The Express.
London, England, 1864-10-31 00:00:00

THE TRIAL OF MULLER.

THE VERDICT.

An abstract of the following appeared in all but
a few copies of Saturday's Express...

The Lord Chief Baron ooncluding his summing up, mid—
Now, gentlemen, the facts of the history of
this case,
though appearing to be many, are in reality ye" few—the
watch, the chain, and the hat Mr. Briggs lost that night.
The hat was found in the carriage in the plan of Mr.
Briggs's hat. Them us the three matter which ooestitute
the case for the prosecution. Gentlemen, these are three
linka 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 on. link of that chain broken
you have got rid of the prosecution- There ere three sepa-
-1 rate and distinct links, haring each of them a separate his-
tory, and &Jeffers on the part of one does not is the
slightest degree affect the position of each of the others.
For instance, if there had been no trace whatever of either
of the hate ; if the hat alleged to be the bat of Mr. Briggs
had not been found in the box, that doss not at all diminish
the evidence of the watch and chain. They all stand en
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 the
bar was on the Monday morning in ion of the watch
sad chain, then you ere to see w er he has given a true
amount, or clear amount, or—far this is the question—has
he given a satisfactory account. Now, with respect to the
watch and chain, the evidence seems to be this :—On
Monday morning, about 10 o'clock, he exchanged this cline
for a chain which he took from Mr. Death, the jeweller.
That chain he pawned on the Wedeeiday. But then you
nay what became of the wallah ? Why, when he was ap-
prehended off New York he had the watch in his pocket. It
was found there. He said it was his watch, and he had
hid it two years. It will be for you to my whether that is
evidence to induce you to believe that the watch and chain
were in his possession. How did they some into his posses-
sion ? Gentlemen, I shall presently ask that question, and
all the attention of my brother Parry to the way in which
I understood that he put it, because I am deriroas 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, end if I am wrong I shall be glad to
be oorrected. You will have to ask yourselves whether the
prime, had the watch sad chain on the Monday morning.
The evidence is that he had them, that he took the chain
to Mr. Death, that he there had it valued at 31. 10a., that he
declined to take a chain of the value of 3/. 15a, which
would require him to pay Is., and that he took a chain of
the value 3/. 5e., and took a ring instead of the its. Hence,
as I must hare again say to you, it is for you to say
whether you believe that part of the nee or not. Unions
you believe it you ought not to convict the prisoner; if
you do 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 be 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. Noce. 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 be
was questioned about the ring, he said he had bought it at a
shop in Cheeped.. very probably meaning that he got it at
Mr. Death's. Gentlemen, you will have to consider whe-
ther you see what is the nameable conclusion to be drawn.
He never has said on say occasion that he bought the watch
and chain at the docks.

SerjeantParry—Will your lordship pardon me. Mr.
Tanner said in evidence that in America his counsel dated
that.

Tie Lord Chief Bon—Oh, his oonneeL
The Solicitor-General—His counsel suggested it.
Serjeeat 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 hie
counsel as gives by Mr. Tanner here amounts to no evidence.
The statement here in London was that he bought the
chain, end he said nothing about the watch. I think it my
duty to point these matters out to you. I come now to tbe
Question as to which I want to call the attention of my
brother Parry. My brother Parry suggests that there ie
no evidence that he did not tell anybody in America that
he bought the watch at the docks.
Baron Martin (referring to his note.)—lnspector Tanner
ears, " I did not hear him say he had purchased the watch
and chain at the docks. His comma suggested that before
the magistrates at New York."

