was not strictly correct. It had been proved that Muller had left his friend Haffa at Jewry Street at eight o'clock that night. If he had gone straight from there to Camberwell he would have reached there about nine, the hour at which he must have known the girl Introduction. Eldred was in the habit of going out. If that were so, he would then have had plenty of time to get on an omnibus to Fenchurch Street, possibly arriving at that station at the same time as Mr. Briggs. The character of Mr. and Mrs. Jones did not help their credibility, and the Solicitor-General dwelt with almost undue vehemence on the little reliance that was to be placed on the clock of a brothel; it is difficult to see why the veracity of a clock should vary according to the character of the house in which it stands. The girl Eldred, whom the Chief Baron described as a pathetic figure, heard and seen with great compassion, had evidently done her best to save the life of the young man, and, as* she left the Court, Miiller looked at her with an expression of sincere gratitude. The evidence of the omnibus conductor as to his passenger wearing slippers was quite valueless. The Solicitor-General exercised his right to reply. He dealt very severely with the evidence that had been called for the defence, and reiterated the great strength of the case that had been made out by the Crown. At half-past one the Chief Baron commenced his charge to the jury. It occupied a little more than an hour and a quarter. Though scrupulously fair and dignified in tone, it was decidedly unfavourable to the prisoner. It was clear that the learned judge was power- fully impressed by the strength of the circumstantial evidence against the prisoner. Miiller listened to the charge with painful anxiety. The jury, who declined the offer of the Chief Baron to read through to them the whole of the evidence, were only absent from the Court a quarter of an hour, when they returned with a verdict of guilty. Baron Martin, as the junior judge, passed sentence of death. " I have no more doubt," he said to Muller, " that you committed this murder than I have with reference to the occurrence of any other event of which I am certain, but which I did not see with my own eyes." At the conclusion of the sentence the prisoner was understood to say, "I should like to say something; I am satisfied with the sentence which your lordship has passed. I know very well that it is what the law of the country pre- scribes. What I have to say is, that I have not been con- victed on a true statement of the facts, but on a false state- ment." As he left the dock his firmness gave way, and he burst into tears. Franz Muller. No sooner had Muller been condemned to die than the German Society, which had defended him, made strenuous efforts to obtain a remission of the sentence. A memorial was prepared for presentation to the Home Secretary, Sir George Grey. Even the King of Prussia and some of the minor German potentates had telegraphed to the Queen asking her to inter- vene and save Miiller's life. Certain German newspapers had gone the length of suggesting that it was the war in Schleswig-Holstein, and the impotent rage of the English aristocracy arising from that nefarious transaction, that were tying the noose round Muller's neck. Punch waxed very sarcastic over these insinuations, and made them the subject of the following verses : MULLER AND ms MBN. The German who clapped when the Diet dared draw Execution to deal on the Duchies, Howl against execution awarded by law To Muller in Calcraft's stern clutches. Can the reason that Vaterland thus makes black white, Prom applause to abuse shifts its song, Be that our execution was provably right And their own as demonstrably wrong? The execution had been fixed for Tuesday, the 14th of November. On the 10th of November the German Society presented their memorial to Sir George Grey. They relied, among other things, on a story of a parcel which had been thrown from a cab into the bedroom of a Mr. Poole at Edmonton, breaking his window at two o'clock in the morning of Sunday, the 10th of July. Mr. Poole had followed the cab with a view to obtaining compensation for the damage done to his window. There were four men inside the cab, one without a hat, and wearing a handkerchief round his head. The parcel that had been thrown contained blood-stained trousers. But the matter resolved itself into nothing more than a foolish spree. The memorial also included a statement of a Baron de Camin, ^ho said that he had seen a blood-stained man on the Embankment between Bow and Hackney Wick station on the night of the 9th of July. Muller had, Introduction. since hie confinement, made a statement to the effect that he had bought the hat found on him at Mr. Digance's shop, but Digance and his shopman, when confronted with Miiller in Newgate, failed to recognise him. On the 8th of November Mr. and Mrs. Blyth, with whom Miiller had lodged, and who had evidently become rather attached to the young man, made a declaration at Worship Street Police Court that Miiller had been wearing the same hat on the Sunday as he had been wearing on the Saturday, the day of the crime. They said that they had not seen the hat produced at the trial, but were sure that it was not his hat. These efforts to save Miiller were not allowed to go without reply. An attempt was made, but fruitlessly, to connect Miiller with the murder, in 1863, of Emma Jackson, a woman of light character, killed in a house of ill-fame in George Street, Bloomsbury. The unfortunate girl had been found dead about four o'clock on the afternoon of the 10th of April. No clue was ever obtained to the murderer, though there were people living in an adjoining room, and almost immediately below, at the time the crime must have been committed. One or two Germans wrote to the newspapers protesting against any reflections that had been made on English justice in connection with Miiller's trial, and saying that they were perfectly satisfied that he had been fairly tried, and had no wish to interfere with his punishment. Mr. Beard received Sir George Grey's reply to the memorial on Saturday, the llth of November. In it Sir George Grey stated that, after carefully comparing the statements contained in the memorial with the evidence given at the trial, and, after communicating fully with the two judges who had tried the case, he could see no ground for advising Her Majesty to remit the death penalty. At three o'clock in the afternoon Mr. Beard called at Newgate and acquainted Miiller with the Home Secretary's decision. Miiller received the news with calmness and composure, and expressed his gratitude for the efforts that had been made to save his life. In spite of the efforts of Dr. Cappel, the German Lutheran minister attending upon him, Miiller refused to make any statement by way of confession, and appeared to be perfectly prepared to meet his fate. His public execution on the 14th of November furnished a scene more disgraceful than usual. The crowd, consisting of a mob of xxxi Franz Muller. the lowest kind, kept up their spirits during the night by shout- ing and singing doggerel verses alluding to the murderer. On the evening of the 13th Muller was visited by one of the Sheriffs, who again exhorted him to confess, but Muller obstinately declared his innocence. As the Sheriff left he turned to one of the warders and said, " Man has no power to forgive sins, and there is no use in confessing them to him." He was equally obdurate on the morning of his execution while Dr. Cappel was praying with him. He mounted the scaffold calmly, looked with curiosity at the beam above his head, and, though trembling a little, showed no sign of fear. Immediately before the drop fell Dr. Cappel once again besought Muller to admit his guilt, when the following conversation took place between them : Dr. Cappel Muller, in a few moments you will stand before God. I ask you again, and for the last time, are you guilty or not guilty? Muller Not guilty. Dr. Cappel You are not guilty? Muller God knows what I have done. Dr. Cappel God knows what you have done. Does he also know that you have committed this crime? Muller Yes, I have done it. (Jah, ich habe es gethan.) Though some doubt was afterwards cast as to the actual words used on this occasion, the correspondence printed in an Appendix to this volume shows conclusively that Muller did confess his crime immediately before he was launched into eternity. It is difficult at this distance of time to quite appreciate the extraordinary interest that the case of Muller aroused. There is nothing very remarkable either in the crime or in the criminal. The trial itself is interesting as showing the con- clusive weight of circumstantial evidence. That it did create extraordinary interest at the time there can be no doubt. It was the first railway murder, and the circumstances of the flight and capture of the murderer were calculated to excite the public mind. The character of Muller is a little difficult to understand. He would seem to have been a young man who could make friends among both men and women ; all the witnesses at his trial spoke of his humane and gentle disposi- xxxii MURDER. WHEREAS, on Monday, June 27th, ISAAC FREDERICK GOULD waa murdered on the London Brighton and Sooth Ooast Railway, between Three Bridges and Balcombe. in East Sussex AND WHEREAS a Verdict of WILFUL MURDER has been returned by a Coroner's Jury against PERCY LEFROY MAPLETON, whoso Poruait and Handwriting are given hereoo, S*~*~*~*jt. and who is described as being 22 years of age, height 5 ft 8 or 9 in., very thin, hair (cut short) dark, email dark whiskers ; dress. dark frock coat.ju 1 shoes, and auupoaud low black hai (worn at back of head), had scratches from fingers on throat, several wounds on he i. the dressing of which involved the cutting of hair, recently lodged at 4, Cathcart Road, Wallington, was seen at 9.311 a.m. 2Slb ult., with uis head bandaged, at the Fever Hospital, Liverpool Road, Islington. Had a gold open-faced watch (which he Is likely to pledge). " Maker. Griffiths, Mile End Road, No 1G261." One Half of the above Reward will be paid by Her Majesty's Government, and One Half by the Directors of the London Brighton and South Const Railway to any person (other than a person belonging to a Police Force in the United Kingdom) who shall give such information as shall lead to the discovery and apprehension of the said PERCY LEFRQY MAPLETON, or others, the Murderer, or Murd-jrers, upon his 01 their conviction ; and the Secretary of State for the Home Department will advis* the Kraut of Her Majesty's gracious PARDON to any accomplice, not being the person who actually committed the Murder, who hall give such evidence as shall lead to a like result. Information to be given to the Chief Constable of Bast Sussex, Lewes, w any Police Station, or to JULY 4. 1881. The Director of Criminal Inuestigations, Gt Scotland Yard. (i81t) Jlamsou and Sou, Printers in Ordinary to Her Mqesty, St. Martin's Lane. Reproduction of Handbill in the Lefroy case. Introduction. tion. He was, however, at times overbearing and inclined to violence. He was vain, and in the habit of making boastful and untrue statements about himself and his doings. He seems to have been fond of jewellery, and it is probably correct to surmise, as Baron Martin said in sentencing him to death, that, "moved by the devil in the shape of Mr. Briggs's gold watch and albert chain, the young man was overcome with a sudden impulse of greed," to which he yielded the more readily owing to his desire to obtain sufficient money to take him to America, where he seems to have thought that he would be more successful than in England. Though Miiller's was the first railway murder in England, his crime is not to be compared with the exploits of a train murderer in France, named Jud, four years earlier. This man Jud murdered a Russian Army doctor on a railway in Alsace; and three months later he was more than suspected of the murder of Monsieur Poinsot, a distinguished judge, on the railway between Troyes and Paris. Though the guilt of Jud was clearly established, he was never captured. England had to wait for nearly twenty years before Miiller's melancholy success was repeated. On the 27th of June, 1881, Mr. Gold, a respectable gentleman living in a suburb of Brighton, sixty-four years of age, was murdered on the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway by a man of the name of Lefroy. The murder occurred in a first-class carriage between Croydon and Horley. Mr. Gold was returning by the two o'clock train from London Bridge to his house at Preston. When the train drew up at Preston Park station, Lefroy was found in the carriage dishevelled and covered with blood. He said that he had been attacked and robbed. A watch chain was hanging from his shoe, which he said he had placed there for safety. His statements were accepted, and he was allowed to go on his way. The credulity of the officials on this occasion exposed them to a great deal of ridicule, which found highly humorous expression in some satirical verses by the late H. D. Traill. During the same afternoon the body of Mr. Gold was found near the entrance to Balcombe Tunnel. There was a bullet wound in his neck, and further wounds on his body, apparently inflicted with a knife. Lefroy, after his release by the police, disappeared. It was not until a week after the murder that Franz Muller. he was discovered in some lodgings in Smith Street, Stepney. Lefroy was tried at the Maidstone Assizes before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge on the 5th November, 1881. Sir Henry James, then Attorney-General, now Lord James of Hereford, led for the prosecution, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Montagu Williams. He was convicted on the fourth day of his trial, sentenced to death, and executed at Lewes. Lefroy, whose real name was Percy Lefroy Mapleton, was a journalist. He was a vain, weak creature, with literary ambitions which he had not the necessary talent to fulfil. He was desperate for want of money, and had apparently gone to the London Bridge station with the intention of robbing some passenger, and, if necessary, taking life. He hoped to have travelled with a lady, whom he could have robbed by merely threatening her, with- out being driven to the necessity of murder. He was not suc- cessful in finding a lady who answered his dismal requirements, and, finally, entered a carriage that was occupied by a solitary gentleman. That gentleman was the unfortunate Mr. Gold. It was Lefroy's portrait, published in the Daily Telegraph and seen by his landlady, that led to his arrest. This was, I believe, the first occasion on which the portrait of a " wanted man " appeared in a newspaper. The next crime of this character was the murder in the year 1897 of Elizabeth Camp. She was a woman of thirty -three years of age, at the time of her death a barmaid at the " Good Intent," a small tavern in Walworth. On the afternoon of the llth of February she left Walworth for Hammersmith, and stayed there at the house of a friend for about two hours. She then went on to Hounslow to visit a married sister. She left Hounslow by the 7.43 train for Waterloo, entering an empty second-class carriage. As soon as the train reached Waterloo at 8.25 her body was found on the floor of the carriage. Her head had been battered in by some heavy instrument, and her pockets had been rifled. There had evidently been a desperate struggle in the carriage. The only possible clue in the case was a " Wedgwood " pestle, similar to that used by chemists, which was found covered with blood and hair a short distance from Wandsworth station. It was probable, therefore, that the murder had been committed before the train reached Vauxhall. Certain persons were suspected of the crime, but Introduction. no arrest was ever made, and after a prolonged inquest the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. The fourth railway murder occurred on Thursday, the 17th of January, 1901, on the London & South- Western Railway. As the 1.29 train from Southampton was entering Vauxhall station a man sprang from a third-class carriage and fled down the platform at a desperate speed. A woman, wounded and bleeding, appeared at the door of the carriage, and called out to the officials to stop the man. He was pursued and captured. It then appeared that the murderer had got into the train at Eastleigh. At that time there were in the carriage a farmer of the name of Pearson, living near Winchester, and a lady, Mrs. King. As the train passed Winchester station the man rose, shot Mr. Pearson dead, and began to rifle his pockets. He threatened to serve the woman in the same way, fired at her, and wounded her in the jaw. He said that he would not do her any further injury, if she said nothing about it. On the evening of his arrest George Henry Parker for that was the name of the man made a full confession of the crime. He had been drinking heavily, and had formed the acquaintance of a woman who, he said, had told him that she was unhappy at home, and had asked him to take her away with him. It was to effect this purpose that he had committed the crime. Parker was twenty-three years of age, a tall, good-looking man, who had been in the Army. He said that he must have been mad when he committed the crime, and from the first was resigned to his fate. He was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on the 7th of March, and executed three weeks later. On the night of Sunday, the 24th September, 1905, the body of Mary Sophia Money, aged twenty-one, a book-keeper at a dairy at Lavender Hill, Clapham Junction, was discovered in Merstham Tunnel on the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway. In her mouth was a long piece of silk veil, her skull was smashed, one of her legs severed; she had apparently been thrown from a train. There were marks of her hands on the side of the tunnel, and her gloves were covered with soot. On the 16th of October the coroner's jury found that Miss Money had met her death by severe injuries 1 brought about by a train, but that the evidence was insufficient to show whether she fell Franz Muller. or was thrown from the train. It is impossible to say whether Miss Money met her death by murder, suicide, or mischance. The last railway murder that aroused a very considerable degree of interest was that committed on the North-Eastern Railway by John Dickman, of Newcastle. It is a remarkable case, from many points of view, and calls for more than passing comment. In this case the murderer had not acted as Muller, on a sudden impulse; he had not left the choice of his victim to chance, as Lefroy ; he had carefully planned, deliberately executed his crime, and met the consequences' with fearless determination. It was a little after twelve o'clock on Friday, 18th March, 1910, that the 10.27 a.m. slow train from Newcastle to Berwick steamed into Alnmouth station. Sleet was falling heavily at the time. A porter opened the door of a third-class compart- ment in the carriage next to the engine, in order to close the window. He saw to his horror that the carriage was smothered in blood and, lying face downwards, pushed under the seat, was the body of a man. It was removed at once to a waiting- room, and the carriage placed in a siding. The body was found to be that of John Innes Nisbet, cashier and book-keeper to a Newcastle firm, owning the Stobswood Colliery, near Wid- drington, some 24 miles from Newcastle. Nisbet was in the habit of travelling every alternate Friday by this 10.27 train from Newcastle, due at Widdrington at 11.31, carrying with him the money for the miners' wages. In good times he might carry as much as 1000 in cash, but, owing to the coal strike, on the morning he met his death, he was carrying in a black bag 370 9s. 6d., in sovereigns, half-sovereigns, silver, and coppers. It was clear that the unfortunate man had met with foul play ; there were five bullet wounds in his head. Four of the bullets were found, but they were of different calibre. The assassin, or assassins, must have used two pistols, but no weapon was found in the carriage. Nisbet was forty-four years of age, short and slight in build, married, and had two children. He had been twenty-two years in the service of the colliery firm, and bore an excellent character. Mrs. Nisbet had been in the habit of meeting the 10.27 train on the Fridays on which her husband was travelling by it, at Heaton station, some seven minutes by rail from Introduction. Newcastle. On the day of her husband's murder she had met the train as usual, and had seen that there was another man in the carriage, sitting opposite to Nisbet, but she could not give any description of him. Nisbet had been last seen alive at Stannington, the station immediately before Morpeth, by two colliery clerks, who knew him well. As they left the train at the station they had greeted Nisbet, and one of them had noticed that there was another man in the carriage, sitting on the opposite side to the deceased, reading a newspaper. Nisbet was not seen by any of the railway officials at Morpeth, to whom he was well known as a regular traveller on the line ; and at Widdrington station, where he should have alighted, some surprise was expressed at his absence. It was not until the train reached Alnmouth, half an hour later, that his body was discovered. It seemed almost certain that the unfortunate man had been murdered between Stannington and Morpeth, a non-stop run of ten minutes, the longest on the journey. By alighting at Morpeth, which is a busy station, the murderer would have had a much better chance of escaping unobserved than at any of the smaller stations at which the train stopped. The day after the murder the owners of the Stobswood Colliery offered a reward of 100 for the detection of the murderer, of whom a description was issued, based on the statement of the two clerks who had left the train at Stanning- ton. One of them had seen a man get with the deceased into a compartment in the front of the train immediately behind that in which he and his friend were sitting, before the train left Newcastle; the other had seen a man sitting opposite Nisbet, as he was leaving the train at Stannington. A rumour spread that, on the Saturday following the murder, a man answering the description of the wanted man had been seen by the conductor of an omnibus between London Bridge and Hackney. But a statement made to the police in Newcastle led to the arrest on Monday evening, the 21st of March, of John Alexander Dickman, a bookmaker in that city. He had known the murdered man. He had been at one time a clerk on the quayside, Newcastle; later, secretary to a colliery company near Morpeth ; and since then had been earning a precarious and insufficient living by betting operations, Franz Muller. Dickman was forty-three years of age, and married. He is described as a short, rather thick-set man, having a heavy moustache and short, curly hair, spruce and well-dressed in appearance. On Monday evening a police officer called at his house, and invited Dickman to accompany him to the Central Police Station. Dickman consented without reluctance or betraying any sign of nervousness, and, on arriving at the station, made a voluntary statement in which he admitted travel- ling by the 10.27 train from Newcastle on the 18th of March. He said that he had seen Nisbet at the booking office, but not again after that, and that he had entered a compartment alone near the hinder end of the train. He had, he said, taken a ticket to Stannington in order to keep an appointment with a Mr. Hogg, a colliery owner, but that he was so absorbed in a newspaper he was reading that he had missed his station, and had got out at Morpeth with the intention of walking back to Stannington. On the way he had been seized with an attack of diarrhoea, and after some delay had returned to Morpeth, from which station he had caught the 1.40 train back to Newcastle. On being placed under arrest and charged with the murder of Nisbet, Dickman said " I don't understand the proceedings ; it is absurd for me to deny the charge, because it is absurd to make it. I only say I absolutely deny it." Dickman 's account of his movements on the day of the murder was in one respect inconsistent with a statement which had been made to the police by Wilson Hepple, an artist living near Newcastle. He had known Dickman for some twenty years, and was travelling by the 10.27 train from Newcastle on the morning of the 18th of March. He stated that he had seen Dickman at the booking office as he was taking his ticket, and had then gone to a carriage in the middle of the train. As he was standing by the carriage Dickman passed him in company with another man, whom, he did not know, and went to the engine end of the train. He then, as he was walking up and down the platform, saw one of the two men place his hand on the door of a carriage at the higher end of the train, and, when he turned round again in his walk, the two men had dis- appeared. About a minute later, Hepple got into his carriage and the train started. If Hepple was not mistaken and was telling the truth and his character made any other supposition xxxviii Introduction. impossible then Dickman had given a false account of his movements when he stated that, after seeing Nisbet at the booking office, he had walked alone to a carriage at the hinder end of the train. On Tuesday, 22nd March, Dickman was charged before a magistrate at Gosforth Police Court, but it was not until the 14th of April that the case was gone into fully before the Newcastle magistrates. In addition to the evidence of Mrs. Nisbet and Hepple, Hall, one of the colliery clerks travelling by the 10.27 train, said that he had seen Nisbet and a man he believed to be the prisoner, get into a compartment immediately behind his, which was the second compartment from the engine in the carriage next to the engine. When asked to point out Nisbet's companion from among nine men at the police station, Hall pointed out Dickman and said, " I won't swear that the man I pointed out was the man I saw get in with Mr. Nisbet, but, if I could be assured that the murderer was there, I would have no hesitation in pointing the prisoner out." His companion, Spink, swore that, as he passed Nisbet at Stan- nington station, he had seen another man in the carriage with him, but was unable to identify Dickman as the man. Evidence was given as to Dickman's financial position at the time of the murder. It was clear from a letter of his wife's that the Dickmans were sorely in need of money, and that the husband had practically no money at all, the wife some 20 in a co-operative society and the Post Office Savings Bank. On the day before the murder Dickman had pawned a pair of field-glasses for 15s., and a fortnight earlier had pawned another pair for 12s. At the time of his arrest he had on him 17 9s. lid. in cash, fifteen sovereigns of which were in a " Lambton's Bank " canvas bag, the remainder loose in his pockets. The clerk at Lloyd's Bank in Newcastle, with which Lambton's Bank had been amalgamated, stated that the sovereigns and half-sovereigns of the 370 paid out to Nisbet on the morning of the 18th March had been contained in canvas bags similar to that found on Dickman. At the same time it was proved that Dickman had had an account at Lloyd's Bank, which had been closed at the end of the year 1909. Some evidence was given of Dickman having received a parcel Franz Muller. containing a gun at a shop in Newcastle in the name of " Fred. Black " ; and a gunsmith's assistant stated that according to his register he had, in the year 1907, sold an automatic pistol to a " J. A. Dickson," giving an address at Lily Avenue, Jesmond, the street in which Dickman was living at the time of his arrest. Another gunsmith stated that two of the bullet wounds in the head of the deceased might have been inflicted with a pistol of such a character. At the second hearing in the Police Court, Mr. Hogg was called. He was the contractor whom Dickman said he had gone to see on the morning of 18th March about some sinking opera- tions at Stannington. Hogg said that he had made no appointment with Dickman on that morning, and had, in fact, been in Newcastle all day ; that the prisoner had been to see him at Stannington a fortnight before the murder, arriving by the same 10.27 train from Newcastle as that by which he had travelled on the day of Nisbet's murder. Hogg further stated that the visit had been in a purely friendly way, and not on any matter of business ; that he had on one occasion lent Dickman <2, and that, as far as he knew, the prisoner had never had anything to do with any sinking operations. Medical evidence was called as to the nature of the five bullet wounds found in the head of the murdered man, one of which, entering the brain, had caused death. At the conclusion of the evidence the magistrates decided that a prima facie case had been made out against Dickman, but remanded him until 21st April, when the depositions would be read over and the prisoner committed for trial. That day an unlooked-for incident occurred. Dickman had no sooner entered the Court than Mrs. Nisbet went into the witness-box, and asked to be allowed to make a statement. At the conclusion of her evidence at the previous hearing she had fainted away, and had to be assisted from the Court. At the time her collapse was attributed to emotion natural in so painful a situation as hers. Now, however, with the permis- sion of the Court, she wished to explain the cause of her distress. She had, she said, seen but little of the man seated opposite to her husband in the railway carriage when she met the train at Heaton station on the fatal morning ; " he had got his collar up, and had partly covered his face. I recognised xl Introduction. the same part of the face in the dock the other day, and that is how I lost my senses." At this point Mrs. Nisbet almost broke down again. As soon as she had recovered herself sufficiently she was cross-examined by the prisoner's solicitor, but she persisted that she recognised the side of the face that she had seen in the dock as the side of the face that she had seen in the railway carriage at Heaton station. The man in the train, she said, resembled the prisoner; "he turned in the dock as I saw him in the train." The evidence was read over, and Dickman committed for trial to the Newcastle Assizes. On the 9th of June, between the magisterial investigation and the trial, the leather bag in which Nisbet had carried the money on the 18th of March was found, slit open and emptied of the greater part of its contents, at the bottom of the shaft of the Isabella pit at Hepscott. This pit lies If miles to the south- east of Morpeth station. The bag contained some coppers, and other coppers were found near it, amounting altogether to 19s. 8d. Dickman, it was proved, knew of the existence of this particular shaft. Arriving at Morpeth at 11.16 the murderer, whoever he was, would have had ample time and to spare to visit the shaft and to return by the 1.40 train to Newcastle. The trial of Dickman commenced on the 4th of July before Mr. Justice Coleridge. Mr. Tindal Atkinson, K.C., led for the Crown, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Mitchell Innes, K.C. In opening the case, Mr. Tindal Atkinson emphasised the fact that four persons had seen Dickman in the company of the deceased on the morning of 18th March. A man named Raven had seen both men walking together at Newcastle station on their way to No. 5 platform, from which the 10.27 train started. Hepple had sworn to seeing the prisoner get into the front part of the train with a man of a build corres- ponding with the deceased. Hall had identified Dickman as the man he had seen with Nisbet on the platform at Newcastle. And Mrs. Nisbet had identified him under the circumstances already described. Of these witnesses, Hepple's was the most serious evidence against the prisoner, and remained unshaken in spite of earnest cross-examination. As further evidence of the prisoner's guilt there were pro- xli Franz Muller. duced a pair of suede gloves belonging to Dickman, one of which, the left-hand glove, was smeared with blood ; and a pair of his trousers, in the left-hand pocket of which were spots of blood. It was suggested that the stains had been produced by the glove, still wet with blood, having been put into the trousers pocket, whilst it was still on the murderer's hand. In regard to the impecuniosity of Dickman at the time of the murder it was proved that both Dickman' s banking accounts had been closed in 1909, and that apparently some 20 of savings of Mrs. Dickman 's was the sum of their fortune on the 18th of March, 1910. Dickman went into the witness-box. He repeated in sub- stance the statement he had already made to the police. He had passed Stannington station because, as a betting man, he was engrossed in reading in the newspaper about the Grand National Steeplechase that was to be run that day. He said that the 17 found on him on his arrest was part of a reserve fund, belonging to his betting account and known only to himself. In cros'e-examination, Dickman maintained that he had entered the last carriage but one at the back of the train. There were, he said, other people in the carriage, but he could not describe any of them, nor recollect whether any of them had got out before the train reached Morpeth. About ten minutes after he left Morpeth, Dickman said that he was seized with illness, and had spent half an hour in a field. He returned home about a quarter-past four that afternoon, and went to the Pavilion Music Hall in Newcastle that evening. The blood steins on his glove he attributed to his nose bleeding or cutting his corns. No fairer account of the case can be given than the masterly summing up of Mr. Justice Coleridge. It is a model of what such a thing should be. It cannot be said to have been favourable to the prisoner. At the same time, it never emphasised unduly the strength of the circumstantial evidence against him. The learned judge commenced by dealing with the evidence that showed Nisbet and Dickman to have been together in the train on the day of the murder. It resulted I in this, the deceased was proved to have been in the third compartment of the front coach, " and there was one man, and one man alone with him in that carriage." The xlii Introduction. prisoner was seen with the deceased at the railway station, and was seen getting, with a companion, into a compartment approximate to the one in which the deceased had travelled. Then there was the evidence of Mrs. Nisbet. It was clearly proved that on that morning the prisoner had a companion. He said that he had not. "If he said that he had no com- panion, when they knew that he had, then who was that companion? " The judge commented on the prisoner's account of his move- ments after reaching Morpeth. Why did he not go back at once to Stannington station, where he should have got out? The story of his seizure of illness was uncorroborated ; and two men who had met him near Morpeth station, about twenty minutes past one, had found him cool, collected, and with no sign of suffering. The prisoner's explanation of the blood on his gloves and in his trousers pocket was vague and unsatisfactory. In dealing with the circumstantial character of the evidence against the prisoner, such evidence, Lord Coleridge said, " One may describe as a network of facts cast around the accused man. That network may be a mere gossamer thread as light and insubstantial as the air itself, which would vanish at a touch. It may be strong in parts, but leave great gaps and rents through which the accused is entitled to pass with safety. It may be so close, so stringent, so coherent in its texture, that no efforts on the part of the accused could break it." The jury, after an absence of half an hour, returned a verdict of " guilty " against Dickman, who was sentenced to death. The prisoner, whose firmness had never deserted him from the first moment of his arrest, protested his inno- cence. Notice of appeal was given on Dickman's behalf. At the same time a brother of the prisoner wrote a letter to the Newcastle Daily Chronicle, in which he asked if anybody, after reviewing Dickman's own evidence, could, unless he looked through smoked glasses, say that Dickman was an innocent man. He wrote, he said, in the hope of stopping people writing foolish letters to the papers protesting against the verdict. He said that, if his brother had taken his advice, he would not have been where he was. In spite of this singular fraternal intervention, a petition for a reprieve was prepared and sent to the Home Secretary. xliii Franz Muller. Dickman's appeal was held before the Court of Criminal Appeal, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone, and Justices Lawrance and Phillimore, on Friday, 22nd July. Mr. Mitchell Innes, who appeared for Dickman, dealt chiefly with the unsatisfactory character of Hall's identification of the prisoner, and the fact that Mr. Tindal Atkinson, in his con- cluding speech for the Crown, had commented on the fact that Mrs. Dickman had not been called as a witness for the defence. Hall was called before the Court, and examined by Mr. Mitchell Innes, when it appeared that he had been assisted rather improperly by the police in his identification of the prisoner. But the Court held that this identification had so little bearing on the real merits of the case that it was impossible to inter- fere with the verdict of the jury on the ground of anything that had happened at the police station. As to Mrs. Dick- man's evidence, Mr. Justice Coleridge had told the jury, before the foreman had delivered their verdict, that, if Mr. Tindal Atkinson's comment had in any way affected their minds, they must re-consider their verdict ; but the foreman had replied that the subject had never been mentioned amongst them. Without calling on Mr. Tindal Atkinson, the Court dismissed the appeal. On August the 5th the Home Secretary wrote that he was unable to advise any interference with the due course of the law in Dickman's case, and on the 9th of August Dickman was executed in Newcastle Gaol. He met his death unflinchingly, and made no confession. From the moment that Dickman contemplated the murder of Nisbet he seems to have set about it with a method and determination that were unfaltering. !His journey to Stannington on 4th March was, no doubt, as the judge suggested, in the nature of a rehearsal for the actual deed itself. Dickman, at the end of his resources, had come to the deliberate resolution of refilling his pockets by the murder of a man who would, he knew, be carrying with him on the 18th of March a very considerable sum of money. The People newspaper, after his execution, stated that Dick- man was strongly suspected by the police of having been connected with the murder of a Jewish moneylender, which had occurred in Sunderland on the evening of the 8th March, 1909. It would seem that Dickman had undoubtedly had some xliv Introduction. dealings with the murdered man. Prior to Dickman's arrest, a number of assaults and robberies had taken place in Jesmond, in the neighbourhood of Dickman's house. The perpetrator had never been discovered. It was said that one of the victims of this mysterious assailant, who had been present at Dickman's trial, had recognised the prisoner in the dock as the man who had attacked and robbed him. Among the articles found in Dickman's house at the time of his arrest was a life preserver. Mrs. Dickman wrote to the People protesting strongly against these insinuations, and challenging proof of them. Two mysteries in connection with the Dickman case are to this day unsolved. What became of the weapons used by the murderer? What has become of the greater part of the 370 taken from the murdered man? Does the money still lie concealed in some hiding place where the murderer had secreted it, in the hope of recovering it when the excitement caused by his crime had died down? or has some unscrupulous person found it and preferred to say nothing of the discovery? I have given the outline of this case at some length, as it is perhaps the most remarkable of the crimes perpetrated on our English railways. Happily these crimes have been few, in spite of the facilities offered to the criminal by the construction of our English railway carriages. In Pendleton's " Our Railways," published in 1896, statistics are given which show that we then compared very favourably with other European countries in the number of such crimes. France heads the list by a long way. In the thirty years previous, there were in France twenty-eight murders or attempted murders on the railway. In Russia and Turkey there were seven each, in Italy five, in England four, in Spain two, and in Austria one. Germany, Switzerland, Holland, and Belgium had none. With the coming of the corridor carriages we may hope that these crimes will come to be matters of ancient history. xlv Leading Dates in the Muller Case. 1864. Saturday, July 9. The body of Mr. Briggs found on the North London railway between Bow and Hackney Wick stations. 11. Inquest opened by Mr. Humphreys, coroner, at the Prince of Wales' Tavern, Bow, afterwards ad- journed to the Hackney Town Hall. Muller visits Death's shop in Cheapside, exchanges Mr. Briggs's watch chain for another, and gives to Matthews' little girl the jeweller's box bearing Death's name. 13. Muller books passage at the London Docks by the sailing ship " Victoria " for New York. 15. "Victoria" sails for New York. 18. The cabman Matthews makes a statement to the police as to the identity of the hat left in the railway carriage. 20. Inspector Tanner, Sergeant Clarke, Death, and Matthews leave Liverpool for New York by the New York and Philadelphia Company's steamship " City of Manchester." Aug. 5. " City of Manchester " arrives at New York. 25. " Victoria " reaches New York. Muller is arrested. 27. Commissioner Newton grants Muller's extradition. Sept. 3. Muller sails for England by steamship " Etna," Inman Line. 16. " Etna " reaches Liverpool. xlvii Franz Muller. 1864. Sept. 17. Muller is brought to London and charged at Bow Street. 19. Magisterial hearing commences before Mr. Flowers at Bow Street Police Court. 26. Coroner's jury return verdict of " wilful murder " against Muller. Magisterial hearing concluded, and Muller committed for trial at Central Criminal Court. Oct. 26. Grand jury at Central Criminal Court return a true bill against Muller. 27. His trial commences at the Old Bailey before Chief Baron Pollock and Mr. Baron Martin. 29. The jury return a verdict of "Guilty," and Muller is sentenced to death. Nov. 10. The German Legal Protection Society present memorial to the Home Secretary praying for a commutation of the sentence. 12. Letter from the Home Secretary declining to inter- fere with the sentence. 14. Muller executed before Newgate, after confessing his guilt. xlviii THE TRIAL. On the Queen's Commission of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery for the City of London and Gaol Delivery for the County of Middlesex and the parts of the Counties of Essex, Kent, and Surrey within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court. THURSDAY, 27-ra OCTOBER, 1864. The Court met at Ten o'clock. Judges THE LORD CHIEF BARON (Sir Frederick Pollock). MR. BARON MARTIN. Counsel for the Crown THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. P. Collier, Q.C., M.P.). Mr. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Mr. JAMES HANNEN. Mr. HARDINGE GIFFARD. Mr. BEASLEY. Instructed by Mr. A. W. POLLARD, on behalf of the Treasury. Counsel for the Prisoner Mr. SERJEANT PARRY. Mr. METCALFE. Mr. EDWARD BESLEY. Instructed by Mr. THOMAS BEARD, Solicitor to the German Legal Protection Society. FRANZ MULLER (23) was indicted for the wilful murder of Thomas Briggs. CLERK OP THE COURT Franz Muller, you are indicted that .you did, on the 9th of July, in the present year, maliciously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought, kill and murder Thomas JBriggs. Are you guilty or not guilty? The PRISONER Not guilty. CLERK OF THE COURT You are entitled to be tried by a .jury partly composed of foreigners. SERJEANT PARRY (for the prisoner) He wishes to be tried by twelve Englishmen. CLERK OP THE COURT Prisoner at the bar, if you wish to object to any of the gentlemen of the jury you must do so as they come into the box to be sworn. SERJEANT PARRY I understand that a ballot of all the jury- men takes place at the beginning of the sessions, and that they are divided into classes or pannels, and that these classes consist of fourteen jurymen each. CLBRK OF THE COURT Yes. SERJEANT PARRY I ask your lordship that the whole of the names of the gentlemen of the jury be placed in a box, and that they should be taken out indifferently. BARON MARTIN You are entitled to have the jury sworn according to Act of Parliament. CLERK OP THE COURT Send into the other Courts, and tell them to send in all the jurymen in waiting. (Messengers were sent, and while they were away the prisoner held a long conversation with his solicitor, Mr. Beard, over the front of the dock. Upon the entry of the jurymen from the other Courts those gentlemen who had already taken their seats in the jury-box were requested to retire, which they did.) CLERK OF THE COURT The gentlemen who are summoned as -a foreign jury need not stay any longer. (Several jurymen were then called, but Mr. Serjeant Parry exercised his privilege of objecting to several.) SERJEANT PARRY I ask that the names of the jury be put >into a box and drawn. 3 Franz Muller. BARON MARTIN There is no such Act of Parliament. SERJEANT PARRY I ask that the names be put in the box and drawn. BARON MARTIN I shall proceed according to law. (The learned baron then directed that the Act of Parliament be handed to Serjeant Parry.) The LORD CHIEF BARON Mr. Avory was calling the names of the gentlemen of the jury who had been summoned from Middlesex. I propose that, as counties send prisoners for trial to the Old Bailey, and there are pannels from each of those counties, some jurymen should be cited from each pannel. SERJEANT PARRY I am quite satisfied with the proposal, and thank your lordship for the suggestion. The jury having been duly empannelled and sworn, The CLERK OP THE COURT said Gentlemen, the prisoner,. Franz Muller, is indicted for that he did feloniously, wilfully, and with malice aforethought, kill and murder Thomas Briggs, and it is your duty to say whether he is guilty or not guilty. Solicitor- The SOLICITOR-GENERAL Gentlemen of the jury, it is my General duty to state to you the circumstances of a most extraordinary murder, and to inform you of the evidence which will be laid before you, warranting the conclusion that that murder wa& committed by the prisoner at the bar. Gentlemen, this is a case which has excited unusual and painful interest. It is, one which, as we all know, has been canvassed and discussed in almost every newspaper, I might say almost every house, in the kingdom; and it is one on which some persons might be inclined already to form an opinion. I must entreat you, gentlemen, in approaching this most solemn inquiry, to discard from your minds anything that you may have heard, everything that you may have read upon the subject. I appear on the part of the prosecution with a true desire to do justice to the prisoner. You will try him upon the evidence, and upon the evidence alone. It gives me great satisfaction to know that the prisoner has been enabled to avail himself of the services. of the distinguished counsel who are on his side, for I am convinced they will present to your consideration in the most, 4 The Solicitor-General's Opening. favourable manner every argument that can be made in his favour. I shall now give you a plain statement of the facts which will be presented before you. Gentlemen, we have to inquire into the circumstances attend- ing the death of a Mr. Thomas Briggs. Mr. Briggs was one of the chief clerks of the well-known banking house of Messrs. Roberts & Co. He was a gentleman, I understand, very highly respected and esteemed by all who were acquainted with him. Mr. Briggs had a house in Clapton Square, which is near to the Hackney or Hackney Wick station of the North London rail- way, and he frequently almost habitually, I believe went to and fro between his place of business and his house by that railway. I have now to call your particular attention to Saturday, the 9th of July last. On Saturday, the 9th of July, Mr. Briggs dined with a Mr. and Mrs. Buchan, who lived in Nelson Square, Peckham, Mrs. Buchan being a niece of Mr. Briggs. Mr. Briggs left Mr. Buchan's about half-past nine o'clock at night with the intention of returning to his home at Clapton Square. Mr. Buchan walked with him as far as the omnibus which went to King William Street, where he would get out and walk to the Fenchurch Street station. Mr. Briggs had on that occasion with him a black bag. He had a stick, which will be shown to you, and he had a watch and chain. The watch was an old-fashioned, large, gold lever watch, and, I believe, a valuable one. The chain was also of some value, and was one he had had for some time. Attached* to the chain was a ring, partly broken, which will be presently shown to you and identified. It is clear that Mr. Briggs had the watch and chain upon him at the time, for Mr. Buchan will tell you that on his way to the omnibus he once or twice took out his watch to see the time. Gentlemen, Mr. Briggs arrived at the Fenchurch Street station in time to go by the train which starts at a quarter before ten. He had taken a first- -lass return ticket in the morning, and he went into a first- class carriage with the intention of returning home. Now, gentlemen, it will be proved to you beyond all doubt or con- troversy that Mr. Briggs was robbed and murdered on that night in that railway carriage. The murder was consum- mated. His body was thrown out of the door of the carriage between two stations, the one the Bow station and the other 5 Franz Muller. Solicitor- the Hackney Wick station rather nearer the Hackney Wick than the Bow, at a spot which will be pointed out. The murder was first discovered in this way. Two gentlemen, clerks in the same banking establishment as Mr. Briggs, happened to be getting into the same train at the Hackney station. On getting in they felt something wet on the cushion, and upon examination they found it to be blood. One or two other persons got into the carriage, and they called the attention of the guard. The guard examined the carriage ,. and '.found a quantity of blood in it. He found also the black bag, the stick, and a hat, in respect of which I may have- some remarks to make by and by. The guard, of course, caused all the passengers to leave the carriage, locked it up., and sent it on to the Chalk Farm station, where it was received by Mr. Greenwood, and sent to Bow station, where it remained from that time to this, and where it is now in the same state as that in which it was on that night. In the meantime the guard of an up train an empty train passing between the Hackney Wick station and the Bow station, observed a dark object on the ground between the two lines of railway. He called the attention of the driver to it ; it proved to be the body of a man, who was still breathing, but insensible. He was taken to the Mitford Castle Inn, and it was then discovered that this person was Mr. Briggs. Gentlemen, Mr. Briggs never recovered his consciousness, but lingered in that state until the next evening, when he died, having been conveyed in the meantime to his own house. It is proper that I should describe to you the state in which Mr. Briggs was at the time he was found. I am informed he had several severe wounds, appar- ently inflicted by a blunt instrument, used with great force. The skull had been fractured in several places. There were also other bruises and contusions, which the medical men who attended him are inclined to admit might be caused by the fall from the carriage ; but I believe the medical men will think that those injuries which were not done by the fall were inflicted by a blunt instrument. The blood in the carriage would indicate that violence was there used. The dress of Mr. Briggs was disordered to such an extent as to indicate that a serious struggle had taken place. He had been robbed of 6 The Solicitor-General's Opening. his watch and chain. They had been taken forcibly from his Soiieitor- . , , . , ., General person, because there was subsequently found in the railway carriage the broken link of the chain. But he had not been robbed beyond this. He had four sovereigns in one of his trousers pockets when he was found. He had also in the other pocket a silver snuffbox, and he had a diamond ring on one of his fingers. These articles had not been taken. That is the description of the state of Mr. Briggs at the time he was found. Now, it would be well for me to describe a little more particularly the state of the carriage. If you take this to be the carriage (referring to a model) Mr. Briggs would appear to be sitting on the "near" side, as it is called. A large quantity of blood was found on this side, which appears to have flowed profusely from the corner seat. There is also a good deal of blood on the other part of the seat. I should state to you the carriage is not divided, as some carriages are, into compartments. It is a large and spacious carriage, and has a small partition between some of the seats. There was a small quantity of blood on the window where Mr. Briggs sat. There was also blood on other parts of the carriage, on the handle, and, I believe, on some of the door steps, which would be produced by his falling out of the carriage, and not by his being struck in the train. This blood in the carriage has been examined by Dr. Letheby, a very careful and efficient chemist, and he will show that it was no doubt human blood. This would lead to the inference that Mr. Briggs was sitting in this corner and had fallen asleep, dozing and resting his head against the brass rail, and that he had been struck by somebody on the opposite side on the left temple. Possibly then he fell on this seat, where the blood would flow. Then appearances would indicate that the murderer, whoever he was, had taken Mr. Briggs to the window opposite the door and thrown him out. It would be more convenient to throw him out at that side, because he would fall between the rails, where he would not so soon be discovered. This, however, is not a matter of proof. It may possibly be that Mr. Briggs, although bruised and stunned, may have had sense enough to move himself, with a view to getting up or out. The doors, I am told, are not locked on either side. 7 Franz Muller. f solicitor- Now, gentlemen, you may be disposed to ask me if I can . . . inform you whether this murder was committed by one person only or by more than one person. It would appear, I think, more probable that the violence was committed by one person. If it was committed by a number of thieves Mr. Briggs's pockets would have been rifled, and his snuffbox would have been taken out; whereas if the murder was committed by one man alone he would take the watch and chain and leave the body, and the marvel is that he did it in so short a time. You may ask with what weapon the blows were inflicted, for, beyond all doubt, the blows were inflicted by some blunt instrument. I have been shown the stick of Mr. Briggs. It is a formidable weapon a large, heavy stick, with a handle at one end. The stick was covered with blood, and it is now covered with blood. It is possible that the stick might have become blooded in the carriage without having been used as a weapon ; but you will see it, and you will judge, assuming the murderer to have been on the opposite side, whether the wounds might have been produced by that weapon. But whether produced by that weapon, or a life-preserver, or other weapon, it is a matter on which I am not able to give you any distinct infor- mation. Gentlemen, you may be disposed to ask w~hether, on the part of the Crown, we are disposed to represent this as a premeditated murder or a fortuitous one. On that point, again, I cannot offer any distinct information, but it would appear to me that the murder was the result of some sudden determination. It may be that the murderer, seeing Mr. Briggs in the carriage, and being able to get in, or being in that carriage alone with him, he might have been seized with the sudden impulse to possess his watch. I am told a person with a second-class ticket might have got into that carriage, because, the train being late, the tickets were not examined. Any one with a second-class ticket might have got in and might have got out without his ticket being examined at Bow. How- ever, these are matters into which it is not requisite for me to enter. I have described to you the state of Mr. Briggs's person. I have described to you the state of the carriage, and I have told you what was found in the carriage. There was found Mr. Briggs's bag, and there was found Mr. Briggs's 8 The Solicitor-General's Opening. -stick. There was also found in that carriage a hat, and that Solieitor- General is a circumstance of the utmost possible significance. Gentle- men, that that hat was not Mr. Briggs's is beyond all doubt. The hat was crushed, apparently as if it had been trod upon in a struggle, and Mr. Briggs's hat was not found. The con- clusion appears to me inevitable that the murderer, in the hurry and excitement of the moment, took the wrong hat. He took Mr. Briggs's hat with him and left his own. I venture to think that one point in this case which may not be disputed is this, that the man, whoever he was, who robbed and murdered Mr. Briggs left his hat in that carriage. If you discover with certainty the person who wore that hat on that night you will have the murderer, and the case is proved almost as clearly against him as if he was seen to do it. It is now proper for me to give some description of the prisoner at the bar, and to state the circumstances which point to his guilt. The prisoner, Franz Miiller, is a German. He came to England about two years ago, and worked as a tailor for aeveral employers, the last being Mr. Hodgkinson, Great Queen Street. Miiller had been out of employment for about a week before the murder, and he appeared to have been very poor. He wished to make his fortune in America, and had no means to pay his passage, which amounted, I am told, to about 4. It is fair to state, however, that before the murder Miiller contemplated going to America, and therefore the fact of his going there is not the slightest evidence against him. Miiller had a watch and chain of his own, which he was very fond of displaying, but his necessities were such that he was obliged to pawn this watch and chain. He pawned the watch for 3 and the chain for 1. Miiller lodged at the house of a Mrs. Blyth in the Victoria Park, and it is a fact not altogether undeserving of consideration that the railway station would be on his way home or, at all events, would not be out of his way home. Now, what were his whereabouts on the Saturday night of the murder? After he left his employer, Mr. Hodgkinson, he was in the habit of passing a good deal of time at the house of Mr. Repsch, a tailor living in Old Jewry Street ; and on this night he was at Mr. Repsch's. He left there about half-past seven o'clock, saying he was going 9 Franz Muller. Solicitor- to see some girl of the town with whom he was acquainted. He did not return to his lodgings until late at night. The landlady sat up until one o'clock, and he had not returned then. But he afterwards went home, and let himself in. He re- mained all the Sunday at his lodgings. On Monday morning at ten o'clock Muller was in possession of Briggs's chain. Of that there is no question whatever. At ten o'clock on the Monday morning he took this chain to the~shop of a jeweller in Cneapside, of the name of Death. He asked Mr. Death what he would give in exchange. Mr. Death valued the chain at =3 10s., and he gave Muller another chain, which he valued at 3 5s. Muller said he would take a ring for the difference, and he took a gold ring with a white stone in it of the value of 5s. Muller then left Mr. Death with the chain and ring, the chain he took being in a small box, with the name of Mr. Death inside, which was a circumstance of some importance 'uf'EnTs case. Muller went to Mr. and Mrs. Repsch's with the chain. He was asked where he had got it, and he said he had bought the chain off a man at the London Docks that morning, and had given 3 15s. for it. Now, that was clearly an untruth, for he had got it in ex- change. He also said he had bought a ring, which was like- wise untrue. On the same day he goes to Mr. and Mrs. Matthews, friends of his, and shows them the chain, and give? them an account of it. He shows the ring, and says it had been sent to him by his father from abroad. This is the account he gives of it, and, at the same time, having no further use for the box in which Mr. Death had put the chain, he left the boi, and gave it to Mrs. Matthews 's little girl. Now, gentlemen, Muller therefore clearly had Mr. Briggs's chain on Monday morning at ten o'clock, and exchanged it for another. It may be proper for me to state to you what he did with the chain which he got, and what further transactions took place with reference to this murder. The next thing he appears to have done was to pawn this chain that he had got at Death's. He pawned it for 30s., and he contrived to raise 10s. more; he borrowed 6s. off Mrs. Repsch, he received 4s. 6d. from Mrs. Matthews in payment of a debt she owed him; and with that, making 2 10s. 6d., he goes to the pawn- broker and redeems his own watch. The next thing to do 10 The Solicitor-General's Opening. is to get his chain out of pawn, which, as I have told you, he Soliettor- General pawned for . I gave Mr. Repsch a suit of my clothes to pawn to raise the money. That was on Wednesday. The prisoner gave me the duplicate of a chain pledged at a pawnbroker's named Annis. He told me Mr. Repsch had the ticket for a coat, which I could have for the money to pay the rent. I got the ticket from Mr. Repsch. I got the coat out of pawn the day before he came back to London from America, and sent it to Scotland Yard. Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY He was working for me on one day only. I was well aware of his going to America. He made up his mind to do so a fortnight before he left. I knew that he was lame. I saw him in possession of money before the 9th of July, both gold and silver. I cannot say how much, but I believe it was enough to pay his passage. I have known him for six months. He bore the character and disposition of a humane, kind young man. I lodged with him for the last three nights before he left. I had not lodged with him longer, not for some weeks. He slept with me once or twice. When he said he was going to see his sweetheart, did he say he was going to Camberwell? No; I did not understand that. He said his sweetheart's name was Eldred. This is not the first time I have been asked these questions. When he went out from Repsch's on Saturday night it was about a quarter to eight or eight; he had a slipper on one foot. He was lame of one foot, and had been so for two or three days. He told me a letter-carrier's cart had run against his foot. (Slipper shown to witness.) That is the slipper. I recognise it again. It was a carpet slipper. I believe he had money enough to pay his passage a week before this murder. After that Monday I assisted him to make up the money for his passage. He did not tell me what had become of his money and I did not ask him. I only knew of his going to the docks several times from what he told me. He did not tell me that he had spent his money in purchasing a watch and chain in the docks. He said he had bought a chain for 3 15s. He might have said that he had been down to the docks on the 41 Franz Muller. John Haffa Monday morning, but I do not remember. I only knew Death, the jeweller, after this case came on. I do not know anything about Muller having a gold chain repaired in November last. I did not know him at that time. In June I gave him a chain to get exchanged for another chain for myself, but he could not do it. He returned it to me. He did not tell me whether he had been anywhere to change it. Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL This transaction about the chain might have been at the end of May or the beginning of June. But nothing came of it. I gave him the chain, but he brought it back to me. I saw him with some money a week before he left, but I did not count it. By a JUROR You say that you could not see Muller 'a clothes when he left Repsch's house on the Saturday between seven and eight o'clock, because it was too dark. It is not dark at that time in July, but quite light? He left just before eight o'clock. In the lodging where I lived it was rather dark, because it is in a court. The prisoner did not sleep with me on the Saturday night. Georg* Death GEORGE DEATH, examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINH I am a brother of the jeweller in Cheapside. I remember some one coming in on the morning of the llth of July with a chain perfectly well. I believe the prisoner at the bar is the person. I had never, to my recollection, seen him before. Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY I have not the slightest recollection of having seen him before. I have not the slightest recollection of a person leaving a chain with me to be exchanged in June last. (Chain No. 3 handed to witness.) I am positive I have never seen this chain before. It is such a peculiar one that I should remember it if I had. This chain appears to have been mended; such a job we should send to a jobbing jeweller, and it would be put down to the credit of that jeweller. Do you remember the dress of the prisoner? His coat was dark, but I do not remember the particulars of his dress. My first impression was that his trousers were light, but I was not positive about it; it was a mere impression. We employ eteveral jewellers. Our jobbing jeweller is Mr. Evans,, of 42 Evidence for Prosecution. Bartholomew Square, No. 14. We often send chains to be George Death repaired to the chainmakers. Ke-examined by SERJEANT BALLANTINE Any work of the kind would pass through my hands or my brother's first. I am certain I never saw this chain before. The Court adjourned at a quarter to five o'clock. 43 Second Day Friday, 28th October, 1864. The Court met at ten o'clock. John H. Glass JOHN HENRY GLASS I am in the employ of Mr. Hodgkinson, and have been for some time. I have known the prisoner about four years. I do not know exactly how long the prisoner was in Mr. Hodgkinson's employment. On Tuesday, 12th of July last, he came to me at Mr. Hodgkinson's shop about four o'clock in the afternoon. He offered me a gold watch. He said if I would not buy it he would not have money enough to go to America. He said he had a gold chain at a pawnbroker's, which he had pledged for 1. He did not say how much he wanted to sell the watch for. He said if he could pawn the watch and chain together he could get 4: 10s. for them. The watch produced is the same. That was his own watch, which he had been in the habit of wearing. I told him to come again the next morning. He came the next morning about nine o'clock. We both went together to a pawnbroker's shop Mr. Barker's. We both went into the shop and took a chain out of pawn (No. 3). We paid 1. We then went together to Mr. Cox's, Princes Street, Leicester Square, and there pawned the watch he had offered me the day before and the chain he had just redeemed. We got 4 on them. Muller took the money and I took the ticket. (The ticket produced.) This is it. It was in my name. I gave him 5s. for it. I gave the 1 for the chain. I paid 1 5s. altogether. We then went back together in an omnibus as far as the Bank, and when we got there we parted. He told me he was going to the London Docks to get a ticket to go to America. Cross-examined I have known the prisoner about four years. He has been in this country during that time. He is a native of Saxe-Weimar. I am a journeyman tailor. During the four years I have known him he has borne a kind and humane character. I have been in the habit of asso- 44 Evidence for Prosecution. elating with him, and have had full opportunities of judging John H. Glass his character for humanity and kindness. I don't know that he was in the habit of pawning and exchanging his watch. I did not see any money in his possession the week before the 9th of July. I don't know what wages he earned. I am a pieceworker. I can earn 30s. or 36s. a week. HENRT SMITH; I am assistant to Mrs. Barker, a pawnbroker, Henry Smith 91 Houndsditch. On the 22nd of June I took in a gold albert chain of the prisoner, and advanced 1 on it. The chain produced is the same (Muller's chain No. 3). He had a new ticket on the 12th July, his ticket having got damaged, and it was redeemed on the 13th July. I think it was Muller who redeemed it, but I did not deliver it myself. Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY It was 1, not 30s., that was advanced. ALFRED WET I was formerly assistant to Mrs. Barker. On Alfred Wey the 13th June last I took in a watch from the prisoner. This is it. I advanced 2 upon it. It was redeemed on 12th July by Muller, I believe. CHARLES YOUNG I am assistant to Mr. John Annis, pawn- c. Young broker, of 121 Minories. On the 12th July I took in a chain (the one produced) of a person who gave the name of Miller, Christian name " John," and the address 22 Jewry Street, Aldgate. I advanced 1 10s. on the chain. I after- wards handed it to the police. This is the chain (No. 2). Cross-examined It is very common to supply the Christian name for parties who come to pawn. "John" is the name we mainly patronise. JONATHAN MATTHEWS, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL J< Matthews I think you are a cab-driver? Yes. Do you know Muller? Yes. How long had you known him before the day of the murder? Two years and some few weeks. I would not say exactly. 45 Franz Muller. J. Matthews How did you come to be acquainted with him ? He was working for a brother-in-law, and so, being a stranger in the country, came to dinner with him frequently. And by that means you knew him? Yes. And from that period you have seen him from time to timet Yes ; twice or three times in a month. He came to your house sometimes? Yes. Have you been to see him? Yes, several times. Do you remember anything passing between you and the prisoner on the subject of a hat towards the end of last year? I do. Can you tell me about what time? About the latter end of November or the beginning of December. I could not say to a week. Tell us about the hat? I had a new hat, and he came to dine with me on the Sunday after I bought it. He saw my hat, and said that he would like to have one like it. Did he look at it? Yes ; he put it on his head, and said that it was too small for him. He looked at the hat, then ? Yes ; he asked me what I gave for it, and I said 10s. 6d. Ten and sixpence ? Yes ; he said that he should like one like it, and I said that I would get him one if he wished it. Yes, you said that you would get him one? Yes. He said that it was rather too small? Yes. Well, was anything said? I put it on his head and said, " What is too easy for me will suit you." And in consequence of that you got one? Yes. At what shop? At the same. What same, what shop? At the hatter's. Of course, but where? Mr. Walker's, Crawford Street, Marylebone. Can you remember the lining of that hat? It appeared to resemble " striped " lining. Now, did you get it soon after this occasion when he asked you? I ordered it on the Friday, and said that I should want one, and on the Saturday evening I bought one. My wife was with me. Did you take it away? Yes. In the hatbox? Yes. 46 Evidence for Prosecution. What did you do with it? It remained at my house until j. Matthews the Sunday week following. When Muller came for it? Yes. Was it the Sunday week following? Yes. Muller came for it and took it away? Yes. Did he take away the box as well ? Yes ; the hat and box. Did you pay for the hat? Yes. What? 10s. 6d. Did Muller pay you again? No. Not at all? No. Did he settle with you in any way ? Yes ; he made me a waistcoat the one that I now wear. That was in return for it? Yes. After that, did you see him wear the hat? Yes, frequently. Frequently ? Yes , frequently . Very well; can you tell me about the latest time when you saw him wearing it? About a fortnight before the murder. About a fortnight before? Yes; a fortnight beforehand. Now, Matthews, can you give me a description of the hat did you give a description of it to the police? I did, sir. Before you saw it? Yes, I did. Be good enough to look at it. (Inspector Tanner here handed the hat which had been found in the railway carriage to the witness, who looked at it.) Examination resumed What is your belief as to the hat? Do you believe it to be the same? Yes, I believe it to be the hat I purchased. It corresponds exactly. By the crease? Yes. In what way was it creased ? I had it " turned up " a little extra on one side. I said that I should like it to be turned up a little more, and that was done while I waited there. Like the one you had? Yes. Was the brim the way that it is now? I noticed there was a little curl. I said to Muller, "Have you had it done up?" and he said that it wore uncommonly well. He said that to you? Yes. There seems something on the brim wanting. There is no nap on the lower part? Yes; there was merino on the lower 47 Franz Muller. J. Matthews part. The under part of the brim is merino, same as mine. (So the witness was understood, but he spoke in a very low- tone.) SERJEAKT PARRY Speak up, sir, do. Examination resumed You remember seeing a box in your house? Yes, a small box. And the name of Death on it? Yes, I saw that. (The box was handed to the witness) Is that the same? That is like the box that he gave to my little girl. When did you first see it? On the Tuesday morning the Tuesday week following the murder. I noticed it, because I put my foot on it that morning. I think that, from what you subsequently saw, you gave information to the police? Yes, I did, sir. I saw a handbill. SERJEANT PARRY Allow me that hat, please. (The hat was handed to the learned Serjeant.) Cross-examined by SERJEANT PARRY Now, if I understand you, you identify this hat because the side portion of the rim is turned up? Yes, and not only by that, but You are quite sure of that? Yes. That is one thing? Yes. You had this done in a shop? Yes. I believe that your own hat is like it? As nearly as possible. I got this like it. As nearly as possible like it? Yes. SERJEANT PARRY here asked for the depositions of Matthews before the coroner and magistrate. The CLERK OP THE COURT produced the depositions. SERJEANT PARRY Now, sir, when you were before the magis- trate did you not say that this was one of the means by which you identified the hat? Did you not say this? The SOLICITOR-GENERAL I think that the proper course would be to read the evidence to the witness, and then to ask any questions upon it. Read the depositions and ask SERJEANT PARRY No; because that might baffle my very question. I apprehend that I have a right to take the depositions at least, so I submit and ask him, is that your 48 I Evidence for Prosecution. signature, and then ask him a question. I wish to have it J. Matthews from him, because my object is to discredit this witness. I do not want him to know beforehand what I am going to ask. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL I submit that the proper course is to read that portion of the depositions which is referred to, and then ask him any questions upon it. BARON MARTIN It is nothing more than asking the witness whether he did not give a different account then to now. That my brother Parry has a right to ask him. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL I think the deposition should be read first. SERJEANT PARRY He has sworn that, as one means of identifying it BARON MARTIN Wait one moment. You must put in the depositions. SERJEANT PARRY Certainly. (To Witness) I ask you, sir, did you not say before the magistrates, one of your means of identifying the hat was this, that three weeks prior to the 9th of July you saw the prisoner, and that the brim of his hat was turned up in one part of it more than in another, and you told the prisoner so? I did so. Did you ever mention before to-day that you had the two edges turned round yourself while you waited at the shop while it was being done? No. Did you not also, when before the coroner, say this " I saw him (the prisoner) frequently wearing the hat, and I had noticed and remarked on its wearing so well. I fancied that one side was turned up more than usual, and pointed that out to him. I said it was altered in shape, and suggested that he might have done that from lifting it off his head on that side ' ' ? Did you say that before the coroner? I did. Now let me understand about this hat. Is it like your own hat? Can you tell me how many hata you bought? I cannot. Not throughout the whole of your life. I did not mean that; you should have waited and let me finish my question. Can you tell me how many hats you bought within six or twelve months of the 9th of July? I cannot tell you. E 49 Franz Muller. J. Matthews What has become of your last hat at the time of this one? I cannot say. I think I left it at a hatter's shop where I bought another. Where did you buy the hat that you now wear? In Oxford Street, at Mr. Mummery's. Did you leave it there? No, I did not. Have you not stated that you left it at Mr. Downs' in Long Acre three weeks before the 9th of July? I said that I left one there. I did not say the time I did so. I believe, at the same time, that I did not state the time. Did you not say this " I purchased the hat at Downs', Long Acre. I left my old one there, and that was about three weeks before I bought one in Oxford Street"? that you purchased a hat in Long Acre, and left the old one there? I did say so. When did you buy the one in Oxford Street? I bought it a few days before I went to America. In Oxford Street? Yes. When did you buy the one at Downs'? I cannot say which of the Downs' I bought it at, the one in the Strand or the one in Long Acre. I find I am in error about my hats altogether. I have had so many that I cannot remember. Did you not say " When I purchased the next it was about June, at Downs', in Long Acre. It was a cheap one. I gave 5s. 6d. for it, and I left the other one at Downs' " ? I did say so. That is not true? No, it was not it exactly. It was longer ago. I cannot remember exactly. The CHEHF BARON You said that you bought a hat a few days before you went to America. When was that? WITNBSS I went from Liverpool with Mr. Inspector Tanner on the 20th of July. / SERJEANT PARRY Here is a passage of your evidence before the coroner " The next hat I purchased was about June, at Downs', in Long Acre. It was a cheap one. I gave 5s. 6d. for it. I left the other one at Downs' "? I said so before the coroner, but that was a mistake of mine. A mistake? I did not know how many hats I had had until I got home. Evidence for Prosecution. Have you not found out that three weeks before you were J. Matthews ^examined before the coroner there was no such shop as Downs' In Long Acre? 7! made that inquiry. And you found that there was not such a shop that it had been shut up for some time? Yes. Have you not altered your statement in consequence of that? When I came to examine my hats I was surprised to find that I had so many. When before the magistrates did you not also say " Three weeks before this job I bought a hat at Downs' "1 I did ! say so. And you found out that it was a mistake of yours? Yes, I have. Did any one assist you in finding out that there was not 'such a shop as Downs' ? Yes ; Mr. Clarke went with me. Who is Mr. Clarke? A detective officer. You found out that? I told Mr. Clarke at the time that there was a mistake. Sir, where do you believe the hat is now which you had like this one? I have no idea whatever. Did you ever throw your old hats into the dusthole? Yes; occasionally I do. You said that before the coroner, did you not? Yes. I believe you were asked also whether you could swear to "the colour of the lining of your hats, and you said no? I ^cannot. You cannot swear to your own hats? No, not to all. When did you first hear of this murder? About Thursday or Friday in the week following. That must be nearly eleven days ? No ; it was in the week after, on the Friday night after Saturday, the 9th. Do you mean to say that you had not heard of it before! No, sir. Had you been out with your cab? Yes. And did you not hear of the murder? No. Did you go to the cab-stand amongst your fellow-cabmen? Yes, occasionally, when I wanted something to eat. And you never heard of it? No. Did you go into a public-house? I am not a public-house "visitor. Perhaps I may go there sometimes. Si Franz Muller. J. Matthews There is no harm in going into a public-house to have a glass of ale. Did you go into a public-house for refreshment? Yes. Every day? Yes, sir. Do you take in a newspaper? Sometimes I do. Any particular newspaper? No. A Sunday paper? Yes, Lloyd's. Do you buy a daily paper? Sometimes. Did you not see a paper from the 9th until the 14th of July? Not to bring the murder into my mind. Did you not see it in large, conspicuous letters on the placards before the Thursday? No. Where do you live? No. 68 Earl Street, East Paddington. Do you attend the station? Yes. Do you pass the police station every day did you from the 9th until the 14th? I cannot answer. And you never saw a placard or a notice in any way ? No ; I saw placards, but did not read them. You knew that Muller was going to America? Yes. (The examination was stopped for a moment for Mr. Baron Martin to look at the deposition.) You knew that Muller was going to America, you say? Yes. When did you give information to the police? On Monday, the 18th of July. At that time did you know that Muller had gone out in the "Victoria" sailing ship to New York? I did. Did you know that he sailed on the 14th? I knew that he- was going to sail. He called to wish you and your family good-bye? Yes. Now, can you tell me what you were doing on Saturday, the 9th of July? I was out in my cab, I find. Did you not say this before the coroner, " It is impossible for me to say where I was on the night of the 9th ; I was about with my cab, and I cannot say where"? I did say so. I have made inquiries since. So, since you were before the coroner, you have been making inquiries with a view of giving evidence here? I made inquiries to see whether I was out, as I had lost my pocket- book, but have found it since. Did I not notice that you took a piece of paper out of your 52 Evidence for Prosecution. pocket just now? Yes, here it is. (The witness handed it in J. Matthews to the Serjeant.) It is dated 29th September. It is written to you by your employer? Yes, by my employer. These inquiries were made by you since you were before the coroner? Yes. (The paper was not read.) I believe your master failed, or was "sold up," to use your own expression? He sold off. This is another mistake, then? Yes. Is it a mistake in the depositions? Yes. Were they not read over to you? Yes. Then why did you not correct it if it was " sold off " instead of "sold up"? I did not hear it. What day was it that your master, Mr. Perfitt, sold off? I cannot say exactly. When did you first see Repsch after you gave information to the police? At Bow Street. And you did not see him before you gave information to the police ? No ; I am quite sure of that ; not for years previous. How long have you been a cabman? I have been licensed for ight or nine years. I cannot say exactly. Have you been anything else? Yes. What? In a training stable. When was that? Twenty-two or twenty -three years ago. Since then you have been a cabman? Yes. What, have you been a cabman ever since? Sometimes I have been in business. What business? In a small fly business. Any other business? I was foreman to Mr. Hubble, of an d that he came with a light ; that other persons got into the carriage ; that they were turned out, and that the carriage was locked up. But not one word does Mr. Lee recollect of all this. If he had come into the box and had said, " Muller is the man whom I saw in the railway carriage with Mr. Briggs," I should not have felt justified, on the part of the Crown, in calling him. He says he cannot say whether Muller was the man. He says he can describe the persons; and how does he describe them? He says there were two men sitting with Mr. Briggs, that at the time he did not see well, but that one had dark whiskers, and that there was another man, a stoutish man, who had light whiskers. I will take the liberty of reading a statement which my learned friend Mr. Serjeant Parry read to you. My learned friend in his speech said " Lee will say, ' I saw two men in the compartment, and I cannot say that Muller was one ; that the man that was next to the deceased was a tall, thin man, and had whiskers, and I believe he had dark whiskers; and the other man who sat opposite to the deceased had light hair. I cannot tell the age.' " There was not one syllable about the other man having whiskers, or being a stout man, or being anything of the kind. Therefore Mr. Lee appears to have thought of these whiskers since he gave the information, for since Mr. Serjeant Parry was instructed he has put a pair of whiskers on the man's face which were not there before. Now, gentlemen, I think I need not say another word about Mr. Lee. I think you will agree with me that my learned colleagues and myself have taken the right course in not bringing forward such a witness. And now, gentlemen, what is the next evidence? I do not think I need say more on the evidence as to the hats. I have commented upon that already. We next come to the alibi which my learned friend has been instructed to set up. Now, gentlemen, I must confess to some doubt as to the wisdom and the prudence of setting up that defence, for a more unsatisfactory and a more dangerous alibi was never set up in a Court of justice. Against the evidence which I have submitted to you on the part of the Crown, what is the evidence set up by the defence? The clock of a brothel, the keeper of the house, and the statement of one of the unfortunate women who reside in it. Gentlemen, in 128 Addresses to Jury. most alibis there is a certain amount of truth. An altogether Solicitor- fictitious alibi one seldom meets. Usually the story is correct as to the main facts, but the day is altered sometimes it is Monday, instead of the Monday week; sometimes the transac- tion spoken of occurs in the evening instead of in the morning, and there is generally a clock to go by. Now, let us see the nature of this alibi. Mrs. Jones or Mrs. Kent is called to say that Miiller called at her house at nine o'clock on the night of the 9th July, and there is a good long story about a telegram, which Miiller had nothing to do with, but it is used as fixing the time. It does not concern me on the part of the prosecution whether they are right or wrong in saying that Miiller did call on that day (Saturday, the 9th of July), but, if he did call half an hour earlier than they say he did, it is a strong fact for the prosecution. The whole question of the alibi is reduced , to a question of half an hour, and yet this old lady and this girl are called before you to speak to an occasion to which their attention was not called for a month or six weeks after- wards, to speak to the exact time half-past nine. Can they ' do that? How could the old lady remember that Miiller called at half-past nine o'clock exactly? It did not signify to her what hour he called; there was nothing to fix it in her recollection. Then comes in the clock the alibi clock. She looked at the clock. Why should she look at the clock? Why, because Eldred (one of the unfortunate women) went out at nine. It is a singular fact that Eldred does not remember anything about the clock, but she says she went out at nine, because she always did go out at nine. But can they recollect anything else? If there be anything the old lady would remember it would be the arrival of a telegram. I do not suppose that telegrams are often sent to brothels; but she cannot tell the time within an hour or within half an hour that it arrived, nor can the girl tell when she received it, nor what time she got up that day; but she says she went out at nine o'clock. Do you suppose that the proceedings of that respectable and well-conducted establishment are regulated by clockwork? Why, it is preposterous. There is no reason for their fixing upon the clock. Why, if this girl had gone out a little before nine, and if Miiller had called a little after nine, that would be quite consistent with the case for the prosecution. K 129 Franz Muller. Solicitor- What does old Mrs. Jones know as to whether Muller called General half an hour before or after a certain time? She never thought of it till some German gentlemen and the attorney's clerk called / upon her; and then they did not recollect anything about the telegram; they found that out since, and, as to their recollect- ing the precise hour or precise minute at which anything took place on that day, it is perfectly idle. Well, but we will just assume that there is a certain foundation of truth in what they say, that Muller was there a little before nine, or about nine o'clock. Muller is at Mrs. Repsch's at half-past seven or a quarter to eight. He left somewhere about that time, and he said to Haffa that he was going to see this girl. And it is said that he went out in one of his slippers. Suppose that to be so, and that he took the omnibus to Camberwell, and went to see this girl, what time did he arrive? He left Repsch's at a quarter before eight, and would arrive at this woman's house at Camberwell at half -past eight or a quarter to nine. He did not stay above a few minutes; there was nothing to stay for, because the girl was out. He goes back, and might take the omnibus that would carry him to London Bridge, and if he started about a quarter past nine, or somewhere about that time, he would arrive at King William Street just about the same time that Mr. Briggs would arrive there. The station to which Muller would go, in order to travel to where he lives, is the Hackney Wick station, sometimes called the Victoria station, and he would be going home by the same train in which Mr. Briggs was. Gentlemen, I cannot but think that this was a most dangerous alibi to set up. If I had known that Muller was at Camberwell, and that he left to go home at, I will not say half-past nine, but at nine o'clock, or a quarter to nine, I should, on the part of the Crown, have thought it proper to give you that information. Only suppose a mistake of half an hour by Mrs. Jones, and a mistake by the girl of half an hour, and you have Muller put in such a situation that he would probably arrive at Fenchurch Street station some- where about the same time as Mr. Briggs. I submit that for the defence the alibi has totally failed, and that, by supposing the mistake of half an hour, it strengthens the case for the prosecution. I say nothing about the last witness, whom, I suppose, they did not rely upon. He merely said that some 130 Franz Muller (From a Photograph taken by the New York Police). Charge to the Jury. time last summer a gentleman rode in his omnibus -who wore Solieitor- a slipper, and that he was a stoutish gentleman, and leaned \ on his arm when he got down. Gentlemen, I have now arrived at the close of the observations which I have thought it right to make to you on the part of the prosecution, and without further comment I will leave the case in your hands, satisfied that you will perform your duty. If you see I will not say any possible doubt, because it is not for us to speculate on remote possibilities but if you think there is any reasonable doubt in the evidence that is laid before you, acquit him; but if the evidence in this case, circumstantial as it is, brings to your minds a clear and abiding conviction of the prisoner's guilt, I call on you to perform the duty you owe to society by pronouncing the prisoner guilty. The Lord Chief Baron's Charge to the Jury. The LORD CHIEF BARON commenced to sum up the case to Lord Chief the jury at twenty-five minutes past one o'clock. His lord- ship said Gentlemen of the jury, the prisoner at the bar, Franz Muller, is indicted for the wilful murder of Mr. Briggs, and it is your duty, upon the evidence before you, to say whether or not you can find