The Lord Chief Baron—l went 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 wee this—that be bought the watch and chain at
the docks, and that be wee quite aware that a transaction
of that sort could not be perfectly right. I undentood my
brother Parry to say that every false statement the prisoner
note. lu ,afrueuos tv that matte, might be explained by his
oorocionsnem that he was doing wrong. I call brother
Parry's attention to it is order that we may understand die.
flatly 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 end
chain. That is his account of it. As Sunday is not • day
for regular bushier, but for the tnuisfer of property ob-
tained by robbery or other illegal means, that is as good
as any other day. Property taken distally on Saturday
adsold on Monday morning is not so likely • trausactioe
as one of honest dealing, in which Monday morning ie the
same to Saturday night ss Tuesday morning is to Monday.
It is for you to consider how far that is au apology for
being in possession of these things, because he was aware
there was something wrong about his having bought them ;
be 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
the
the
hat left
.and chain and the
.hat by
Mr Briggs,
andta wbilhgeoertatimdepthese rot; stariTogrroree by
leas to the prisoner at the bar. Now, gentlemen, you have
to consider the question as to the hat. The hat is proved
to he Mr. Brigop's to such an extent that my learned bro-
ther Parry did not deny that it probably was the hat.
Mr. Serjeant Parry—l admitted that it was • hat sold
by Mr. Dipooe but never that it warn Mr. Brius's.
The Lord Chief Baron-11y brother Parry does not admit
anything. No men can admit anything in • case like this ;
but the hatter who made it said, " I made it tar Mr.
Hippos," and Mr. Apace says, " I recognise this hat,
as arsef I can, as having been made for Mr. Briggs." He
speaks of it to every reopense the hat. He says it had bees
cut down, and io 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, taros oat to have been sewed in a
manner which is mid not to be the practice of second-hand
batters, and apparently not the practice of regular
hatten. Ido not think it oeoessary to call your attention
to the evidence of the two hatters. They both of them said
they should not have altered • hat in that way. It is for
you, to say whether on the whole the evidence is or is
not made out to your satisfaction that that was the hat of
Mr. Briggs. A remark was made by the Solicitor.Geoiral
which is of some force, that the prisoner at the bar has bad,
and one is very glad that he has had, the protection of a
patriotic society, established for the protection of theircoun-
trytow, and that no expense has been spared by them to
get all the information that could be obtained. It is for
you to consider whether half the industry and diligence
which has resulted in the production of those old bate
that we saw—l forget bow how many there were
—it is for you to consider whether if that diligence
had been applied is finding out where the prisoner bought
this hat, which was bought certainly, according to hie own
account, not more than a mouth from the date cf 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 bat himself. On that question you will have to decide,
but it is • point in the case that appears to me to be worthy
of your consideration.
Mr. Serjeant Parry—l beg parries ; but Mr. Dips°, said,
at the close of his evidence, "I will not swear that this is
the bat I sold to Mr. Briggs.*
The Lord Chief Baron—l dare say, but the question is ,
whether be believes that it was, sad whether ha furnishes 1
you with sufficient material for you to believe that it was.
A man will not swear positively to • thing, but thequestioo
is., does Mr. Digsnce speak with certainty, the certainty
that you have that lam speaking to you now? If. cannot
be certain in that extreme sense. Well then, gentleman,
you will my how far the history of the hat leads you,
whether it leads you to the conclusion that the bat whisk
was found in the box belonging to the prisoner at the bar
was the hat of Mr. Smogs. 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 pro-
ceedings in criminal courts that evidence of such a dia-
meter 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
• number of samples from Francs, and there were
only one or two thew, and certainly not more than
two or three of the hats that I have made that had this par-
denier lining." Now, gentlemen, it is for
is the youtowgz
what conclusion you draw from this. Mrs. it
said it had a remarkable lining, and that she never saw any
other hat with the same kind of lining. Well, then, when
thew different points of the owe lead one with each other to
the same conclusion, it is for you to say how far the Airlift
of more than one gives strength to the conclusion to be
formed from several united together; whether the union of
several do not lead you to • conclusion oci the whole. In
Starkiee Book of Evidence there is a case of • gentleman
who was robbed of his pares. A prisoner was found
with • purse upon him, and the gentleman was
asked if the puree was his, and he said be be-
lieved it was. The man was indicted and tried, and at
the trial it turned out that there were several paces
of money in the purse, and the gentleman was asked if be
weld swear to any one of the pieces, sod he said he could
met. Bat on reazarnination be was asked, " Are yea eon-
rifted that is your purse and your mosey!" ad he said
.• Yee, I am." The puree happened to cattalo five or six
different pieces of mosey, and although he could not swear
to any one single piece—one of them wee a @even-shilling