him guilty. I shall not think it necessary to enter upon some of the matters which have been alluded to with respect to the discussions and opinions. I think that fair statements I abstain from saying discussions of anything that occurs in this country, in which the people are interested, appear to be one of the benefits of the Press which one would not desire to see curtailed, and if you have read nothing but statements, and cannot therefore be prejudiced by discussion, I think you come to this inquiry of three days I may say you come to the inquiry with your minds furnished with certain facts which are an essential part of the question, and I think you are better able to enter into the matter than if you had come here entire strangers to all the circumstances. It is my duty to present to you the facts as they are brought forward on the part of the prosecution and on the part of the defence, to state to you any point of law on which it is neces- Franz Muller. Lord Chief sary to give direction, and then to leave you to form your own judgment as to what are the opinions to be drawn from the facts that are sworn before you. There can be no doubt that Mr. Briggs on the evening or night of the 9th of July in this year was murdered. I know nothing, and can say nothing, of the manner in which that murder was done, but I apprehend that of the fact there can be no doubt. I shall presently state to you the circumstances as they appear to have occurred according to the evidence, and I shall leave it to you to form your own fair opinion, for the verdict is to be yours and not mine. I shall call your attention to certain parts of the case. I shall give you some general directions as to what I think you should do, and I shall leave you to form your own opinion. It has been said, and said very truly, that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. I apprehend that circumstantial evi- dence means this when the facts stated do not directly prove 'the actual crime, but lead to the conclusion that the prisoner committed the crime and I believe I am right in saying that the majority of cases that are investigated in criminal Courts in this country are decided upon circumstantial evidence it has been said that that evidence is better than direct evidence. In one sense that may be true ; in another sense it is not true. If you have the testimony of witnesses of undoubted character who saw the crime committed, why, then, you can hardly have better evidence than that the direct evidence of some persons who saw the fact and can depose to the crime as having been committed; but, undoubtedly, where there be any doubt about the veracity or honour of the witnesses, indirect evidence, com- ing from different distances and remote quarters, and all tending to the same end, has a force and effect beyond the testimony of more direct evidence. For direct evidence may be mistaken in various ways. There may be an error about the person. The witness may say, " I saw him do it, or a person like him." He may give a character to the commission of a crime which really does not belong to it; but indirect testimony from a number of facts, supposing that you believe them if that is the case, and they all concur to the same point, they are free from the objection that there has been either perjury, or omission, or misstatement. There is another matter upon which I wish, before I go into the case, to address you, and that is upon the 132 Charge to the Jury. degree of certainty with which you ought to give your verdict. Lord Chief I collected from my brother Parry's address that he suggested to you that you ought not to pronounce a verdict of guilty unless you were so satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner as if you had seen him do the act, and you yourselves, too, witnessed the completion of it. Gentlemen, I think that is not the certainty which is required of you to discharge your duty on the oath you have taken, to the country to which you belong, or to the prisoner, whose safety is in your power. I have heard the late Lord Tenterden frequently lay down a rule, which I will pronounce to you in his own language " It is not neces- sary that you should have a certainty, which does not belong to any human transaction ; it is only necessary that you should have that certainty with which you transact your own most important concerns in life." No doubt the question before you to-day, involving as it does the life of the prisoner at the bar, must be deemed to be of the highest importance ; but you are requested to have only that degree of certainty with which you can decide upon and conclude your own most important trans- actions. Gentlemen, our care should be to prevent the com- mission of crime, which it is the object of criminal Courts to do. The learned counsel, brother Parry, has referred to a common axiom in which there is no doubt some degree of truth, and that is, that it is better that a great many guilty persons should escape than that one innocent man should suffer. Now, gentlemen, it is impossible to deny that the history of our criminal Courts, and I believe that of all criminal Courts, will afford instances where innocent persons have been classed with the guilty, and have been found guilty, and have suffered by it. But, gentlemen, to make a comparison between con- victing the innocent man and acquitting the guilty is perfectly unwarranted. There is no comparison between them. Each of them is a great misfortune to the country and discreditable to the administration of justice. The only rule that can be laid down is, that in the question of a criminal trial you should exert your utmost vigilance, and take care that if the man be innocent he should be acquitted, and that if guilty he should be convicted. Now, gentlemen, I think the mode to investigate this case on your part should be this. Take the facts 133 Franz Muller. Baron Lord^Chief that are proved before you, separate those which you believe from those which you do not believe ; take those you are satis- fied you can rely upon, and the conclusions which naturally and almost necessarily result from those facts are to be acted upon as much as facts themselves ; and whatever may be the conclusion they may lead you to whatever, on the one side or on the other, that conclusion may be I think you may rely upon it as a safe and just one. The case on the part of the prosecution is the story of the death of Mr. Briggs, told by the different witnesses, who unfolded the circumstances one after the other according to their occurrence, leading to the gradual discovery of some apparent connection between the property which was lost and the possession of it by the prisoner at the bar. The case on the part of the prisoner I collect to be threefold. In the first place, my brother Parry said, '' You have not satisfactorily made out the guilt of the prisoner. There are links wanting in your chain. Some of the links are broken or imperfect. You have substituted imagination for fact, and of these there is no certainty." So I understood brother Parry to say the prisoner would be en- titled to your verdict of not guilty. That issue, no doubt, requires your special attention, because it is very much upon that the trial is to be determined. There can be no doubt if the case on the part of the prosecution does not bring home to your minds a satisfactory conclusion, upon which you can only say that, acting upon your own minds, you believe the prisoner guilty, the prisoner is entitled to be found not guilty. The next point in the defence was this, that the prisoner was unable, that he was not of stature and strength competent to the task that apparently was performed. That, no doubt, if the prisoner at the bar were a young man under age and possessed of no strength, would be an argument in his favour. If you think he was incompetent, if you think that he could not have done that which is imputed to him, of course, if he could not have done it, then he is entitled to be found not guilty. The third line of the defence is an alibi. That requires a word from me before I proceed to the particular facts of the case. Upon the whole case for the prosecution, if you entertain any reasonable doubt, if you cannot come to a Charge to the Jury. satisfactory conclusion, the prisoner is entitled to the benefit Lord Chief of that doubt. If you do come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the case for the prosecution you are then met by an alibi, and I think the alibi is then to be weighed in the scale against the case for the prosecution. To explain precisely what I wish to show if you entertain any serious doubt on the case for the prosecution you must acquit the prisoner. On the other hand, the case for the prosecution and the alibi must be thrown into the same scale. Where an alibi is proposed and there is some doubt, it then becomes your province and duty to examine the alibi, and to decide between the prosecution and the alibi. All the facts brought before you on the part of the Solicitor- General form the case for the prosecution, and ought to be weighed duly. The facts brought in support of the alibi should be weighed with the case for the prosecution, and you will say which you believe. It is a case where both cannot be true, and it is for you to decide to which the truth belongs. Now, gentlemen, having stated to the jury what I consider to be the case on the part of the prosecution, and the case on the part of the defence, I think it right to draw your attention to the facts themselves. Gentlemen, it appears that Mr. Briggs left London on the 9th of July (Saturday). After having dined with his niece's husband, Mr. Buchan, he proceeded by an omnibus to some place near London Bridge, where he got out and went to a train at Fenchurch Street station to take him through Bow to Hackney, or Hackney Wick, as it is called. A Mr. Lee said he saw him there. There is no doubt that Mr. Briggs left Fenchurch Street and was murdered before he reached Hackney Wick, and, as it is highly improbable that he was murdered between Fenchurch Street and Bow, you may easily believe that he was at the latter place. Whether he was there with another person or not I will not say. Lee, who was there, and did not consider it his duty to make a statement respecting what he saw, is, I think, scarcely in that frame of mind which is deserving of approbation. If, indeed, the prosecution had known what Lee had to say in examina- tion and cross-examination, I am not surprised that they did not call him, and they did quite right not to call him. Mr. Briggs was there. Mr. Briggs did not arrive at Hackney 135 Franz Muller. Lord Chief Wick. The carriage that went from Fenchurch Street to Hackney Wick was taken back without being turned round. That accounts in part for what appears on the depositions and in the evidence before the coroner, for what on going down was the near side would in returning be the offside, and the offside would be the near side. Mr. Briggs was found about one-third of the distance from Hackney Wick. His body had in some way been removed from the carriage to the six-foot way, and there he was found, with his head towards Hackney Wick and his feet towards London. Gentlemen, I think it right that some of you may have remarked the circum- stance as well as myself. The head pointed towards Hackney Wick. The consequence of that is that his feet must have touched the ground first. If a man were thrown out head foremost, and his head touched the ground, his body would go forward with the velocity of the carriage, and his head would be towards London and his feet towards Hackney Wick. On the other hand, if he were put out by force, or if he jumped out and alighted on his feet, the effect would be that of stop- ping his feet, his body would go with the velocity, and his head would be smashed. This makes no difference in the charge against whoever it was that committed the murder, for it is plain that before the body was removed in any way, either by himself or by the murderer, he had received several desperate wounds. According to the medical evidence, there was one fracture, and I think it right to say that, in point of law, whether Mr. Briggs had been struck and then stunned by the blow, so as to be unable to call out, or believing that he might be got to the door of the carriage and then driven out by force, or the fear produced by the violent action of the person menacing him, it would be equally murder, because his death would be caused by his getting out and then receiving that violent wound. Mr. Briggs was examined that evening, the carriage was examined that evening, and there were the articles which Mr. Briggs had lost. The only alteration with respect to that property was that the watch and chain were gone. That some struggle had taken place in the carriage was evident from the fact that a link of the chain was found pressed down in the carriage. The hat he wore was gone, and another hat was left in its place. For some days nothing 136 Charge to the Jury. was known about it, but, according to the evidence, Mr. Death Lord Chief was applied to on the following Thursday, and was asked if ' he had exchanged a chain. Mr. Death said "Yes," and he gave in exchange for it another chain (the one produced) and a signet ring. At that time it was also discovered that there was some question about the hat. Every effort was made to discover the person who was connected with the transaction, and, when it was discovered to be the hat of the prisoner at the bar, officers were sent out to anticipate his arrival in America. On their arrival his box was searched, and the watch was found in his box. In that box also was found a hat, and when that hat was brought back to this country every inquiry was made respecting it. It was said the hat was not the hat of Mr. Briggs that it could not be; it was 1 inch or 1J inches too short. When it came to be examined it was found to be cut down. Then came the question with respect to the watch and chain and hat Mr. Briggs wore, and the hat supposed to be the prisoner's. Gentlemen, there is no evidence whatever to show you whether that is the hat Mr. Briggs wore on that day or not. It is for you to consider how far the evidence will show you that was Mr. Briggs' hat. Now, gentlemen, the facts of the history of this case, though appearing to be many, are in reality very few the watch, the chain, and the hat Mr. Briggs lost that night. A hat was found in the carriage in the place of Mr. Briggs's hat. These are the three matters which constitute the case for the prose- cution. Gentlemen, these are three links of the same chain; but do not make the mistake which it appears to me Serjeant Parry is rather inclined to lead you into, that, if there is one link of that chain broken, you have got rid of the prosecu- tion. There are three separate and distinct links, having each of them a separate history, and a failure on the part of one does not in the slightest degree affect the position of each of the others. For instance, if there had been no trace whatever of either of the hats, if the hat alleged to be the hat of Mr. Briggs had not been found in the box, that does not at all diminish the evidence of the watch and chain. They all stand on separate and distinct grounds apart from each other, and if one of them is made out to your satisfaction, that is, if the result of the evidence satisfies you that the prisoner at 137 Franz Muller. Lord Chief the bar was on the Monday morning in possession of the watch and chain, then you are to see whether he has given a true account, or for this is the question has he given a satis- factory account? Now, with respect to the watch and chain, the evidence seems to be this : on Monday morning, about ten o'clock, he exchanged the chain for a chain which he took from Mr. Death, the jeweller. That chain he pawned on the Wednesday. But then you say, what became of the watch? Why, when he was apprehended off New York he had the watch in his box ; it was found there. He said it was his watch, and he had had it two years. It will be for you to say whether that is evidence to induce you to believe that both the watch and chain were in his possession. How did they come into his possession? Gentlemen, I shall presently ask that question, and call the attention of my brother Parry to the way in which I understood that he put it, because I am desirous that there should be no mistake, and I am desirous not to speak in ambiguous or doubtful language, but to express myself with perfect plainness, and, if I am wrong, I shall be glad to be corrected. You will have to ask yourselves whether the prisoner had the watch and chain on the Monday morning. The evidence is that he separated them if he had them, that he took the chain to Mr. Death, that he there had it valued at <3 10s., that he declined to take a chain of the value of 3 15s., which would require him to pay 5s., and that he took a chain of the value of 3 5s., and took a ring instead of the 5s. Here, as I must again say to you, it is for you to say whether you believe that part of the case or not. Unless you believe it, you ought not to convict the prisoner; if you believe it, I think you ought to act upon it. When he had got the chain he went to the house of a friend, and, showing it, spoke of it, and mentioned what he had given for it, and said he had bought it at the docks. There is no evidence that he said anything to anybody about the watch none. He gave different accounts of the way he got them. He described himself as buying the ring along with the chain. He stated to one person that he had the ring sent to him by his father; and in America, when he was questioned about the ring, he said he had bought it at a shop in Cheapside, very probably meaning that he got it at Mr. Death's. Gentlemen, you will 138 Charge to the Jury. have to consider whether you see what is the reasonable con- Lord Chief elusion to be drawn. He never has said on any occasion that he bought the watch and chain at the docks. SERJEANT PARRY Will your lordship pardon me? Mr. Tanner said in evidence that in America his counsel stated that. The LORD CHIEF BARON Oh, his counsel. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL His counsel suggested it. SERJEANT PARRY No, his counsel made that statement. The LORD CHIEF BARON What he said in America was that he had the watch two years, and the statement of his counsel, as given by Mr. Tanner here, amounts to no evidence. The statement here in London was that he bought the chain, and he said nothing about the watch. I think it my duty to point these matters out to you. I come now to the question as to which I want to call the attention of my brother Parry. My brother Parry suggests that there is no evidence that he did not tell anybody in Amerca that he bought the watch at the docks. BARON MARTIN (referring to his notes) Inspector Tanner says, " I did not hear him say he had purchased the watch and chain at the docks. His counsel suggested that before the magistrates at New York." The LORD CHIEF BARON I want to call the attention of brother Parry to the matter, in order that I may be correct as to what he said. What I understood my brother Parry to state was this that he bought the watch and chain at the docks, and that he was quite aware that a transaction of that sort could not be perfectly right. I understood my brother Parry to say that every false statement the prisoner makes in reference to that matter might be explained by his con- sciousness that he was doing wrong. I call brother Parry's attention to it in order that we may understand distinctly what was intended to be conveyed to your minds, viz., that, instead of committing the murder on Saturday, he bought on Monday morning at the docks the watch and chain. That is his account of it. Sunday is not a day for regular business, but for the transfer of property obtained by robbery or other Franz Muller. Lord Chief illegal means, that is as good as any other day. Property taken illegally on Saturday and sold on Monday morning is not so likely a transaction as one of honest dealing, in which Monday morning is the same to Saturday night as Tuesday morning is to Monday. It is for you to consider how far that is an apology for being in possession of these things, because he was aware there was something wrong about his having bought them; he therefore gave excuses and made awkward statements about them. That is not the only thing. The remarkable matter about this case is that every part of the change of property the loss of the watch and chain and the hat of Mr. Briggs, and the hat left in the railway carriage by somebody, points with a certain degree of strength more or less to the prisoner at the bar. Now, gentlemen, you have to consider the question as to the hat. The hat is proved to be Mr. Briggs's to such an extent that my learned brother Parry did not deny that it probably was the hat. SERJEANT PARRY I admitted that it was a hat sold by Mr. Digance, but never that it was Mr. Briggs's. The LORD CHIEF BARON My brother Parry does not admit anything. No man can admit anything in a case like this; but the hatter who made it said, " I made it for Mr. Digance," and Mr. Digance says, " I recognise this hat, as far as I can, as having been made for Mr. Briggs." He speaks of it in every respect as the hat. He says it had been cut down, and in a manner in which no hatter would have cut it down, and then he points out the peculiarity, which I do not think it necessary to dwell upon. The hat, on being examined, turns out to have been sewed in a manner which is said not to be the practice of regular hatters, and apparently not the prac- tice of second-hand hatters. I do not think it necessary to call your attention to the evidence of the two hatters; they both of them said they should not have altered a hat in that way. It is for you to say whether, on the whole of the evi- dence, it is or is not made out to your satisfaction that that was the hat of Mr. Briggs. A remark was made by the Solicitor - General which is of some force, that the prisoner at the bar has had, and one is very glad that he has had, the protection of a patriotic society 140 Charge to the Jury. established for the protection of their countrymen, and Lord Chief that no expense has been spared by them to get all the information that could be obtained. It is for you to con- sider whether half the industry and diligence which has resulted in the production of those old hats that we saw I forget now how many there were it is for you to consider whether, if that diligence had been applied in finding out where the prisoner bought this hat, which was bought certainly, according to his own account, not more than a month from the date of the murder whether half that diligence would not have found out the very man who sold it to him, if anybody did sell it, and the very man who altered it, if, in fact, anybody did alter it but himself. On that question you will have to decide, but it is a point in the case that appears to me to be worthy of your consideration. SERJEANT PABRT I beg pardon; but Mr. Digance said, at the close of his evidence, " I will not swear that this is the hat I sold to Mr. Briggs." The LORD CHIEF BARON I dare say; but the question is whether he believes that it was, and whether he furnished you with sufficient material for you to believe that it was. A man will not swear positively to a thing, but the question is, does Mr. Digance speak with certainty, the certainty that you have that I am speaking to you now? He cannot be certain in that extreme sense. Well, then, gentlemen, you will say how far the history of the hat leads you whether it leads you to the conclusion that the hat which was found in the box belonging to the prisoner at the bar was the hat of Mr. Briggs. Then, with regard to the said hat that was found in the railway carriage, undoubtedly it was some surprise to all who are acquainted with the proceedings in criminal Courts that evidence of such a character could be produced. It was stated that that pattern of lining was not put into more than three or four hats, and Mr. Walker himself said, " I got a number of samples from France, and there were only one or two of these, and certainly not more than two or three of the hats that I have made that had this particular lining." Now, gentlemen, it is for you to say what is the conclusion you draw from this Mrs. Repsch said it had a remarkable lining, 141 Franz Muller. Lord Chltf and that she never saw any other hat with the same kind of Baron . . lining. Well, then, when these different points of the case lead one with each other to the same conclusion, it is for you to say how far the union of more than one gives strength to that conclusion, how far it is better if several of them unite together in a conclusion, even though not so perfect, and lead to a result more certain on the whole. There is a case which, I think, will illustrate what I mean. It is to be found in Mr. Starkie's book on Evidence. A gentleman was robbed of his purse in a crowd. He gave information to the police, and a man was appre- hended, and a purse corresponding was found upon him. The prosecutor was asked whether he could swear to any of the pieces of money which were discovered in the purse. He said he was convinced it was the same. Why? Because he said it contained five or six separate, distinct pieces of money, and, though he could not swear to any particular piece, one of which was a seven-shilling piece, he said that he could swear his purse contained a half-crown, a seven-shilling piece, and so enumerated the several pieces. It was not likely that anybody else had a purse exactly like it. You yourselves will see the value of that sort of identity not by identifying each, but by identifying the whole. This man said, " I cannot identify each separate piece of money, but I can identify the whole, and my impression is that it is my property." That will prove what I mean by a part of a case leading to one conclusion, by another part of the case, though imperfect, yet leading to the same conclusion, and strengthening it; by a third leading to the same conclusion, although it is not per- fectly made out, but still it adds strength to the general case which is involved in a comparison of these different acts. Gentlemen, that is the true value of circumstantial evidence. If you believe the facts to lead to a conclusion, I think you are bound to go on with that conclusion to the end. I shall not trouble you further upon the hat that was found in the prisoner's box or the watch or chain. With respect to the evidence for the defence, I will not make any remarks on Mr. Lee's testimony. If you believe from the appearance of the prisoner that he could not do it you will say so. It is said that he was lame that night, but it is quite plain from the 142 Charge to the Jury. evidence that on the Sunday he was walking from six to nine Lord Chief o'clock with his friends. If you believe that he was incapable of doing it, of course, he did not, and, of course, he is entitled to your verdict. Now I come to the alibi. That is entirely a matter for your consideration, and I shall say very little upon it. The evidence of Mary Ann Eldred whom it is im- possible to see here without some compassion for the situation of life which she is in consists certainly very much more in saying what she cannot recollect rather than what she can recol- lect. But certainly she stated that she went out at nine o'clock, and that Miiller called at half-past nine o'clock. That is what she said, and that she knew that he was going to America. He asked her to go with him, and said if she did not that he would return in six months. I think it is fair to say that his going to America was perfectly well known. Then there is the evidence of Mrs. Jones; and, respecting her husband, I think a man who is living on the profits of such a calling as that pursued by his wife is about the most infamous of man- kind. How far the wife is some shades better than her hus- band is for you to judge. Her evidence is for you to judge. According to the case for the prosecution, the prisoner, between seven and eight o'clock, was at Repsch's, and left there, taking his boots with him, and saying he was going to Camberwell. There was plenty of time for him to have gone to Camberwell and to have returned, though not in the same omnibus as Mr. Briggs. SERJEANT PARRY Not the same. The CHIEF BARON But he might have returned to his home. These, I think, are nearly all the circumstances it is neces- sary for me to call your attention to. If you wish the whole of the evidence to be read over to you I will do so. The jury consulted for a moment, and the foreman said, "It is not requisite." The CHIEF BARON Or any part of it? The jury again consulted for a moment, and the foreman said, "No, my lord, it is not requisite." The CHIEF BARON I think that it is the more unnecessary that I should do so, because you have had two able and Franz Muller. Lord Chief elaborate addresses from the two sides, and I have no doubt Baron that during the whole course of the investigation you have paid considerable attention to the different evidence some of which evidence emanated from questions put by the jury of considerable importance. And now, gentlemen, I have endeavoured to discharge my duties; it remains for you to discharge yours. I must again tell you that the verdict is to be yours. It is for you to decide the great and important question. If I have in any part of my address to you inti- mated any opinion, I have desired not to express any. I have called your attention to circumstances which I think you ought to consider. As far as I could, I endeavoured to avoid the expression of my opinion, for it is not for me to decide. It is for you to deliberate and decide according to the best of your judgment. If you have collected any opinion of any sort from what may have fallen from me unless so far as it goes entirely with your deliberate opinion treat it as if I had said nothing of the sort. The verdict is yours. The law and the constitution have given to twelve men, sworn to act according to evidence, to find a verdict of guilty or not guilty. In deliberating on that verdict I doubt not that you will act with impartiality and candour. You will remember the duty which you owe to the prisoner to believe him inno- cent until proved to be guilty; but you will at the same time not forget the duty which you owe to the country and to society at large. If the evidence leads you to a conclusion of guilty, you will fearlessly act upon that evidence. You will act according to your consciences, and give that verdict which you believe to be just; and may the God of all truth guide your judgment and conscience to the verdict which may be satisfactory according to the truth and justice of the case. The CLERK OP ARRAIGNS Gentlemen of the jury, please to consider your verdict. The jury signified that they wished to retire. The proper officer of the Court was accordingly directed to take them in charge to an adjoining room. At three o'clock the jury returned into Court, having been absent fifteen minutes. 144 Mr. Baron Martin (From a Painting by Sir Francis Grant, P.R.A., in the possession of Lord Macnaghten). The Sentence. The jury stood up to answer to their names. The foreman (Mr. Isaac Moore) and the others having duly answered to the call, The CLERK OF AKRAIGNS said Gentlemen, are you agreed upon your verdict? The FOREMAN We are. The CLERK OP ARRAIGNS How do you find the prisoner at the bar guilty or not guilty of the murder with which he is charged 1 The FOREMAN Guilty. The CLBRK OP ARRAIGNS That is the verdict of you all? The FOREMAN Yes. r. Baron Martin here entered the Court. The CLERK OP ARRAIGNS Prisoner at the bar, you have been convicted of the crime of wilful murder. Have you anything to say why judgment of dying should not be given t The prisoner did not reply. The CRIER OP THE COURT Oyez, oyez, oyez! My lords the Queen's justices do strictly charge and command that all persons do keep silence while sentence of death is passing upon the prisoner at the bar, upon pain of imprisonment. Mr. BARON MARTIN, who had meanwhile put upon his head JJr. Baron Martin the black cap, then passed sentence. Franz Muller, you have been found guilty by the jury of the wilful murder of Mr. Briggs. It is no part of our duty to express generally any opinion with respect to the verdict of the jury. It is their province to decide upon your guilt or innocence. But it is usual with judges to state, in passing sentence, if they entirely concur in that verdict, and they do so for two reasons. It is satisfactory to know if the opinions of the judges concur with that of the jury ; and I am authorised by the Chief Baron to state and I state on my own behalf that we are perfectly satisfied with that verdict. If I had been one of the jury I should have concurred in it; and I state so, for the second reason, in order to remove entirely from your mind the possi- bility that you will live in this world much longer. Within i- i45 Franz Muller. J*r. Baron a short period you will be removed from it by a violent death ; and I therefore beseech you to avail yourself of what, I have no doubt, will be offered to you, the means, as far as possible, of making your peace with your Maker, and of preparing to meet the fate which will very shortly happen to you. I forbear from going into the particulars of the case, but there are a variety of circumstances in which, if the evidence had been gone into more minutely, would have more and more tended to establish your guilt. The history of you during that day is not difficult to judge. You left the house of Mrs. Blyth about eleven o'clock. You remained at the house of Mrs. Repsch until seven or eight, or nearly eight o'clock. You stated your intention of going to see a young woman. You went there, and it is obvious that your account of your time is to show us that one hour and a half were consumed in going to this house, and it may be that Mrs. Jones was telling the truth when she supposed that you were at her house at half- past nine o'clock that night. I am perfectly satisfied that you were there much earlier, that she is in error in thinking you were there so late, and that you came from this place, and were probably tempted by seeing Mr. Briggs exhibiting the watch and chain ; and there are other circumstances strongly tending to the same conclusion, as seen from your history during the few days of the following week respecting the money. You exchanged the chain of Mr. Briggs for one that you got from Mr. Death, and you immediately proceeded to pledge that to raise a sum of money upon it. Having raised it, you pro- ceeded to take out of pledge your own watch and your own chain. Having them in your possession, you proceeded to pledge them and get the money with which, no doubt, you paid your passage to America. I have little doubt that this is the history of the case that, moved by the devil, and for the purpose of getting the money to go to America where it is evident you intended to go you robbed Mr. Briggs of his watch and chain. I wish to remove from your mind any hope of an alteration of the sentence. After listening to all the evidence which has been adduced, I feel no more doubt that you committed this murder than I do with reference to the occurrence of any other event of which I am certain, but which I did not see with my own eyes. It only remains 146 The Sentence. for me to pass upon you the sentence of the law which is Mr. Baron not the sentence of the Chief Baron or myself for the crime of wilful murder of which you have been convicted. It is that you be taken from here to the prison from whence you came, that from thence you be taken to a place of execution, that there you be hanged by the neck till your body be dead; that your body when dead be taken down, and that it be buried within the precincts of the prison where you were last confined. And may God have mercy upon your soul. Mr. JONAS said that the prisoner had asked whether he might be allowed to speak. The CHIEF BARON said " Yea." The PRISONER I am perfectly satisfied with my judges and with the jury, but I have been convicted on false evidence, and not a true statement. If the sentence is carried out I shall die innocent. The prisoner was then removed, and the Court adjourned. '47 APPENDICES. APPENDIX I. EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS AT NEW YORK. (Daily Telegraph, Monday, September 5, 1864.) THB GERMAN NATIONAL VEREIN AND FRANZ MULLER. A meeting of the London branch of the German National Verein took place on Saturday, under the presidency of Dr. Gottfried Kinkel, at Seydr's Hotel, Finsbury Square, when the committee for affording legal assistance to Germans in need, who in this country may not be able to obtain it from the authorised representative of their respective Governments, brought up their report. The committee stated that, in compliance with the expressed wish of the National Verein, they were using all means in their power to aid the legal authorities in clearing up the mystery as to the guilt or innocence of Franz Mullet respecting the murder of Mr. Briggs. September 6, 1864. AMERICA. Arrest of Muller. The following telegram was received at Mr. Reuter's office this (Tuesday) morning : (Via Greenock.) New York, Aug. 26 (Evening). The " Victoria " has arrived at New York, and Muller has been arrested. The hat and watch of Mr. Briggs were found in his possession. Muller protested his innocence, and the legal proceedings in reference to his extradition are progressing. Franz Mullet. 8/9/1864. The Arrest of Mutter. New York journals to the 27th ult., per the " City of Balti- more," containing details of the examination of Muller before the New York police authorities, will not reach London till a late hour this (Thursday) morning. Up to last night the Chief Commissioner of Police at Scotland Yard had not received any communication from the detective officers sent out to apprehend Muller. In the course of the day, however, letters are expected . 12th, 1864. Extradition of Muller. New York, Aug. 30 (Evening). On the 27th inst. the hearing of the extradition case of Muller was resumed before the U.S. Commissioner Newton. The British Government was represented by Mr. F. F. Mar- bury, as on the previous day, while Messrs. Chauncey Schaffer and E. Blankman appeared for the prisoner. The Court was thronged with spectators anxious to obtain a view of the accused, who sat with an unmoved countenance. Mr. Blankman, on behalf of Muller, applied for an adjourn- ment, to give time to prepare for the defence. Mr. Marbury, for the British Government, opposed the adjournment. Mr. Blankman briefly responded, urging the motion for a brief adjournment. Mr. Schaffer followed for the defence, and maintained that as yet there was nothing to justify the committal. The accused, being a foreigner, he contended that the treaty under which the extradition was demanded had been suspended, and he also adverted to the " Florida " as being a pirate sent out by English subjects. Inspector Tanner having been re-examined as to the height of the prisoner, Mr. Schaffer endeavoured to show that Muller could not be one of the two men seen in the compartment with Mr. Briggs on the night of the murder. Commissioner Newton then delivered his decision, stating that, under the circumstances, he was constrained to grant a certificate, and commit the prisoner, being satisfied as to his guilt. 152 Appendix I. 13/9/64. (From the New York Herald.) The following detailed report of the last day's proceedings in the case of Miiller is from the New York Herald of August 28 : The hearing in the extradition case of Franz Miiller, charged with the murder of Mr. Thomas Briggs, near Hackney, London, on the 9th July last, was resumed yesterday morning before Commissioner Newton. The British Government, through its consul at this port, was represented by Mr. F. F. Marbury; the accused by his assigned counsel, Messrs. Chauncey Schaffer and Edmond Blankman. The examination took place in the United States District Court-room, which was thronged with persons who evinced the greatest interest in the proceedings, and who anxiously sought for a view of the accused. The latter sat beside his counsel with an unmoved countenance and a calm demeanour, apparently the most uninterested and unaffected person in the densely crowded Court. Mr. Blankman said that, as the prosecution had closed their case yesterday, having had everything in preparation for sub- mitting it to the Court, it devolved upon him to make a few remarks in urging upon the Court an application for an adjourn- ment, to give the counsel assigned for the accused an oppor- tunity to read over the testimony and to agree upon the proper line of defence. There was, however, much to urge prepara- tory to entering upon that stage of the proceedings. The warrant issued for the apprehension of Miiller set forth that " on the 9th July instant, he (Miiller) did feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought, kill and murder one Thomas Briggs." If a case of murder had been made out in accordance with the statutes of Great Britain and the law of this land, the duty of the Court was certainly to be a plain one, but if to the mind of the Court there did not appear to be (as it did not appear to him) legal evidence of murder having been committed, then the case did not come within the treaty of 1842, and there was no ground whatever for the apprehension and commitment of the accused. If the case even be one of manslaughter, it would not come within that treaty. Whatever view might be taken of the case, it would be but an act of simple justice to allow counsel for the defence an opportunity to examine the testimony adduced against their unfortunate client. He therefore moved that the further hearing of the case be adjourned in order to give counsel time to prepare their defence. Mr. Marbury, on the part of the British Government, opposed the motion for adjournment. On the day of the '53 Franz Muller. prisoner's arrest Mr. Beehe had been assigned by the Court counsel for the accused. That gentleman had accepted the task, and had an interview with the prisoner, and it was expected that he (Mr. Beehe) would have been present to defend him on the day fixed for the examination. The depositions in the case had been handed to the two able counsel subsequently (in consequence of the absence of Mr. Beehe) assigned for the defence, and those gentlemen were present yesterday when the testimony of the witnesses was given. This inquiry was a preliminary one. The Commissioner was sitting in the capacity of an ordinary committing magistrate, not for the purpose of saying whether this man was absolutely guilty or not, but whether there was a sufficient degree of suspicion of criminality against him to justify his commitment for trial, supposing the offence charged had been committed here. In other words, supposing, instead of Mr. Briggs having been murdered between Bow and Hackney, he had been murdered between Twenty-seventh Street and Harlem, under precisely similar cir- cumstances as appear in this case, the question would then be whether the evidence that has been presented would justify the commitment of the accused for trial in the ordinary way, and according to the due course and progress of law. He (Mr. Marbury) would extremely dislike to do anything bearing even the appearance of a desire to withhold from the unfortunate man any privilege or right which belonged to him; but it seemed to him that the request made by counsel was not a reasonable one. The whole facts lay within an exceedingly narrow compass, and from the reading of the depositions, and from testimony adduced yesterday, the general conclusion arrived at must be that, whatever the ultimate fate of the man may be, whatever the result of the more formal and legal investigation, enough has appeared and transpired here to justify his commitment. What follows? He is committed for trial; he is sent to the scene of the murder, to the place where he can find and produce witnesses who will state all the circumstances of exculpation that can be found. A great and appalling crime has been committed, and circumstances of great weight and moment connected the accused with the commission of that crime. Necessarily the case must undergo an investi- gation, and it is not depriving the prisoner of the right to the fullest and amplest defence secured to him by the common law of England, and by the practice of English jurisprudence, to commit him for trial. He did not think that anything was likely to arise in the case that had heretofore failed to present itself to the experienced and acute counsel on this occasion, and it appeared to him that great inconvenience and detriment would arise from any postponement of the case. Mr. Blankman briefly responded to the remarks of the counsel 154 Appendix I. for the prosecution, urging anew his motion for a brief adjourn- ment. Mr. Chauncey Schaffer followed for the defence. He advo- cated no new doctrine, advanced no new law when he declared that there was nothing in the evidence before the Court to justify the commitment of the accused on the charge here pre- ferred against him. The accused was a foreigner, a German by birth, who had a few days since arrived on these shores in the ordinary course of transit. When any man thus lands here he is presumed to be innocent of any crime. The law throws around him that shield of presumptive innocence, and he is secure, and that power which sends forth fleets and armies, and which on this occasion is embosomed in your honour, is here to shield and defend him from any violation of that principle. He was not present to-day to quarrel with the policy of England; but here he would fearlessly state at the outset that he did not regard the treaty under which it was sought to extradite this man as anything else than a viola- tion of the constitution of the United States, and utterly inopera- tive. But why should he, a pigmy, go forth to meet in con- flict the dead champion of the nation and Constitution? But even he had been overruled as a lawyer. The great Webster held, and ruled, and wrote, and declared that M'Leod, who crossed the Canadian frontier and landed at Sloser, and who murdered Duprey, and set the steamer " Caroline " on fire, and then set her afloat so that she went down into the sublime depths of old Niagara that he should be set at large. Great Britain defended M'Leod's acts as justified by the mixed and unsolemn state of war that then existed. Webster was for discharging that man after he had been arrested on the soil of New York, and indicted and held for trial and charge of murder. But the supreme Court of the State held him, and he was tried and acquitted, but the dignity and sovereignty of the Empire State was vindicated, and " Excelsior " is her proud title still. Now, the constitution of the United States provides that no man shall be put in peril of his life or liberty except upon indictment by a Grand Jury, or presentment of a Grand Jury, which means the same thing. The extradition of this man is claimed by virtue of a treaty between this country and England. Treaties are made by the President and sub- mitted by him to the Senate; and when ratified by that body they become part of the law of the land, with almost the same binding force as the Constitution itself, if the treaty be not in violation of the Constitution. He would not stand there and say that it were better that the nation should perish than the Constitution be violated, but he would say that it would be far better for him as an individual and for all others that this once proud island and all it contains should be destroyed Franz Muller. better, indeed, that the goodly island should become a sand- bank for the storms of earth and ocean to meet in conflict dire that it should be a spot for sea monsters to fatten on than that the supreme law of the land should be violated directly by the treaty-making power or any other power. Now, by this treaty you are asked to surrender this man to be tried for his life before he is yet indicted, in that the treaty is in contraven- tion of the Constitution. You are asked to do what the Pre- sident and Congress could not constitutionally do put this man in peril of his life before indictment for any offence is found against him. He did not ask the Court to say that the treaty was unconstitutional, but he would show conclusively that it was at present suspended after the act, and the British Government it is who seeks here for its enforcement. The ocean is as much a portion of the heritage of the American people aa the broad prairies of the West. He would come briefly to the main point of his argument. It was an ele- mentary principle recognised by the law of nations that a state of war between two nations suspends the operations of all treaties. But it may be said that there is no war between this country and England; neither is there in their sovereign relations incapacity, but there is war notwithstanding. There does exist what the eminent Groteus terms " a mixed or unsolemn state of war " between the two nations between the subjects of England on the one side and the subjects of the United States, as represented in her commerce on the ocean, on the other. The test is easy of application. For instance, the officers who are here in Court to-day repre- senting their sovereign while in pursuit of this man sup- posed to have his hands red with the blood of his fellow man, were actually afraid that the supposed murderer would escape condign punishment. Why? What gave rise to their fears? The fear that a private vessel, infesting the ocean the highway of nations sent out from the friendly English ports by British subjects, would snatch from British justice that which British justice was in pursuit of Britain committing suicide upon her own justice. That is a state of war, and that state of things, by the common consent of mankind, suspends all treaties between the countries. There is that hostility on the part of English subjects towards this country which the writers on international law denominate " mixed and unsolemn war," and which can be carried on without any formal declaration of war. There are three sorts of war public, private, and mixed. Mixed war is sub-divided into solemn and unsolemn war. When hostilities are carried on without any previous declaration of war, that becomes a mixed and unsolemn war; and this, as in any war, to the suspension of treaties previously existing, being a war between 156 Appendix I. the citizens and subjects of one nation against another nation ; and that nation or power which cannot prevent this state of things, that nation which cannot control its own subjects, ceases to be a nation. England cannot say she is neutral in this matter when she furnishes our rebellious subjects with vessels of war, mans them, opens her ports to them, furnishes them with arms and ammunition, and sends them forth on their errand of destruction, burning merchant ships and destroy- ing the commerce on the seas of a friendly power. The " Alabama," built and armed in England, and manned by Englishmen, sank and burned one hundred and twenty of our ships ; and when at last she meets the fate she so richly deserved, we find an English subject on his yacht snatching from an American officer his legal rights. Look at the case of the steamer, running from port to port, and in Maine seized by pirates, the engineer murdered, passengers murdered, the vessel brought into an English port, and the murderers and pirates protected by English subjects. But, as in the case before the Court, when a man is found murdered near London, they pursue the supposed murderer to our shores and cry, " Treaty, treaty, treaty." They tore that treaty to pieces three years ago. (Applause.) Nay, more than that, great argosies, laden with the choicest treasures of the nation, have been sunk in countless numbers, with connivance and consent of this neutral, friendly power. The truce has been applied by the pirate " Florida," built and sent out by English subjects a robber on the highway of nations, murdering our citizens, and destroy- ing our commerce, and humiliating the nation before the world, so that no longer is it an honour to claim to be an American citizen. This was not so much the act of the Government or of the people as of the aristocracy, who misrepresented the Government and the people. The latter were true to liberty and to the United States, God bless them. This treaty, then, under which the rendition of this man is demanded, is suspended, and is a dead letter until this mixed and unsolemn state of war on the part of British subjects against the Government ceases. England, to claim this man, must come into Court with clean hands. She must not come here and ask of us to honour her justice when she dishonours her own justice, breaks her treaties, and cries peace and neutrality while at the same time she lets slip the dogs of war, and with piratical vessels drives our peaceful commerce from the ocean. This cannot long continue. Better for us we had war at once, when we could send out our cruisers and assert our rights of retaliation on the ocean. The Lines of Decahur are not forgotten, and we have a Farragut worthy to take the first place in any contest, where the pride and honour and courage of America Franz Muller. is at stake. (Applause.) Leaving the case of his client in the hands of the Court, he would close. Inspector Tanner was re-examined as to the height of the prisoner and his personal appearance, to show that he could not be one of the two men seen in the compartment of the railway carriage with Mr. Briggs on the night of the murder. This ended the case for the defence. Mr. Marbury, for the British Government, addressed the Court. He did not think it quite generous or becoming in him to enter upon a criticism of the speech of the gentleman who had just spoken, nor would he attempt to follow him through the wide and discursive range of topics he had intro- duced into the case. He would even hold himself excused from the necessity of even as much as adverting to many of the irrelevant matters which he had dragged into the discussion of this question. All that was immaterial. With reference to the treaty under which the accused was claimed, whether that treaty was faithfully observed or not was not a question for this Court to determine. That was for the executive Government to decide ; and when the executive shall have taken the ground that by reason of the grievances to which counsel has so eloquently referred, the Ashburton Treaty is of no further force or effect, it will be time enough for the Courts to follow the action of the executive, but so long as the Governments of the two countries regard that treaty as a subsisting treaty, then it holds its place under the Constitution, next to which and under which it is the supreme law of the land. It would be trifling with the time of the Court to pursue this point any further. The only excuse or apology counsel could possibly offer for the introduction of such topics must be in the fact that the case, on its own merits, affords no entertainment to the audience, which the counsel is always expected to produce when- ever he appears in Court. This is a very serious and grave busi- ness for this young man, and, looking upon him, one could hardly conceive that he perpetrated the dreadful crime with which he stands charged, and if he could escape from the evidence of guilt that comes from so many quarters, all con- verging and pointing to him, he (counsel) would experience relief from a weighty responsibility. This is not a case for sickly sentiment or sympathy. If he be really guilty of mur- dering the venerable man (Mr. Briggs) in the way described, then his crime is one of the blackest dye, as well as one of the meanest and most revolting in all its aspects that has ever been perpetrated. The facts are these : first, the corpus delicte is fully established. At half-past ten o'clock, 9th July, 1864, Mr. Briggs was seen alive and in perfect health. In two and a half or three and a half minutes afterwards he lay moaning and insensible in the 6 -foot way of North London 158 Appendix I. Railway. The carriage in which he had been riding, and from which he was thrown, exhibited proofs of a recent bloody struggle. Several mortal wounds were inflicted upon the de- ceased, from the effects of which he shortly afterwards died. Second, the evidence which has been adduced shows clearly and conclusively that the prisoner is guilty of the murder of Mr. Briggs, with which he is charged. On Saturday evening, 9th July, between half-past seven and half-past eight o'clock, Miiller left the house of Mrs. Repsch, 12 Jewry Street, Aid- gate. He did not return that evening to his lodgings, as it was usual for him to do. On examining the compartment in which Mr. Briggs had been assaulted and murdered, a hat was found, made by Mr* T. H. Walker, 44 Crawford Street, Mary- lebone, London. It was crushed, and had marks of blood upon it. This hat is proved by the witness Matthews, who has been examined here, and by Mrs. Repsch, whose depositions have been taken, to have belonged to Miiller, and to have been worn by him up to the time of the murder, or nearly so. Mr. Briggs's hat was taken by the murderer. Miiller, on the 14th day of July, had on at Mrs. Repsch 's a nearly new hat with a white silk lining. He told Mrs. Repsch that his old one had been thrown into a dust hole. When arrested here, a hat is found stowed away in his box. Mr. Briggs's hat is gone, and Miiller is found with one in his box. From the person of Mr. Briggs a gold watch and chain were taken by violence. The chain is proved distinctly to have been in Miiller's possession on Monday, the llth of July. On that day it was exchanged by him at the shop of Mr. Death, 55 Cheapside, London, for another chain and ring. This other chain was packed in one of Mr. Death's card boxes and delivered to the prisoner. He subsequently exhibited this new chain and ring to several persons. The box with Mr. Death's name and address he gave to Mr. Matthews' daughter. On the 12th July, 1864 (Tuesday), the prisoner pawned this new chain to Mr. Annis, 121 Minories, and received a pawn ticket therefor. On 13th July (Wednesday), 1864, the prisoner sold this pawn ticket to John Haffa, his room mate, for the sum of 12s., which sum he needed, as he stated, to pay for his passage to America. On his arrival there he is identified clearly by Mr. Death as the person who sold him Mr. Briggs's chain. He is also identi- fied by Matthews as owner of the hat which was found in the compartment of the railway carriage where Mr. Briggs received the wounds from the effects of which he died. There is also found in Miiller 's box a heavy gold watch, made by Archer, of Hackney, where Mr. Briggs resided. Miiller is not known to have had any watch of his own. If he had he would prob- ably have exhibited it, or it would have been seen by Matthews and other witnesses, to whom he showed the chain and ring, Franz Muller. and with whom he was on terms of intimacy. Third, the evidence is such as would plainly require the commitment of Muller for trial if the offence had been committed here, and it results that a certificate leading to his extradition that the case may undergo an investigation in England should be granted. Thus was the chain of evidence complete, not a link wanting to connect the prisoner with the commission of the crime with which he stands charged. Commissioner Newton then proceeded to deliver the decision of the Court. Having complimented the counsel assigned for the defence for the able manner in which they had advocated the cause of their client, he said " I am not at loss to see, after carefully looking down the testimony, and weighing it in my mind, that there is sufficient testimony for me, sitting in the capacity of a committing magistrate, to commit this man to a trial. My simple duty is to determine whether there is sufficient probable cause, from the evidence that has been pro- duced to that effect, which would cause me to remand him, that he may have an opportunity to "Be tried at the place where the crime was committed, and there proving his innocence, or, being found guilty, to be punished for his crime. It is not necessary for me to determine absolutely that he is guilty of the crime. The fact to determine is, has a crime been com- mitted? If it has been committed, is there probable cause from the evidence to show that the party accused is the party who has committed the crime? Now, it appears to my mind, looking at it in the light of probable cause, that my duty is very simple and very plain. I do not desire to sit in judg- ment upon this man ; far be it from me. I wish it was in my power to discover any evidence or trace of innocence to justify me to withhold the certificate of extradition. But I am free to say that, from all the combined circumstances, the chain which seems to have been linked around this man points fatally to him as the guilty man. So clear and distinct is the question of probable cause that I cannot for one moment have a doubt as to the proper course to pursue. Under these circumstances I am constrained to grant the certificate, and the prisoner therefore stands committed." The prisoner was then removed. 1*0 Appendix II. APPENDIX II. MEMORIAL PRESENTED BY THE GERMAN LEGAJL PROTECTION SOCIETY. (From The Time*, Friday, llth November, 1864.) Yesterday afternoon, at half-past one o'clock, a deputation from the German Legal Protection Society, consisting of Dr. Juch and Mr. Berndas, accompanied by Mr. Beard, the solicitor for the defence, proceeded to the Home Office, and presented to Mr. Everest the following memorial which, after various meetings of that society, was recently adopted in Miiller's behalf. The deputation read the heads of the memorial, which prayed for a respite of the sentence of death passed upon the convict. Mr. Everest, after hearing the deputation, stated that the memorial would be forwarded by the post of that evening to Sir George Grey, who is at present at Falloden, and that an answer could not possibly be received from him before Saturday morning, but that the moment it came to hand a copy of it should be forwarded to Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard handed in a letter to Sir George Grey, which he requested might accompany the memorial, and in which he requested the immediate attention of the Home Secretary to this urgent matter of life and death. Mr. Everest promised to forward Mr. Beard's letter, and the interview, which lasted only a very few minutes, terminated. The memorial is as follows: " Franz Muller, a German, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on Saturday, the 29th day of October, of the murder of Mr. Briggs in a first-class railway carriage on the night of the 9th of July last. The evidence against him was circumstantial. It was sworn that on the Monday following the murder he exchanged, at the shop of Mr. Death, a silver- smith in Cheapside, a gold watch-chain, which was proved to be the property of the murdered man, and that he received a new chain for it. This last-named chain was packed in a small case, which was given by Muller on the same day to the daughter of one Matthews, a cabman, with whom Muller was on intimate terms. On the 13th of July Muller redeemed a watch and chain which he had in pawn, and re-pawned them at a different place for 4 ; he gave his own name (Muller) when he did BO." (Then follows a brief summary of the evidence against Muller ; and in the succeeding paragraphs the evidence in his favour, such as was adduced at the trial, and all the points touched upon in Serjeant Parry's speech for the defence are gone into at some length. With respect to the alibi, it is M 161 Franz Muller. again argued in the memorial that Muller could not possibly have returned from Camberwell in time to leave Fenchurch Street station by the same train as Mr. Briggs. The state- ments of Matthews, his wife, and Mrs. Repsch are called into question, and a hint is thrown out that they might have been induced to swear as they did for the sake of participating in the promised reward. It is also asked why Muller should be condemned because he could not tell what became of his old hat, while Matthews is in equal ignorance of what has become of his. The memorial then goes on ) " One of the most singular circumstances in this case is that these two men should have hats so nearly alike. Muller positively declares that he bought at Mr. Digance's the hat which is said to be that of Mr. Briggs, and he gives the very dates, that is between the 14th and 20th of May last. It may be said that it was too expensive; but Muller was a man who spent a great deal in personal decoration. He asserts that after he bought it he was rallied upon it as being too tall for him, and that this was the reason he cut it down. He asserts most positively that the Repsches saw him cut it down, and when he was ironing it Repsch advised him to wet his rag, as hatters did. He described to a member of the committee the appearance of the shopman at Mr. Digance's, from whom he bought it. Two of the committee went to Digance's and saw that shopman; his description corresponded exactly with that given by Muller. Mr. Digance himself was questioned about the sale of such a hat, and was politely asked to let his day- book for May be seen ; but he refused to give any information, nor would he let his day-book be examined, nor would he permit his assistant to give information, stating as his reason that Muller was a murderer. Now, if it could be proved that this hat was really purchased by Muller at Mr. Digance's, the case for the prosecution would be greatly weakened, if not wholly destroyed. Muller asserts that it can. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to ask only for a respite that this matter may be inquired into. " Muller asserts that he went to the docks on the Monday morning, the 1 1th of July ; that a pedlar, whose face was well known to persons employed there, offered him the watch and chain, near where the ships lay ; that he then had his passage money in his pocket (as Haffa says) ; the price which the pedlar asked was 6, but Muller did not feel disposed to give more than 4, which he offered. The pedlar refused, and they parted. In about half a minute it occurred to Muller that as the pedlar refused 4 for the chain and watch they must be worth more, and that he could make a good bargain. He returned, and offered him three half-crowns additional, which were at once accepted. Muller left the docks, and when crossing Tower Hill he doubted the genuineness of his purchase 162 Appendix II. he thought that they were only gilt and worthless, and he went to Mr. Death's to propose an exchange of chains for the purpose of discovering whether the newly acquired property was gold or base. Discovering that it was gold, he resolved to part with the chain and keep the watch in place of his own, which was in pawn. His vanity made him state a falsehood as to the chain and ring, that they were presents from his father, as he also falsely stated that Mr. Hodgkinson was send- ing him to New York at 150 a year, and, as he pretended there, that he had had the watch two years. " The latter statement, it is suggested, was that of a man who had become convinced during the voyage that the watch purchased from the pedlar had been got under doubtful cir- cumstances, and he probably was under great embarrassment about it when apprehended. Had he known that the chain was that of Mr. Briggs, it is incredible that he would have given the box which he received from Mr. Death to Matthews' child as a plaything, for he must have been guiltily suspicious that that box would be identified and traced to him. " Jacob Weist, porter at Mr. White's, proved at the trial that he had seen Muller several times at the London Docks. He now adds that three or four days before Muller sailed he saw him there one morning. Weist was not at the docks on either Saturday or Tuesday, and therefore he believes that it was on the Monday morning before he sailed he saw Muller. " There are declarations that the pedlar described was in the habit of frequenting the docks, and that he ceased to do so about the period when the police were engaged in the discovery of the murderer. " Muller describes the pedlar who sold him the watch and chain as being a man of middle size ; he had a lean face, with prominent cheekbones, brown whiskers, and shaved clean ; he had a little scar on the lip. He wore a Melton morning coat. This, as nearly as possible, corresponds with the description of the missing man. This pedlar has since been discovered. He admits that he sold a gold chain and a watch about July to a person in the docks, but he asserts that the watch was silver. It is submitted that this last assertion cannot be wholly relied upon, and that the coincidence is so extraordinary that Muller at New York should have asserted this fact, and that it should be discovered to be true in the most material particulars, that a respite of Muller is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of public justice for a more full investigation as to where the pedlar got these articles, and what he subse- quently did with them. It was from Muller's description of him solely that he was traced out and discovered. " The passage money had exhausted Miiller's finances. He sold his coat and trousers on the voyage, and had 12s. in his pocket when apprehended. This accounts for the non-pro- 163 Franz Muller. duction of his clothing, which was made so much of at the trial. It is certain that he was so reduced in his finances when he was about to leave London that he could not have paid his passage money had he not pledged his coat for 6s., before mentioned. No person who went out in the ship could prove that Muller had cut down the hat during the voyage. It was proved to have been ironed after it was cut down. If he borrowed an iron on board ship, the fact should have been proved. It is unlikely in the extreme that he did so on the Sunday, as Mr. and Mrs. Blyth declare that he was with them all that day, and they both unite in speaking that they did not notice him with a new hat. Mrs. Blyth positively avers that from the time when Muller entered her lodging until he left she never saw but one hat with him; the prosecutor did not venture to put into her hand at the trial either of the hats which were supposed to prove Muller's guilt. The truth is, the hat was cut down soon after he bought it, and it was cut before he went to lodge with Blyth. " In the absence of direct evidence, while the indirect evidence is of a doubtful or suspicious nature, Muller's char- acter should be thrown into the scale; his demeanour since his arrest, and even since his condemnation, has been that of a man who is not guilty of the crime of murder ; and his whole previous career is as much at variance with the perpe- tration of the crime as his physical and nervous temperament renders him apparently incapable of it. "It is not reasonable to suppose that a man who had committed a murder of this terrible description, when the hue and cry was raised all through London, would be coolly walking about the streets and would openly exhibit his newly acquired hat and chain and ring which he knew to be con- nected with the crime. Would he dispose of the chain to a respectable dealer, where he would be most likely to be detected? Would he not rather sell it in some haunt of thieves? Would he openly declare his intention to leave the country, and tell all his friends the name of the ship he was going in, while he took his passage in his own name? His natural cheerful- ness and kindliness of temper never were seen to change, though, if he had been guilty, it is impossible but that he must have exhibited some agitation, some traces of inward or external excitement and alarm. Yet none was ever seen. "If it be conceded and it was virtually conceded at the trial that Muller was at Jones's at all that evening, the dates conclusively show that he could not be at Fenchurch Street at 9.50. He parted with Haffa at Jewry Street, Minories, not before 7.45. This was ten minutes' walk from Gracechurch Street, and he could only catch the eight o'clock 164 Appendix II. omnibus to Camberwell Gate. It takes twenty-five minutes to ride from Gracechurch Street to Camberwell Gate; and to walk thence to Vassal Road at a moderate pace by a lame man with a slipper could hardly be done in twenty-five minutes ; that takes us to 8.50. It is in evidence that he stayed five or ten minutes. Assume that he left Jones's about nine, he would arrive at Camberwell Gate at 9.25 or 9.30. He could not arrive there for an earlier omnibus certainly than 9.45. This would bring him to Gracechurch Street about 9.50. Thence to Fenchurch Street is about five minutes, making it 9.55; but the evidence conclusively showed that the 9.45 train, a few minutes behind its time, started at 9.50. On the whole, it is improbable that he could have caught all those omnibuses and trains at the exact moment when he wanted them, and that he could have made so well-timed a race to commit murder. Muller positively declares that he was the passenger in the slipper who left Camberwell Gate in the omnibus at 9.55. " The Lord Chief Baron told the jury as follows upon this point (The Times, 31st October): 'Between seven and eight o'clock the prisoner was at Repsch's; he then left, taking his boots with him, saying he was going to Camberwell. There was plenty of time for him to have gone to Camberwell and to have returned.' It is submitted that on the figures just quoted this direction of the learned judge was too un- qualified. Those figures are all absolute, and, being so, they demonstrate that the judge was mistaken in asserting that 'there was plenty of time.' " At the coroner's inquest the following important evidence was given by Townsend, a ticket porter at Hackney Wick station, who collected the tickets in the train in which Mr. Briggs had travelled. He said, ' We keep the doors locked till the tickets are collected. I remember that a man was very anxious to leave the platform and went into the porters' room, thinking that was the way down. He seemed very impatient, and said, on being told that the door would be opened in a moment, " D the door, it ought to have been opened before," and he added that he would report me. I should know him again. The station is on an embankment. We have rather a rough lot there at times.' Muller was shown to this witness, but he could not identify him as the man. Like Mr. Lee, he was not called by the Crown. It is submitted that this is very remarkable evidence when taken in connection with what Mr. Lee swore, and that this was probably one of the two men seen by him in the carriage with Mr. Briggs. The other may have escaped down the embank ment, which is steep, and not traversable by a man who limped, as Muller did on that night. Observe, also, that 165 Franz Muller. this man, whoever he was, has never come forward to explain his remarkable conduct that night. Yet the inquest was held so long ago as the 19th of July last, and the coroner might have discovered him if he were guiltless. " A similar observation occurs as to the two persons seen by Mr. Lee. As it is impossible to assume that he has wilfully perjured himself, how is it that neither of these persons has ever come forward? Their concealment of themselves can be accounted for only on the supposition that they possess a guilty secret, and that they were, in fact, the murderers of Mr. Briggs. It is absurd to believe all that Matthews says and to disbelieve all that Mr. Lee swears. " A witness named declares that on the night of the murder, some time after ten o'clock, he lost his way going to Hackney Wick station, and found himself in Wallace Road, near the canal, at a place about 100 or 150 yards from where Mr. Briggs was found. He saw a man who appeared stunned or drunk, and whose face, hands, and clothing were covered with blood; another person, who appeared to be a workman, and who was there, remarked that the man had either been attacked or had done some murder. The man went in the direction of the canal. It is suggested that this was the second man who sat in the railway carriage; that in the struggle with Mr. Briggs both rolled out of the carriage together; that this man escaped, and made towards the canal for the purpose of cleaning himself, while his companion rode on to the station, and naturally expressed impatient anxiety, and perhaps alarm, at finding the door closed, which he could not fail to feel under the circumstances that surrounded him. " F M declares that about eleven o'clock on the same night a man, in a very excited manner, offered him a heavy gold old-fashioned watch for V Appendix III. the Lord Chief Baron, who expressed himself satisfied with the verdict, and gave him no hope ; yet, when, on a memorial like this, he was respited, the accusation was found to be false, and no one ever since doubted that he was wrongfully convicted of the crime for which he was adjudged to death. It is confidently hoped that a similar result would follow the respite prayed for in this case." The Times, llth November, 1864. (To the Editor of The Times.) " Sir, The committee of the German Legal Protection Society begg the powerful aid of your journal in making known to the English public the fact that their committee will sit en permanence at Seyd's Hotel, Finsbury Square, until the answer to their memorial has been received from the Secre- tary of State. The committee are stimulated to make this special appeal by the circumstance that important evidence, as tending, as they believe, to exonerate their countryman has presented itself almost at the last moment before the presenta- tion of their memorial. In the belief that other persons may recall circumstances bearing on their task connected with the evening of Saturday, the 9th of July, the committee earnestly entreat all such persons to communicate with them at once at Seyd's Hotel, where members of the German committee will always be present and anxious to receive communications. " I am, Sir, yours obediently, " ADOLPH OPPLER, "Hon. Sec., Deutscher Rechtsschutz-Verein " (German Legal Protection Society) in London. "November 10." APPENDIX III. (AN ACCOUNT OF THE EXECUTION OP MULLER.) (From The Times, 15th November, 1864.) Yesterday morning Muller was hanged in front of Newgate. He died before such a concourse as we hope may never be again assembled, either for the spectacle which they had in view or for the gratification of such lawless ruffianism as yes- 169 Franz Muller. terday found its scope around the gallows. While he stood firm on the scaffold as the hangman turned the last bolts beneath his feet, Muller, with his last words, owned his guilt. His quiet and almost instantaneous death cut short what might have been a full confession. The mere details, however, matter not; enough at least was disclosed to show that the sentence of mankind was right. In the quiet, earnest words with which Muller bowed his head and said, " Ich habe es gethan " (I did it), and so, in speaking, went before his God, he told enough to vindicate man's justice; and in his late repentance left those who saw him die to hope more than justice for him in the world to come. Whether the scene amid which the guilty man at last faltered out the late ad- mission of his crime was one in which any human being should have passed away is another question. The gallows as a moraliser is at the best a rough one. It is not as a general rule supposed to address the educated and refined, but to preach its bitter lesson to the hordes of lesser criminals it draws round it to see a greater criminal die. Viewed from this aspect, and only as a solemn warning and example, it is to be wished that this last and saddest offering to man's justice could have been made less hideous than it was yesterday. A great crowd was expected round the gallows, and, indeed, a great crowd came. The barriers to check the crowd were begun across all the main streets which lead to Newgate as early as on Friday last, and all through Friday night, and on Saturday and Sunday, a dismal crowd of dirty vagrants kept hovering around them. These groups, however, were not composed of the real regular habitues of the gallows, but of mere young beginners, whose immature tastes were satisfied with cat-calls in the dark, fondling the barriers, or at most a hurried scrambling throw of dirt at the police when they dispersed them. It was, however, different on Sunday night. During the early part of the evening there was a crowd as much of loungers as of drunken men, which stood the miser- able drizzle with tolerable patience, while the public-houses were open and flared brightly through the mist. But at eleven o'clock a voluntary weeding of the throng commenced. The greater part of the rough mass moved off, leaving the regular execution crowd to take their early places. For a little time there seemed something which was not alone con- fusion but indecision in the throng, till the dirty chaos settled itself down at last, and while noisy groups went whooping and wrangling away, a thick, dark, noisy fringe of men and women settled like bees around the nearest barriers, and gradually obliterated their close white lines from view. It was a clear, bright moonlight night. Yet though all could see and well be seen, it was impossible to tell who formed the 170 Appendix III. staple part of this crowd that gathered there so early. There were well dressed and ill dressed, old men and lads, women and girls. Many had jars of beer ; at least half were smoking, and the lighting of fusees was constant, though not more constant than the cries and laughter, as all who lit them sent them whirling and blazing over the heads into the thicker crowd behind. Occasionally as the rain, which fell heavily at intervals, came down very fast, there was a thinning of the fringe about the beams, but, on the whole, they stood it out very steadily, and formed a thick dark ridge round the enclosure kept before the Debtors' door, where Muller was to die. This was at one o'clock, when the moon was bright and the night very clear indeed, and everything could be seen distinctly. Newgate was black enough in its blind massiveness, except at one little point high over the walls, where one window in the new wing showed a little gleam of light, to which it seemed the crowd was never tired of pointing as the spot where Muller lay in his condemned cell. Truly enough, it had been known outside where he was kept, and this miserable flicker in the black outline of the great gaol, which only marked one wide division of its wards where Muller was imprisoned, became the centre of all eyes, or at least of very many. That all were not so occupied in gazing was at least to be surmised, for every now and then came a peculiar sound, sometimes followed by the noise of struggling, almost always by shouts of laughter, and now and then a cry of " Hedge." What this meant none then knew from merely looking out upon the dismal crowd, which seemed to writhe and crawl among themselves. As day dawned, how- ever, all lookers-on understood it better. It is very cheap morality to go to the " ring's " side and proclaim the brutality of prize fights, or from beneath the gallows tree to preach forth upon the demoralising effect of public executions; but still the truth is the truth, and how the mob of yesterday behaved must be told. As we have said, as the showers came more or less heavily, so the crowd thinned or thickened in its numbers; but there was always enough to mark, like the lines of a massive grave, where the drop was to be brought in. From its great quadrangle the sightseers never moved, but from hour to hour, almost from minute to minute, grew noisier, dirtier, and more dense. Till three o'clock it was one long revelry of songs and laughter, shouting, and often quarrelling, though, to do them more justice, there was at least till then a half -drunken, ribald gaiety among the crowd that made them all akin. Until about three o'clock not more than some four thousand, or at the most five thousand, were assembled, and over all the rest of the wide space the white, unoccupied barriers showed up like a network of bones above Franz Muller. the mud. But about three the workmen came to finish the last barriers, after the scaffold had been carried to the Debtors' door, and from that time the throng rapidly increased in numbers. Some one attempted to preach in the midst of the crowd, but his voice was soon drowned amid much laughter. Then there was another lull, not, indeed, of quiet, but at least a lull from any pre-eminent attempt at noise, though every now and then it was broken by that inexplicable sound like a dull blow, followed as before always by laughing, sometimes by fighting. Then, again, another man, stronger in voice, and more conversant with those he had to plead before, began the old familiar hymn of " The Promised Land." For a little time this man sang alone, but at last he was joined by a few others, when another and apparently more popular voice gave out some couplet in which at once, and as if by magic, the crowd joined with the chorus of "Oh, my, Think, I've got to die," till this again was substituted by the song of "Muller, Muller, He's the man." All these vocal efforts, however, were cut short by the dull rumbling sound which, amid cheers, shouts, whooping, clapping of hands, hisses, and cries of " Why wasn't it brought out for Townley?"* heralded the arrival of the dirty old gallows. This was, for the time, a great diversion, and the crowd cheered or hissed in parts, or as the humour took them, while the horses were removed, and the rumbling black box was worked back slowly and with difficulty against the door of the gaol. The shouts and obscene remarks which were uttered as the two upright posts were lifted into their places were bad enough, but they were trifles as compared with the comments which followed the slow efforts of the two labourers to get the cross beam into its place. At last this was finished, and then, amid such yells as only such sightseers, and so disappointed, could give vent to, a strong force of police filed in and took their places, doubly lining the enclosure round the drop, right before the foremost of the crowd who had kept their places through wet and dry since Sunday night. * George Victor Townley was sentenced to death by Baron Martin at the Derby Assizes on 12th December, 1863, for the murder of Miss Goodman from motives of jealousy. He was respited on the suggestion that he was insane, but, on further inquiry, was found not to be insane, and his sentence commuted to one of penal servitude for life. There is a pub- lished report of his trial and an account of it in the " Annual Register" for 1863. 172 Appendix III. Then, as every minute the day broke more and more clear, the crowd could be seen in all the horrible reality in which it had been heard throughout the long, wet night. All the wide space in front of Newgate was packed with masses within the barriers, and kept swaying to and fro in little patches, while beyond these again, out to St. Sepulchre's and down towards Ludgate Hill, the mob had gathered and was gather- ing fast. Among the throng were very few women; and even these were generally of the lowest and poorest class, and almost as abandoned in behaviour as their few better-dressed exceptions. The rest of the crowd was, as a rule, made up of young men, but such young men as only such a scene could bring together sharpers, thieves, gamblers, betting men, the outsiders of the boxing ring, bricklayers' labourers, dock workmen, German artisans, and sugar bakers, with a fair sprinkling of what may be called as low a grade as any of the worst there met the rakings of the cheap singing halls and billiard rooms, the fast young " gents " of London. But all, whether young or old, seemed to know nothing, fear nothing, to have no object but the gallows, and to laugh, curse, or shout, as in this heaving and struggling forward they gained or lost in their strong efforts to get nearer to where Muller was to die. Far up even into Smithfield the keen, white faces rose rank above rank, till even where the houses were shrouded in the thick mist of the early dawn, the course of streets could be traced by the gleam of the faces alone, and all, from first to last, from nearest to furthest, were clamouring, shouting, and struggling with each other to get as near the gibbet as the steaming mass of human beings before them would allow. Then, and then only, as the sun rose clearer did the mysterious, dull sound, so often men- tioned, explain itself with all its noises of laughter and of fighting. It was literally and absolutely nothing more than the sound caused by knocking the hats over the eyes of those well-dressed persons who had ventured among the crowd, and, while so " bonneted," stripping them and robbing them of everything. None but those who looked down upon the awful crowd of yesterday will ever believe in the wholesale, open, broadcast manner in which garrotting and highway robbery were carried on. We do not now speak of those whom the mere wanton mischief of the crowd led to " bonnet " as they passed, or else to pluck their hats off their heads and toss them over the mob, amid roars and shouts of laughter, as they came from all sides and went in all directions, till some- times even they fell within the enclosure round the drop, and were kicked under the gallows by the police. The propriety of such an amusement at such a time admits of question, to say the least, even among such an audience. But even then Franz Muller. rough play sinks into harmlessness beside the open robbery and violence which yesterday morning had its way virtually unchecked in Newgate Street. There were regular gangs, not so much in the crowd itself within the barriers as along the avenues which led to them, and these vagrants openly stopped, " bonneted," and sometimes garrotted, and always plundered any person whose dress led them to think him worth the trouble; the risk was nothing. Sometimes their victims made a desperate resistance, and for a few minutes kept the crowd around them violently swaying to and fro amid the dreadful uproar. In no instance, however, could we ascertain that " police " was ever called. Indeed, one of the solitary instances in which they interfered at all was where their aid was sought from some houses, the occupants of which saw an old farmer who, after a long and gallant struggle with his many assailants, seemed, after having been robbed, to be in danger of serious injury as well. This, however, about the farmer is a mere episode ; the rule was such robbing and ill-treatment as made the victims only too glad to fly far from the spot where they had suffered it, and who, if even they ventured on giving any information to the police, could hope for no redress in such a crowd. Such were the open pastimes of the mob from daylight till near the hour of execution, when the great space around the prison seemed choked with its vast multitude. Latterly nearly fifty thousand people were crammed between the walls of this wide thoroughfare. Wherever the eye could rest it found the same dim monotony of pale but dirty faces, which seemed to waver as the steam of the hot crowd rose high. At last, when it was near towards eight o'clock, there came shouts of " hats off," and the whole mass commenced, amid cries and struggles, to wriggle to and fro as the bell of New- gate began to toll, not as on Sunday inside the prison, loud upon the ear of the fast dying man, but with a muffled and foggy boom that never would have quieted the yells of that fierce mob, but that they somehow seemed to yearn and listen always for any token of the last scene yet to come. Inside the prison, meanwhile, the scene had been very different. On Sunday evening, about ten o'clock, Mr. Sheriff Dakin paid a last visit to the prisoner in his cell, and before leaving he again exhorted him with much kindness and earnest- ness, as he had done on previous occasions since his conviction, not to leave the world with a lie in his mouth if he was really guilty. Laying his hand upon a Bible which the convict had been reading, Mr. Dakin reminded him that the promises of forgiveness it contained all assumed repentance and confession. Muller listened kindly to the adjurations of the Sheriff, but made no response. After Mr. Dakin had gone the convict remarked to one of the warders placed over him that man 174 Appendix III. had no power to forgive sins, and that it was of no use con- fessing to him. In this state of mind he denied the crime almost to the very last. He retired to rest at half-past ten, and slept soundly for about four hours, but was anxious and uneasy during the remainder of the night. He rose at six o'clock and dressed. Shortly afterwards Dr. Louis Cappel, minister of the German Lutheran Chapel in Alie Street, Good- man's Fields, joined the convict in his cell, and remained with him until the last. The interval was chiefly spent in religious exercises, and as the hour fixed for the execution drew near Dr. Cappel administered the sacrament to him, having first received from the prisoner an assurance that he was innocent. During the interview, which lasted nearly two hours, the con- vict frequently clung to him and embraced him, observing, with tears in his eyes, that he was the only friend he had then in the world, and expressing his fervent gratitude for all the kindness that he had shown him. About half-past seven o'clock the Sheriffs of London, Mr. Alderman Dakin and Mr. Alderman Besley, with the Under-Sheriffs, Mr. Septimus David- son and Mr. De Jersey, went from the London Coffee-house, in Ludgate Hill, where they had passed the night, to the Court- house of the Old Bailey, where they remained until a quarter to eight. There they were met by Mr. Jonas, the governor of Newgate, and by Mr. Gibson, the prison surgeon, and, forming themselves into a procession, the authorities passed from the sessions-house to the gaol. The way lay through a series of gloomy passages, some of them subterranean and dimly lighted, and over the graves of malefactors who had been buried there during the last thirty years. Emerging at length into an open courtyard within the precincts of the prison, they paused for a few moments, until a door at the further end of the courtyard was unexpectedly opened and Miiller presented himself, attended by a single warder, on the way from his cell to the scaffold. He was pale, but quite calm and collected, he walked with a somewhat measured pace, with his hands clasped in front of him and looking upward, with a touching expression of countenance. He was dressed with scrupulous care in the clothes which he wore on his trial. Since then he had improved much in appearance, and upon the whole he was a comely-looking young man. Without the slightest touch of bravado his demeanour at this time was quiet and self-possessed in a remarkable degree. From the courtyard he passed with his attendant into the press room, followed by the authorities. There he submitted himself to the executioner, and underwent the process of pinioning with unfaltering courage. While all about him were visibly touched, not a muscle in his face moved, and he showed no sign of emotion. At this trying moment Dr. 175 Franz Muller. Cappel approached and endeavoured to sustain him again and again. Repeating in a docile and affectionate manner words which the reverend gentleman put into his mouth, the convict more than once said, "Christ, the Lamb of God, have mercy upon me." Dr. Cappel repeatedly turned an anxious look first on the prisoner and then on those about him, as if he felt that all his efforts to induce him to confess if he was really guilty were about to be unavailing. As the executioner was removing his neckerchief and shirt collar, on the arrange- ment of which some care had evidently been bestowed, the convict moved his head about to allow of that being done the more easily, and when these little articles of personal adorn- ment were stuffed within the breast of his coat he remained callous and unmoved. The process of pinioning over, Mr. Jonas, the governor, approached the convict and asked him to take a seat, but he declined the offer, and remained standing until the prison bell summoned him to his doom. As he remained in that attitude one could not help being struck with the appearance of physical strength which his figure denoted, and still more with his indomitable fortitude. Though short in stature, he was compactly and symmetrically made, and there were manifest indications of strength about his chest, arms, hands, and the back part of his neck in particular. A signal having been given by the governor, the prisoner was escorted by the Sheriffs and Under-Sheriffs to the foot of the scaffold, the Eev. Mr. Davis, the ordinary, leading the way, and reading as he went some of the opening verses of the burial service. At the little porch leading to the gallows the Sheriffs and officers stopped. Dr. Cappel alone ascended it with the guilty man. The clergymen at once took their places on the line of sawdust, which had been laid to mark the outline of the drop which falls, and which without such a signal to denote its situation, might easily have been overlooked in the dusky black of the whole well-worn apparatus. Close after them, with a light, natural step, came Muller. His arms were pinioned close behind him; his face was very pale indeed, but still it wore an easy and, if it could be said at such a time, even a cheerful expression, as much removed from mere bravado as it seemed to be from fear. His whole bearing and aspect were natural. Like a soldier falling into the ranks, he took with a steady step his place beneath the beam, then, looking up, and seeing that he was not exactly beneath the proper spot whence the short, black link of chain depended, he shifted a few inches, and then stood quite still. Following him close came the common hangman, who at once pulling a white cap over the condemned man's face, fastened his feet with a strap, and shambled off the scaffold amid low hisses. While this was being done Dr. Cappel, addressing the djing 176 Appendix III. man, said, " In a few moments, Miiller, you will stand before God; I ask you again, and for the last time, are you guilty or innocent?" He replied, "I am innocent." Dr. Cappel said, "You are innocent?" repeating his own words in the form of a question. Miiller answered, " God Almighty knows what I have done." Dr. Cappel said, " God Almighty knows what you have done?" again repeating the convict's own words; "Does God know that you have done this particular deed? " Miiller replied, " Yes ; I did it," speaking in German, in which language the whole conversation was conducted. The German expression used by the convict, according to his con- fessor, was " Ich habe es gethan " ; and these were his last words. Almost as soon as these words had left his lips his kind spiritual guides quitted the platform, and the drop fell. Those who stood close to the apparatus could just detect a movement twice, so slight, indeed, that it could scarcely be called a movement, but rather an almost imperceptible muscu- lar flicker that passed through the frame. This was all, and before the peculiar humming noise of the crowd was over Muller had ceased to live, though as he hung his features seemed to swell and sharpen so under the thin white cap that the dead man's face at last stood out like a cast in plaster. For five or ten minutes the crowd, who knew nothing of his confession, were awed and stilled by this quiet, rapid passage from life to death. The impression, however, if any real impression, if it was beyond that of mere curiosity, did not last for long, and before the slight, slow vibrations of the body had well ended robbery and violence, loud laughing, oaths, fighting, obscene conduct, and still more filthy language reigned round the gallows far and near. Such, too, the scene re- mained, with little change or^ respite, till the old hangman slunk again along the drop amid hisses and sneering inquiries of what he had had to drink that morning. He, after failing once to cut the rope, made a second effort more successfully, and the body of Muller disappeared from view. So greatly relieved was Dr. Cappel by the confession that he rushed from the scaffold, exclaiming, "Thank God! Thank God!" and sank down in a chair, completely exhausted by his own emotion. After recovering, he repeated in English, in the presence of the Sheriffs and Under-Slieriffs and the representa- tives of the newspaper press, of whom there were four, what had just passed between him and the convict, precisely as it has been related above. From this it will be seen that the convict fenced with the questions as to his guilt down to the latest moment of his existence, and that it was not until the last ray of hope had fled that he confessed. Dr. Cappel afterwards stated to the Sheriffs that in his interviews with him the conversation of the prisoner, whenever it touched upon x 177 Franz Muller. the murder, appeared to be intended to produce an impression that he was innocent. There were other sins of which the con- vict said he was guilty, but whenever he was pressed with reference to the murder he evaded the subject in some way, or, to use Dr. Cappel's own words, " He hid that particular sin under his garment, as it were." Mr. Sheriff Dakin asked if the last words used by the convict, " I did it," conveyed to the mind of Dr. Cappel the impression that he alone had done it. The reverend gentleman replied in the affirmative. He added that the hope of life was so strong in him that he appeared to have made up his mind not to confess until the last moment. That at least was his impression. He even declared he was innocent while the sacrament was being administered to him. Dr. Cappel went on to say to the authorities that he exhorted him, in the name of the living God, if he had committed the murder, not to deny it ; and that the convict made no reply. From the interviews he had had with Muller he was convinced, he said, he was not a common murderer. At one of those interviews he said to the convict that there was perhaps a loop- hole by which he hoped to escape that if he had a hand in the deed he perhaps yielded to a sudden temptation to take Mr. Briggs's watch, and that in a struggle the deceased fell out of a carriage or that he pushed him out; but, however that might be, he (Dr. Cappel) believed he had had a hand in it. To this the convict made no answer, but, evading the question, said there were other sins of which he was guilty. The time has been, and very lately too, when the dress in which a felon died, or even a cast of his distorted features, would have been worth their weight in gold. But nothing of this catering for the wretched curiosity of the gallows is permitted now. In whatever clothes our worst felons die, these garments, whether good or bad, are burnt before their burial, so that all that may be called the traces of their crime are destroyed with its perpetrator. There is something as just as it is painful, and as just as it is really useful, in this cold obloquy of human nature against its worst dead. There is a feeling among us all which impels us to reverence the earth in which the bones of our departed kindred rest, but from this last consolation even the nearest and dearest relatives of murderers are debarred. For, for those that die upon the scaffold, there is no tomb but Newgate a tomb such as the few who love the felon best can only leave with shuddering hope that it may be forgotten. In Newgate there is no solemnity of burial ; it is a mere hurried covering of the body of one who was not fit to live among mankind. So with the corpse of Muller. It had died publicly; the surgeon had certified to its shameful death. Towards the middle of the day the rough deal box which held it was filled with shavings 178 Appendix IV. and quicklime, and the warders carried it to the hole where it had to be thrust under the flagstones of a narrow, bleak, gaol pathway. There, below the massive cross-barred grat- ings which almost shut out the light of day there, where none pass the little hidden grave save those who, like himself must go over it to their great tomb, the body of Muller rests. In a few days the cruelty and singularity of his great crime will be commemorated by a rough " M " cut in the gaol stone near his head, just as Greenacre, Good, and others of the worst are marked beside him. In that foul Aceldama will his bones bleach with theirs till the great day, when he must rise with them and answer for his great crime. It is understood that Muller prepared a paper some days before his execution, and that it came into the hands of the Sheriffs on Sunday night. This, it is said, was not a con- fession, but was, on the contrary, little else than what has already been made public at different times by the German Legal Protection Society. In consequence of the confession actually made by Muller it is understood that the Sheriffs did not consider it just to other persons referred to in the paper to make any use of it; that they sealed the document, and will probably make some communication to the Court of Aldermen in reference to it to-day. APPENDIX IV. CORRBSPONDHNOB RELATING TO MuLLER's CONFESSION ON THB SCAFFOLD. On 12th March, 1887, in a series entitled " Celebrated Crimes and Criminals," then appearing in the Sporting Times under the signature, " W. M.," an account was given of the murder of Mr. Briggs and the trial and execution of Muller. The pub- lication of this account led to the following correspondence, which commenced in the Sporting Times of 19th March and was continued on subsequent dates. MULLER'S DEATH. (To the Editor of the Sporting Times.) Dear Corlett, In your account last week of the trial and execution of Franz Muller, whose defence, you may remember, 179 Franz Muller. was entrusted to my care, you state that Muller 's last words, in reply to Dr. Cappel's question, were, " Yes, I have done it." This is incorrect. What he said was, " Ich habe." He had no time to finish the sentence, which might have been " Ich habe es nicht gethan" (I have not done it). His innocence or guilt, therefore, so far as his own confession is concerned, must ever remain a moot point. Your giving publicity to this will oblige, yours faithfully, THO. BEARD. 10 Basinghall Street. MULLIR'S LAST DYING SPEECH AND CONFESSION. (To the Editor of the Sporting Times.) Sir, I am astonished that Mr. Beard should attribute in- correctness to the version published in the Sporting Times of the last words uttered by Muller, and which are now, it may be said, a matter of history. Surely Dr. Cappel, who stood close to the wretched culprit on the scaffold at the last moment, is the only man entitled to speak with any degree of certainty as to what Muller did or did not say? And what is Dr. Cappel's version 1 I would respectfully refer Mr. Beard to the Times newspaper of 22nd and 24th November, 1864. In the former is a letter from Dr. Cappel to the Hermann, giving Miiller's last words verbatim, and as they were given in my recent article. The next day Dr. Cappel himself addressed the Times as follows : " Sir, In answer to the letter signed, ' The Writer of the Notes,' in the columns of the Times of to-day, I beg to say that your reporter, after the execution, carefully took down the last words of Muller from my own lips, and that they were correctly given in your journal of Tuesday, the 15th inst., where they are stated to have been, ' Yes, I did it.' The account given to me by the editor of the Hermann corresponds exactly with that of the Times. I am, sir, your obedient servant, " Louis CAPPEL, D.D. " November 23." This letter, so far as I am aware, terminated the controversy, such as it was, and it would probably interest many others besides myself if Mr. Beard would tell us what grounds he has for saying, with such apparent confidence, that Miiller's inno- cence or guilt, so far as his own confession is concerned, must ever remain a moot point. Yours faithfully, W. M. 1 80 Appendix IV. MULLER'S LAST WORDS. (To the Editor of the Sporting Times.) Dear Corlett, Before your correspondent, " W. M.," takes exception to my correction, may I ask him to reconcile the various statements he puts into the mouth of Muller? In your issue of March 12th it was, "Yes, I have done it"; on the 19th, "Yes, I did it"; and, turning to Dr. C'appel's letter, to which he refers me, I find Muller did not speak in English at all, but in German. When " W. M." has made up his mind what Muller did say, he shall have the reply of yours faithfully, THOS. BEARD. 10 Basinghall Street, London, E.C. MULLER'S LAST DYING SPEECH AND CONFESSION. (To the Editor of the Sporting Times.) Sir, I had hoped that my " last words " respecting Muller's " last words " had already been tolerably explicit; but, as Mr. Beard asks me to " make up my mind " as to what they were, I must crave space for another letter. In the account I wrote in the Sporting Times of March 12th, I said that those words* (being interpreted) were, " Yes, I have done it." Of course I know the conversation was in German, and I said so in the article. Surely Mr. Beard must know that the German words, " Ich habe es gethan," are as equally cor- rectly translated by " I have done it " as by " I did it "1 In one letter Dr. Cappel uses the first, and in the other the second expression. But the words are exactly synonymous, and it seems to me mere hair-splitting on Mr. Beard's part to attempt to establish any distinction between them. I append a letter from Muller's spiritual adviser to the editor of the Hermann, published in the Times of November 22nd, 1864, and can only again ask Mr. Beard to substantiate his assertion that I was* incorrect, and that Muller might have said, " Ich habe es nicht gethan," a hypothesis in support of which I have failed to discover anything in the correspondence of the period; for, if Dr. Cappel was not in the best position to hear the last words uttered by Muller, who, may I ask, was? Yours faithfully, W. M. ill Franz Muller. Honoured Editor, I hereby discharge the duty intrusted to me by Franz Muller shortly before his death, of thanking the German Legal Protection Society for the efforts they made to save him. At the last moment the unhappy man admitted his guilt, with a firm, clear voice, and in the full possession of his senses ; and it has all the more signification because of the care- fully chosen words he used. The last words exchanged between him and me on the scaffold are as follow : Question " Muller, in a few minutes you will stand before your God. I ask you again, and for the last time, are you guilty or innocent? " (Miiller, in wenigen Augenblicken stehen Sie vor Gott; Ich frage Sie nochmals und zum letzten Male, sind Sie schuldig oder unschuldig?) Answer "I am innocent" (Ich bin unschuldig). Question ' ' You are innocent 1 ' ' (Sie sind unschuldig ?) Answer " God knows what I have done " (Gott weiss was Ich gethan habe). Question "God knows what you have done; does he also know if you have committed this crime? " (Gott weiss was Sie gethan haben ; weiss Er auch dass Sie dies Verbrechen gethan haben ?) Answer " Yes, I have done it " (Ja, Ich habe es gethan). An hour and a half before his execution Muller had declared himself innocent. I then told him that I would not press him further, but that my last words to him would be, " Are you guilty or innocent? " With an earnest and passive look he remained one or two minutes silent, standing before. He then suddenly cried out, with tears in his eyes, and throwing his arms round my neck, " Do not leave me; remain with me to the last." I judged by this that he had determined to make a confession. That this resolution was formed only at the last moment is quite in keeping with the firmness of his strange character, which kept steadily to a denial of the crime with friend and enemy until the very last glimmering of hope had disappeared; and really his uniform quietude and his mild and seeming open disposition were enough to enlist the sympathy of any one, to disarm distrust, and to deceive completely even the most experienced judges of human nature. The persistency of Muller in his denial was probably owing to his strong love of life, and his seeming frankness partly explains itself by the supposition of which I am fully convinced that no murder had been intended, but that the robbery led to the death of the victim. Happily for him that even with his last breath he has atoned for his heavy sin to God, to men, and to his friends, through the acknowledgment of his guilt. I never could believe in his complete innocence, but after he had repeatedly requested it, I attended him in his cell, with the honest resolu- tion of accomplishing my duty with forbearance and humanity, 182 Appendix IV. and I carry in my heart the grateful conviction that I refreshed the unfortunate man in his sorrowful hours and prepared and strengthened him for eternity. The proof of this is the sincere love he had for me, and in the name of which he confided to my care his last and dearest possessions a letter to his father and a document he wrote in prison. I express my dearest thanks to all my German countrymen for the great and touch- ing proofs of sympathy and confidence I received from them on all sides. But to the German Legal Protection Society and you, Mr. Editor, who, penetrated by the persuasions of his innocence, have spent night and day in endeavouring to save Muller, and have gladly sacrificed quietness, sleep, and health to you, before all, are the thanks of Germans due, and in the name of every friend of humanity I warmly press your hand. Highly respectfully, your devoted, DR. Louis CAPPBL, Pastor of the German Lutheran Church, St. George, in Little Alie Street, Goodman's Fields. MULLER' s LAST WORDS. (To the Editor of the Sporting Times.) Sir, As I happen to be the only person now living who was on the scaffold when Muller uttered his last words, I am able to contribute something definite to the controversy which the article in the Sporting Times has provoked. I remember the whole of the circumstances as if they had occurred last week, and I believe I shall never forget them. The great public excitement caused by the murder of Mr. Briggs, and the striking incidents connected with the capture and conviction of Muller, was followed by more than ordinary desire to be present at the hanging. The Sheriffs made un- usual preparations outside the prison, and resolved to admit none inside beyond those whose duty it was to be there, and three representatives of the Press. The three selected were the late Mr. Sarlsby, of the Times', the late Mr. Potter, of the Globe ; and Mr. Clyatt, who was to represent all the rest of the papers. I was at the time a sub-editor on the Globe, and, as I felt my education would not be complete without having seen a hanging, I arranged that I should take Mr. Potter's place. I had an additional incentive in the fact that Mr. Gilpin's perennial motion for the abolition of capital punish- ment was making way, and most people supposed that, because 183 Franz Muller. he was persistent, he would succeed. I was not alone in think- ing it likely that Muller would be the last man hanged in this country, and I propose to tell the story of what occurred on that memorable morning. We met the Sheriffs in the London Coffee-house, on Ludgate Hill, at seven o'clock, and shortly afterwards went round by way of Paternoster Row to a hole that had been made in the wall, through which we passed into the Court-house of the Old Bailey. After a short halt we passed into the chapel yard of the prison, and there we came in view of Muller, standing beside his gaoler, uncovered and apparently unconcerned, waiting for us. The grey light of the chill November morning gave the pair a weird look as they stood on the other side of an open doorway, for it was impossible to divest the scene of the know- ledge of what was about to happen. As we approached, the gaoler led the way with Muller through other courts, and then through a corridor with black stone walls on each side, stone pavement underfoot, and an iron grating overhead, between us and the sky. I have often wondered since whether Muller knew that this corridor was the burial place of those who were hanged, and the place where he would be buried a few hours afterwards, buried in quicklime under those heavy paving stones, with no record but his initials rudely carved on the stone wall, and that only because he was a more than ordinarily famous murderer. From this grim sepulchre we passed to the Press room, a small chamber, low in the ceiling, and very much like a kitchen, with a deal table and some wooden chairs in it. Here we met Cal- craft, and the duties of the gaoler were at an end. I had never seen Calcraft before, and I was very much struck with his benevolent and even amiable appearance. His snowy- white hair and beard, and his quiet, self-possessed manner, was in ridiculous contrast to everything in the nature of violence, and I could hardly conceive it possible that one of us dozen people in that little room was going to be hanged in five minutes. Calcraft, however, was as quick in his movements as he was noiseless. Scarcely had Muller been placed with his back to Calcraft, and we who had followed him arranged ourselves in a half circle in front of him, than Calcraft had buckled a broad leather belt round Miiller's waist. Two small straps, fixed to this belt in the middle of the back, were as rapidly passed round the man's arms, and in a trice his elbows were fixed fast to his sides. Muller clasped his hands in the most natural manner, and in this position they were strapped together by a pair of leather handcuffs. The man was pinioned past re- demption ; and then began a scene that gave a thorough wrench to my nerves. Calcraft, still noiseless and unimpassioned, was moving around his victim with ominous precision. The belt was tight, the arms were fixed, the hands clasped, and 184 Appendix IV. the whole frame at his mercy. He then removed the necktie, and after that the collar. With gruesome delicacy he tucked both within the waistcoat, and Miiller was prepared. " You may sit down," said Caloraft quietly, but Miiller declined. Cool beyond any one in the room, unless Calcraft excelled him, he stood with his short round neck fully exposed, and well placed on a pair of broad shoulders and a firm, round chest. There was not much need to argue the question as to whether Miiller could or could not handle poor old Mr. Briggs. Muller was a small man, but he was the personifica- tion of strength, and with a jaw that meant dogged, resistless obstinacy of purpose. He did not appear to pay much heed to Dr. Cappel, the minister, who spoke to him in the intervals of the pinioning, and he listened, apparently without concern, as the Lutheran became more earnest in his invocation after the preparations were complete. Calcraft left the room, and we all guessed where he had gone to. It was at that time I felt as if a little more callousness would have served me well. To be a passive spectator at such a scene is not a sedative. The imagination will not leave the bare neck and the pinioned arms. One thinks of the hangman examining his rope and the hinges and bolts, and one feels a terribly eerie feeling creeping over one. I had to take myself seriously in hand, and I had resource to an odd expedient. I ate a piece of biscuit, and the distraction carried me over the horrid interval, which was made all the more impressive by the constant tolling of the bell of St. Sepulchre's Church. Presently, to my great relief, Calcraft reappeared, and the action was renewed. Dr. Cappel stood aside, and the chaplain of the gaol, Mr. Davis, led the way to the scaffold, reading the burial service. The journey was short, and those who remember the old hanging days know that the scaffold was erected outside the gaol in the Old Bailey. It was through the doorway, known as the debtor's entrance, that it was approached from the prison, and it was up a flight of about ten steps that Calcraft led Miiller. Mr. Davis remained below, his duty ended there; but Dr. Cappel followed the hangman and his victim, and I followed Dr. Cappel. No one else went up, and it occurred to me that perhaps Mr. Jonas, the governor of the gaol, to say nothing of the Sheriffs, regarded my presence on the scaffold as an in- trusion; but nothing seemed to me more proper, and I was well repaid for my temerity. I saw the people. Far as the eye could reach, to Ludgate Hill on the one hand and right away to Holborn on the other, the entire space, broad and distant as it was, presented an unbroken mass of human faces types of every unholy passion that humanity is capable of a seething sea of hideous brutality, that had been surging over the space the live long night, and was now almost still with 185 Franz Muller. expectation. The mouths of the myriad of grimy, yellow faces were open, and all the thousands of eyes were upturned upon the spot where I stood with an intentness that was more appalling to me than the methodical movements of Calcraft and the unimpassioned attitude of Muller. The contrast was marvellous. The hangman was curiously busy. He passed a strap round Muller 's legs' and buckled it; he put the rope round Miiller's neck, and tightened the slip knot just under his right ear; he slipped a noose at the other end of the rope over an iron hook depending from the crossbeam of the scaffold, and last of all he pulled a dirty yellow bag over the man's head to his chin. He then stood aside, and the conversation about which all the dispute has arisen commenced between Dr. Cappel and Muller. The minister stood close to Muller, with his feet on the very edge of the drop; I stood just behind him, but nearer the outside of the scaffold. The conversation was hurried. On Dr. Cappel's part it was earnest and excited, but Muller preserved the same stolid, unimpassioned manner that had characterised his attitude throughout. Calcraft, I noticed, disappeared as soon as they began to speak, and I can see Dr. Cappel now leaning forward, with both hands extended, as if to draw Miiller's words to him as the drop fell and Muller disappeared. Calcraft had done his work well. One strong convulsion and all was over. But Dr. Cappel didn't stay to see this. As soon as he recovered from the surprise and alarm caused by the unexpected fall of the drop he dashed down the stairs with his hands aloft, and shouting as he ran, "Confessed, confessed, thank God!" After one more look at the crowd, now a roaring tumult swaying to and fro, I followed close at his heels, and the whole company pressed round him in the chaplain's room, where he told the story of Miiller's last words. Three times he repeated the story within ten minutes of the scene on the scaffold, and each time he told it I took down his words, not partly, but wholly and com- pletely, and the story did not vary. I take it that no evidence can be clearer of what Muller said than what was thrice repeated, by the only man who heard him, immediately after he did hear him. And what Dr. Cappel said was this " When he was standing on the drop, and all was ready, I said, ' In a few moments you will stand before God. I ask you again, and for the last time, are you innocent of this crime? ' " He said, ' I am innocent.' " I said, ' You are innocent? ' " And he said, ' Yes, I am innocent; God knows what I have done.' " I said this ' God knows what you have done, but knows He that you have done this particular deed? ' 1 86 Appendix IV. " And then, instead of answering me ' No,' he said, ' Ich habe es gethan ' (' I have done it '). " He had confessed, and I spoke to him ' Christ have mercy upon your soul ' ; and I believe his very last words were as he fell, ' My God, I feel sure of it.' ' After each recital of this story, Dr. Cappel made running comments on Muller 's demeanour and previous conversations he had with him. These I also took down, and the tenour of them was that Mtiller had never denied unequivocally that he had attacked Mr. Briggs ; he always fenced the question, and Dr. Cappel's theory was that Mliller declined to admit himself guilty of murder because he had not premeditated it. Dr. Cappel evidently afterwards desired to make the con- fession a little more definite than his first record justified; and in his subsequent accounts of what occurred he inserted the word " Ja," or " Yes," before the " I have done it," making out that Muller answered " Yes " to his question whether God knew that he had done this particular deed. In his original account he says, " Instead of answering ' No,' he said, ' I have done it.' ' In his subsequent accounts he seems to have assumed that Muller said " Yes " because he did not say " No." In this Dr. Cappel was> wrong. The curious will find in the record of the execution in the Times second edition a true version of the story. In the next day's Times the "Yes " was inserted, so that it is probable Dr. Cappel may have thought of the " Yes " before nightfall. I am certain the " Yes " was added, because it happened that Mr. Sarlsby did not take down Dr. Cappel's account of the matter. I read my notes to him before leaving the prison, and, as we were doing so, Dr. Cappel came up, and not only approved their accuracy but actually wrote the important sen- tence, " Ich habe es gethan," in Mr. Sarlsby's notebook. He did not write " Ja " before it. Still, it may be taken that Muller confessed to the fact, but declined to admit that he had committed murder. Dr. Cappel's words were as I have set them down, and every one can construe them for himself. Yours, &c., FREDERICK WICKS. Glasgow. MULLER'S LAST WORDS. (To the Editor of the Sporting Times.) Sir, I have read with much interest the letter of my old friend, Mr. Frederick Wicks, on this subject, and from the accounts which my late father (whose name you misprint 187 Franz Muller. Sarlsby) used to give of the incidents of the execution, I can entirely corroborate all that Mr. Wicks so ably narrates. As he states, the Rev. Dr. Cappel wrote in my father's notebook the exact words in German which had fallen from Muller immediately before the drop fell viz., " Ich babe es gethan." There can be no doubt that in Dr. Cappel's mind this amounted to a confession by Muller of his guilt of Mr. Briggs's murder a confession which he had purposely delayed until the failure of every effort for a reprieve had brought him to the very brink of eternity. This was my father's fixed impression on the matter, and perhaps no one had a better opportunity of forming a judgment upon it. Yours truly, WILLIAM J. SOULSBY. 75 Victoria Street, S.W. APPENDIX V. SHORT ACCOUNT OF THIS JUDGES AND COUNSEL ENGAGED IN THB CASE. SIR JONATHAN FREDERICK POLLOCK (1783-1870) was the son of David Pollock, saddler, of Charing Cross, and brother of Sir David Pollock, Chief Justice of Bombay, and Field Marshal Sir George Pollock, the hero of the Afghan war, in 1842. Frederick Pollock was born in London on the 23rd of September, 1783, and educated at St. Paul's and Trinity College, Cambridge. He was Senior Wrangler in 1806, and in the following year was elected Fellow of his college. He was called to the bar in 1807, at the Middle Temple, and joined the Northern Circuit. By his industry, ability, and wide legal knowledge he soon acquired a very large practice both in London and on circuit. After twenty years of ever-increasing success he took silk in 1827, and in 1831 was elected as Tory member for Huntingdon, which town he repre- sented continuously until his elevation to the bench. Sir Robert Peel made him Attorney-General in 1834, and again, when he resumed office in 1841. Sir Frederick Pollock held this office till 1844, when he was appointed Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, in succession to Lord Abinger, and sworn of the Privy Council. He presided over the Court of Ex- chequer for twenty -two years, retiring on a pension in 1866, when he accepted a baronetcy. His judicial career was 1 88 Appendix V. honourable and distinguished. In spite of his deep legal learning, " his leaning was ever to the side of substantial justice rather than to mere technical accuracy. Kind, gentle, and courteous, he made an admirable President of his Court, and there was no judge more fitted to conduct great criminal trials with dignity and distinction." It fell to his lot to preside over four famous trials for murder : those of the Mannings for the murder of O'Connor, in 1849; of Mullins, for the murder of Mrs. Elmsley, at Stepney, in 1860 ; of Muller ; and of Kohl, for the Plaistow Marshes murder, in 1865. In the obituary notice of the judge in the Times, the writer de- scribes how at Muller 's trial " his emphatic eloquence moved the deepest feelings of the audience, among whom every sound was hushed, and every nerve painfully strained, as the full force of some apparently trivial point of evidence was pointed out, and its bearing explained to the jury." Pollock survived his retirement for four years, dying of old age on the 23rd of August, 1870. He was then eighty-seven. Married twice, the Chief Baron had eighteen children, distinguished among them being Sir William Frederick Pollock, Queen's Remembrancer, scholar, and man of letters, and Sir Charles Edward Pollock, Baron of the Exchequer (1873-1897), the last survivor of these now extinct dignitaries. Among the living grandsons of the Chief Baron who have achieved dis- tinction in various walks of life may be reckoned Sir Frederick Pollock, Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1883-1903, and a well-known writer on legal subjects; Walter Herries Pollock, critic and man of letters; Ernest Pollock, K.C., member for Warwick in the present Parliament; and Dr. Bertram Pollock, ex -headmaster of Wellington, now Bishop of Norwich. SIR SAMUEL MAKTIN (1801-1883) was the son of Samuel Martin of Culmore, Co. Londonderry; he was born in 1801. On leaving Trinity College, Dublin, he entered Gray's Inn in 1821 ; he was called to the bar at the Middle Temple in 1830, after practising two years as a special pleader. He was " devil " to Sir Frederick Pollock, his friend, and later, in 1838, became his son-in-law. He joined the Northern Circuit. A good commercial lawyer, he won his first great success as an advocate in 1839, in the " Bloomsbury " case, in which he recovered for the plaintiff, Mr. Ridsdale, the Ascot Derby stakes that had been won by his colt, " Bloomsbury," but had been refused to him on the ground of a misdescription of the horse. Mr. Martin took silk in 1843, and entered Parliament as the Liberal member for Pontefract, 1847. Three years later he was appointed a Baron of the Exchequer. He sat as a 189 judge for twenty-four years, revered for his practical knowledge, good sense, and pleasant humour. Severe in his punishment of crime, his severity was always tempered by a natural kind- ness of heart. Increasing deafness alone compelled him to retire from the bench in 1874, when he was sworn of the Privy Council. He survived his retirement eleven years, dying on the 26th of January, 1883, at the age of eighty-two. His only child, a daughter, married Mr. Macnaghten, who in 1888 was created a Lord of Appeal, and still, at the age of eighty- one, continues to be one of the shining lights in that august tribunal. SIB ROBERT PORRETT COLLIER, first Lord Monkswell (1817- 1886), was the elder son of Mr. John Collier, merchant, of Plymouth. After being educated partly at Plymouth and partly under private tuition, he went to Trinity College, Cam- bridge. Ill-health obliged him to give up a University career. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1843, joined the Western Circuit, and first won success by his defence of the Brazilian pirates, at Exeter, in 1845. He was appointed Recorder of Penzance, and entered Parliament as Liberal member for Plymouth, in 1852. He was appointed somewhat unexpectedly Solicitor-General in 1863. When the Liberal Government returned to office in 1868 he became Attorney - General. His appointment as a member of the Judicial Com- mittee of the Privy Council, in 1871, excited some scandal, not j on account of any want of merit on his part, but on account of the circumstances under which it was made. By the Privy Council Act it had been stipulated that two of the members of the Judicial Committee should be chosen from among the judges of the superior Courts' at Westminster. In order to technically fulfil this qualification, Collier was appointed to a puisne judge- Iship in the Court of Common Pleas ; he held this office for only a few days, sitting in the ill-fitting robes of his predecessor; he was then promoted to the Privy Council. The two Chief Justices, Cockbura and Bovill, protested strongly against such a violation of the dignity of the judicial bench, and the matter was taken up warmly in Parliament by Lord Westbury and Lord Cairns. At the same time no question was ever raised as to the fitness of Collier to hold the position. He sat on the Judicial Committee until his death, which occurred at Grasee on the 27th of October, 1886. In 1885 he had been created a peer, taking the title of Lord Monkswell. In addition to his high legal reputation, Lord Monkswell was an accom- plished scholar, a writer of verse, and a painter. His son, the second Lord Monkswell, who died in 1909, was Chairman of the London County Council in 1903, and another son, the Hon. John Collier, is the well-known artist. 190 Appendix V. WILLIAM BALLANTINB (1812-1887) was the eldest son of William Ballantine, police magistrate; he was educated at St. Paul's and Ashburnham House, Blackheath, and called to the bar at the Inner Temple, 1834. He joined the Home Circuit and the Central Criminal Court. One of his first suc- cesses was his cross-examination, in a suit in the House of Lords, to annul the marriage of an heiress, Esther Field, on the ground of coercion and fraud, in the year 1848, when he was opposed alone to Sir Fitzroy Kelly and a number of dis- tinguished counsel. From that moment his professional pro- gress was steady, and he soon acquired a reputation as one of the most successful advocates of his day. In 1856 he was made Serjeant at Law, but it was not till 1863 that he obtained from Lord Westbury his patent of precedence. His name is connected with almost all the causes celebres of this period. He was counsel for the Tichborne claimant in the original action for ejectment, after which he was wise enough to withdraw from the case. In 1875 he went to India at a fee of 10,000 to defend the Gaekwar of Baroda, who was* accused of attempting to poison the British Resident. He succeeded in procuring the acquittal of his client. This case was the last of his great successes. Not long after he retired from active work at the bar, and died in comparative poverty. In 1882 he pub- lished his " Experiences of a Barrister's Life," a careless and disappointing work. Ballantine's gifts, particularly as a cross-examiner, were remarkable, his knowledge of human nature astute. Had he possessed greater stability of character, there can be no doubt that he would have risen to a place of far higher dignity in his profession. Montagu Williams, who knew him well, thus describes him " The Serjeant was a very extraordinary man. He was the best cross-examiner of his kind that I have ever heard, and the quickest at solving facts. It was not necessary for him to read his brief; he had a marvellous faculty for picking up a case as it went along or learning all the essentials in a hurried colloquy with his junior. There is no point that the Serjeant might not have attained in his profession had he only possessed more ballast. He was, however, utterly reckless, generous to a fault, and heedless of the future. His opinion of men could never be relied upon, for he praised or blamed them from day to day, just as they happened to please or annoy him. He often said bitter things, but never, I think, ill-naturedly. His fault was probably that he did not give himself time to think before he spoke." Montagu Williams adds that Ballantine had great charm of manner, was never afraid of a " dead " case, and " was always cheery and bright." JAMBS HANNBN (1821-1894) was the son of James Hannen, wine merchant. He was educated at St. Paul's and Heidel- 191 , Franz Muller. berg University, was called to the bar in 1848, and joined the Home Circuit. After a successful career as a junior, he was appointed Attorney-General's " devil," in 1863, and in 1865 stood unsuccessfully for Parliament as a Liberal candidate. He was appointed a puisne judge of the Court of Queen's Bench, and knighted in the year 1868. In 1872 he was transferred as judge to the Court of Probate and Divorce, and in 1875 became President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice. It was while President of the Divorce Court that he was placed at the head of the Parnell Commission, with Sir John Day and Sir A. L. Smith. He ful- filled the difficult duties of that place with tact, dignity, and discretion. In 1891 he was made a Lord of Appeal, and held that office until his death, in 1894. It is not too much to say that no judge has left behind him a higher reputation for fair- ness, dignity, and learning. SIB HARDINGB GIFFABD, first Earl of Halsbury, the third son of Stanley Lees Giffard, editor of the Standard newspaper, was born on the 3rd of September, 1823. He was educated privately and at Merton College, Oxford, whence he graduated B.A. in 1845. Entering at the Inner Temple in 1846, he was called to the bar, 25th January, 1850. Attaching himself to the South Wales Circuit, and attending regularly at the Central Criminal Court and Middlesex Sessions, he from the first showed great capacity asi an advocate, and in 1861 he became one of the standing counsel for the Treasury, a post which he vacated on taking silk in 1865. He figures largely in the most important prosecutions of the day, including the trial of the Fenians for the Clerkenwell explosion of December, 1867. He appeared for Governor Eyre at the Market Drayton Sessions in the same year, and for some of the defendants in the Overend and Gurney case ; in the ejectment action of Tick- borne v. Lushington he was led by Serjeant Ballantine for the claimant. He unsuccessfully contested Cardiff in the Con- servative interest in 1868 and in 1874, and he was returned to Parliament for the first time as member for Launceston in March, 1877, having been appointed Solicitor-General, though without a seat in the House of Commons, in November, 1875, when he received the honour of knighthood. As law officer he appeared, together with Sir John Holker, in a series of sensational trials, to which reference has already been made. In the 1880 Parliament he played a prominent part, being especially conspicuous in the opposition to Mr. Bradlaugh, and he enjoyed a large practice at nisi prius. His most famous verdict was that of 5000 for the plaintiff in Belt v. Lawcs. He became Lord Chancellor under the title of Baron 192 Appendix V. Halsbury, in June, 1885, and, following the fortunes of his party, he received the seals again in July, 1886, and June, 1895. In 1898 the dignity of an earldom was conferred upon him, and his son bears the courtesy title of Lord Tiverton. Whether on the woolsack, in the Privy Council, or in the Court of Appeal, he has shown himself a judge of the highest rank. A good authority has> declared that he is in the widest sense the greatest master of the common law since Lord Mansfield. " He quitted the bar in the heyday of his fame. The dis- appearance of Holker had left him perhaps the most successful advocate of his day in that class of case where the appeal is to the sentiment, the emotions, or the prejudices of the jury. An admirable speaker and a fine cross-examiner, his pugnacious and combative spirit was kept in strict subordination to the needs of the hour, while it used to be said of him that he was the only man at the bar who would stand up to Charles Russell with absolute and unmistakable confidence." Atlay, "Victorian Chancellors," ii. 441. JOHN HUMFPRETS PARRY (1816-1880) was the eldest son of John Humffreys Parry, solicitor, better known to fame as a learned Welsh antiquarian. Brought up to commerce, Parry preferred a place in the printed book department of the British Museum to a seat in a merchant's office. While there he studied for the bar, to which he was called at the Middle Temple in 1843. Like many celebrated advocates, he com- menced his career in the criminal Courts, attending the Home Circuit, the Central Criminal Court, and the Middlesex Sessions. He soon acquired considerable civil business, was made Serjeant at Law in 1856, and granted a patent of precedence in 1864. He appeared in many celebrated cases. He defended Manning for murder in 1849, was one of the counsel for the prosecution in the trial at bar of the Tichborne claimant, and appeared for the plaintiff in the action of Whistler v. Euskin in 1878. He stood twice for Parliament as an advanced Liberal, unsuccessfully contesting Norwich, in 1847, and Finsbury, in 1857. He died in London on the 10th of January, 1880. Montagu Williams, in his "Leaves of a Life," draws a very pleasant picture of Parry " Remarkably solid in appearance, his countenance was broad and expansive, beaming with honesty ( and frankness. His cross-examination was of a quieter kind than that of Serjeant Ballantine. It was, however, almost as effective. He drew the witness on in a smooth, good-humoured, artful, and partly magnetic fashion. His attitude towards his adversary also was peculiar; he never indulged in bickering, was always perfectly polite, and was most to be feared when he seemed to be making a concession. If in the course of a o 193 Muller Trial. trial he, without being asked, handed his adversary a paper with the words, ' wouldn't you like to see this,' or some kindred observation, let that adversary beware that there was something deadly underneath." The author of a delightful little book of legal reminiscences recently published (" Pie Powder." By a Circuit Tramp) places Parry as an advocate in certain respects pi*e-eminent among those he recollectsi; "though," he says, "he may not have had the force of Russell, the silver tongue of Coleridge, or the incisive skill of Hawkins as a cross-examiner," he declares that in sheer power of persuasion with a jury Parry has never had an equal within his experience. No man was ever more popular with his pro- fession. A good friend and a genial host, Parry must have been a delightful companion. He married the daughter of Edwin Abbott, a well-known writer on education, and for some time headmaster of the Philological School at Marylebone, where Parry had been educated. He left two sons, the second of whom, Edward Abbott Parry, recently appointed County Court judge at Lambeth, held for some time that office in Man- chester, and is not only a most popular and worthy judge, but a well-known author and dramatist. 194 UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME. NOTABLE ENGLISH TRIALS. Already published. Price 5s. net each. THE TRIAL OF THE STAUNTONS (The Penge Mystery). Edited by J. B. ATLAY, M.A., Barrister-at-law. Dedicated to Sir Edward Clarke, K.C. "The Penge case has been admirably edited by Mr. J. B. Atlay, M.A., one of the most brilliant and best informed of our modern criminologists." GEORGE R. SIMS in The Referee. " Not only a welcome addition to an interesting body of literature, but a valuable reinforcement of legal libraries." Manchester Guardian. " It is a fascinating story which the editor has presented ; a tale of real life with real characters." Morning Post. " The editor has produced a most interesting and readable volume, and is to be congratulated on an excellent piece of work." Scots Law Times. THE TRIAL OF FRANZ MULLER. Edited by H. B. IRVING, M.A.(Oxon), Dedicated to Lord Halsbury. The following trials are in preparation and will be published in due course : THE ANNESLEY CASE. Edited by ANDREW LANG. WILLIAM PALMER. Edited by GEORGE H. KNOTT, Barrister-at-law. LORD LOVAT. Edited by DAVID N. MACKAY, Solicitor. Dr. GEORGE H. LAMSON. Edited by H. L. ADAM. Mrs. MAYBRICK. Edited by H. B. IRVING, M.A.(Oxon). NOTABLE SCOTTISH TRIALS. THE object of this series is to present a full and authentic record of the more notable Trials that have a place in the annals of our Scottish jurisprudence. Of many of these Trials the details are at the present time not readily accessible, being either confined to the pages of official reports or buried in the files of the daily press ; and the volumes issued include such a narrative of our more important causes c'elebres as shall prove not only of interest to the general reader, but also of utility to those concerned, professionally or otherwise, with the study and application of the legal principles involved in the various cases to be dealt with. To each Trial a separate volume has been assigned; and, where available, the evidence has been reproduced in full, special care being taken to ensure accuracy of detail. The series is founded upon careful research into every available source of information, and, so far as permissible, the opportunity has been taken of consulting with and acquiring reliable information from gentlemen who may have been authoritatively associated with any of the Trials in contemplation. "A remarkable series." Glasgow Herald. "Altogether a most interesting and welcome series these 'Notable Scottish Trials.'" Law Journal. "Messrs. William Hodge & Co. are doing distinct service not only to the legal profession, but also to the general public by the publication of ' Notable Scottish Trials.' " Dundee Courier. " Messrs. William Hodge & Co. are doing good public service in issuing a series of volumes dealing with ' Notable Scottish Trials. ' Since many of these trials took place a new generation has arisen, to whom most of the persons tried are mere names, and the series promised by Messrs. Hodge & Co. will necessarily take the form of educative works of considerable historic value." The Scotsman. "While abounding in the dramatic interest of the 'higher crime," they are edited with all the completeness and accuracy and attention to the legal issues involved of reports intended for lawyers ; and there is no class of reading more useful for students of law than the study of the laws of evidence as they appear in practice during such trials. At the same time for the general reader they have the intense fascination of revelation of the darker side of human nature. " Saturday Review. Notable Scottish Trials THE TRIAL OF MADELEINE SMITH. Edited by A. DUNCAN SMITH, F.S.A.(Scot), Advocate. Dedicated to Lord Young. Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 400 pp. Price 53. I 95- " As a record of one of the most remarkable criminal trials of modern times, the book will be found of supreme interest." The Scotsman, " The publishers are to be congratulated on their selection of Mr. Duncan Smith as the editor of the present number. He brings to his task a delightful freshness, and unfolds the romantic tale in a truly romantic manner. . . . It is only when we come to the appendices that the real importance of Mr. Smith's report is apparent. Those show an amount of research unequalled in any report of the trial yet issued. . . . It is not too much to say that, if the succeeding volumes maintain the high standard of work which marks the present number, the series should have a ready and abundant market," Glasgow Herald. THE TRIAL OF THE CITY OF GLASGOW BANK DIRECTORS. Edited by WILLIAM WALLACE, Advocate, Sheriff-Substitute, Oban. Fully illustrated from contemporary photographs. Demy 8vo, 500 pp. Price 53. 1905- "The evidence on both sides is given verbatim, and the entire work of editing has been exceedingly well done by Mr. William Wallace. There are some excellent portraits." Glasgow Citizen. "Mr. Wallace, the editor, has discharged his duty admirably, and his skilful guidance is exceedingly helpful and valuable. The introductory chapter is a singularly lucid and effective piece of writing." Aberdeen Daily Journal. THE TRIAL OF DR. PRITCHARD. Edited by WILLIAM ROUGHEAD, W.S., Edinburgh. Dedicated to the late Sheriff Brand, Ayr. Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 346 pp. Price 55. 1906. "The narrative is most interesting, and one which lawyers and laymen alike will read with fixed attention." Law Times. " Mr. Roughead's highly interesting book." Lancet. " One of the most absorbing of a remarkable series. "Glasgow Herald. Notable Scottish Trials continued. THE TRIAL OF EUGENE MARIE CHANTRELLE. Edited by A. DUNCAN SMITH, F.S.A.(Scot.). Dedicated to Sir Henry D. Little- john, M.D., LL.D. Demy 8vo, 250 pp. Price 53. 1906. "The book is a thoroughly well-edited chapbook." Daily News. " Apart from its undoubted interest as a tragic story, the book is valuable as a judicial record." Glasgow News. " Apart from its interest for lawyers and medical men, the book possesses a strong fascination for the general reader. It is full of human tragedy." Dttndee Courier. " Mr. Duncan Smith may be congratulated on the able manner in which he has executed his task." Law Times. THE TRIAL OF DEACON BRODIE. Edited by WILLIAM ROUGHEAD, W.S., Edinburgh. Dedicated to the Honourable Lord Dundas. Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 280 pp. Price 53. 1907. " The work forms a valuable addition to the series of ' Notable Scottish Trials.' " The Scotsman. " This volume admirably edited by Mr. Roughead. . . . The editor has con- tributed a very full and well-handled introduction." The Daily News. "The volume is edited by Mr. Wm. Roughead, whose introduction, giving a succinct account of the Deacon's career, is a thoroughly capable piece of work." The Tribune. "This biography . . . more interesting than many novels." The Daily Telegraph. THE TRIAL OF JAMES STEWART (The Appin Murder). Edited by DAVID N. MACKAY, Writer, Glasgow. Dedicated to Alex- ander Campbell Eraser. Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 386 pp. Price 53. 1907- " In compiling this addition to an important and valuable series of criminal trials, Mr. Mackay has shown singular assiduity and industry. He has ransacked the records and chronicles of the time with care and diligence. His introductory sum- ming up of the case is lucid, judicious, and complete, grasping the facts with a firm and sure hand, and exposing the hollowness of the theories of the prosecution with convincing force." The Scotsman. " The volume deserves a permanent place in one's library not only because of its deep human interest, but by reason of its political and literary association." Aberdeen Free Press. " Mr. D. N. Mackay has done his work well, and it will doubtless tjive rise to fresh controversies and be the mine from which new theories will be dug." The Tribune. Notable Scottish Trials continued. THE TRIAL OF A. J. MONSON. Edited by J. W. MORE, B.A. (Oxon), Advocate, Edinburgh. Dedicated to the Lord Justice- Clerk. Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo, 480 pp. Price 53. " Mr. More has done his work of editor well, and he contributes a brief but well- written introduction covering the facts of the whole case. . . . This book gives an accurate account of the most famous Scottish trial of this generation. " Edinburgh Evening News. " The volume is got up with the same scrupulous care that has been bestowed on the others of the series, and is illustrated in a manner which greatly assists the reader in following the evidence." Evening Dispatch. " The publishers have been fortunate in securing the services of Mr. More as editor. He has done his work well. . . . Everything has been done to make this report accurate and full." Scotsman. THE DOUGLAS CAUSE. Edited by A. FRANCIS STEUART, Advocate, Edinburgh. Dedicated to the Honourable Lord Guthrie. Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo. Price 53. "Out of the mass of material at his command, the editor has woven a narrative of surpassing interest which will appeal to the layman as strongly as to the lawyer. Not the least attractive part of the volume is the appendix, containing the letters written by Lady Jane Douglas. " Scotsman. "The volume is not the least important of the series to which it belongs, and should have a place in every well-equipped library." Dundee Advertiser. THE TRIAL OF CAPTAIN PORTEOUS. Edited by WILLIAM ROUGHEAD, W.S. Dedicated to the Honourable Lord Ardwall. Fully illustrated. Demy 8vo. Price 53. 'The reader who has mastered its contents may rest content in the knowledge that he has exhausted the subject, so thorough and complete have been the researches of Mr. Roughead. " Scotsman. " Mr. Roughead's introduction seems to us the best thing yet published on the subject. It is admirably written, and the conclusions are sober and convincing. " The Spectator. " It is a deeply interesting problem as set forth with painstaking scholarship by Mr. Roughead." Outlook. " This trial is one of the best of a very attractive, unique, and ably edited series." Saturday Review. Notable Scottish Trials continued. , THE TRIAL OF OSCAR SLATER. Edited by WILLIAM ROUGHEAD, W.S. Dedicated to the Honourable Lord Guthrie. Demy 8vo. Fully illustrated. Price 53. " One cannot but admire the skill with which the introductory chapter is drawn, the analytical examination of the evidence, the new light thrown upon some aspects of the tale, and the fresh and patient collection in their proper order of the facts and circumstances adduced. " Scots Law Times. " In this interesting dramatic narrative are more than glimpses of the tortuous, wicked paths some men tread. The volume has an abiding interest for the lawyer and jurist, but it will also have a large constituency outside the profession." Aberdeen Free Press. THE TRIAL OF MRS. M'LACHLAN. Edited by WILLIAM ROUGHEAD, W.S. Dedicated to Andrew Lang. Demy 8vo. Fully illustrated. Price 55. "The fifty -year-old mystery is as much a mystery now as in the sixties, and Mr. Roughead's book will find many readers among those interested in the study of crimes. " Westminster Gatette. " The editor, who has justly established for himself a recognised position in this particular domain of literature, has written an introduction which eclipses all his former achievements. . . . The editor has obviously spared no trouble to present this embarrassing trial to his readers in a clear and coherent form, and no better or fuller statement of the case could well be given." Scots Pictorial. WM. HODGE & CO., EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW. Series 9482 A 000 91 1 860 5