The Express.
London, England, 1864-10-29 00:00:00

NORTH

carriage with Mr. Briggs, and that was proved as much as
if he had been wen in the carriage, so that it was
impoesible to menete the significance of that fact. He ex-
pected to have heard a theory that the hat was Muffler's,
but that he did not commit the murder. He would have
been glad to have head such a theory suggested. The mi.
dines upon the subject of the hat had turned out stronger
than be was aware, and Mosier than he had stated. He bad
stated that the lining in the hat was one usually pot
is bis hats by Mr. Walker ; bat it turned out, ►nd that
too by the cror.examin►tion for the prisoner, that there
were only one or two of that pattern, end he contended that
the effect of the whole cross-examination on that subject had
tended to corroborate the evidence. Mr. Walker had said
the lining was • peculiar one he had from France, and he
believed there were only one or two. Mrs. Repsch noticed
Muller with • hat with that particular lining. His learned
friend had made some attempt to impugn the evidence.
He had said she gave it vehemently, but he could not say
she was not telling the truth ; but he thought there could
not have been • fairer witness. She had had no quarrel
with the prisoner, and no reason could be suggested for
discrediting what she bad maid, and unless she had com-
mitted perjury Muller had • hat with that peculiar lining.
Aooording to Mr. Walker there were only two hats
made with linings like that, and if Mr. [Scilicet
were correct the murder must have been committed
by one of two men—Muller or the man who wore the
other hat. Then where was the other hat, and how about
the other hat and the watch and chain. Muller must have
bought the watch and chain of the man who wore the other
hat, and that on the Monday morning, and then came the
fact of Mr. Bitigp's hat which had been cut dews. He
submitted that the fact of Muller having been in the car-
riage with Mr. Briggs and left that hat behind was folly
proved, and what more wee wanted? He wee glad to find
that his learned friend disowned any intention of im-
puting the murder to the witness Matthew..
Still, he must say his oross-examiostion tended
to give him the suspicion that he bad that object in view.
What is the imputation against Matthews? Why, that be
was influenced by a desire to obtain a reward, but what
was the use of offering • reward for the discovery of a crime
if a witness was to be discredited? Muller acid Matthews
had never had aay quarrel, and it could not be suppoted
that Matthews had been actuated by any feelings against
the prisoner. Matthews bad been asked in crommamination
where he was on the night in question, and it was not likely
that any cabman could tell, until he made • reference, and
Matthews had evidently given • satisfactory explanation.
Matthews had been asked • good deal about his hats ; but
be had fully explained. He contended there could be no
doubt that Matthews had bought such a hat for the prisoner,
and that was confirmed by Mrs. Matthews, who could not
be mid to be actuated by hops of reward or • desire of
revenge. The Solicitor-General then proceeded to minutest
on the evidence of Matthews with respect troth* hat,•od said it
would appear from the mode of defence that if Matthews had
not thrown away his hat like Muller's, be or Muller must have
committed the murder, or if Matthews had thrown hie hat
aw►y, that the mac who bad committed the murder moat
have picked up that hat and worn it, but then it must be re-
membered that Matthews 's hat would not fit Muller.
Salami Parry—That has not been proved.

Sir 8.. P. Collier mid it was In evidence that Muller hid
tried it on, and mid he must have one a sine larger. Mr.
Briggs's bat had been miesed.and it was mast conclusive that
the man who committed the murder had gone away with
Mr. Briggs's hat, and had Mr. Briggs's bat been toned
That was a question for the jury to decide. Mr.
Divorce bad been called, and it was proved that the
hat bad been cut down, and although witnesses had been
called, one of whom said he would have done it is a similar
manner, he said he would not have sewn it so closely.
The hat bad been cut down very low, evidently not
to make it fashionable, for it was much lower
than hate ware worn now. Then came the ques-
tion, why was it cut down. If it had been
Mr. Briggs's hat, and had not been cut down, Mr.
Briggs's name would have appeared in it. This, he argued,
was a very important fact. The prisoner had said that be
had bad the bat twelve mouths, but be bad not attempted
to give any explanation as to where or of whom he pur-
chased that hat. Muller was at Bepsch's on Satur-
day afternoon, and up to that time it was
noticed there was no difference in his clothes or
his bat, but at Monday morning when he again
goes to Repech's it is noticed that be had a different bat.
This was the evidence in regard to the hat, sad it the jury
were satisfied that the hat found was Mullet's, and the one
found on him was Mr. Brigp's, probably they would not
require additional evidence for the promotion ; but
then unfortunately there came the watch and chain. The
watch was found in his box, and there was no pretence
for saying that be bought It on the voyage. The prisoese
had been spoken of as • vain men, and fond of boasting.
and was it Dot likely that if he had such a valuable watch
and chain, and bad come honestly by it, would not he have
boasted of it to his friends? The evidence which he had
brought before the jury was strong circumstantial evidence,
and he thought his learned friend bad failed to battle with
the strong facts that had been brought forward.
They were too strong for any advocate to battle
with. His learned friend had tried to show that
it was highly improbable that Muller had committed
this murder. He agreed with him that it was quite
improbable that any man or number of mu should have
committed such a crime. If any man felt himself safe say-
where It was in a railway carriage. One of the most
improbable crimes had been committed, and must be dealt
with. He argued that be warn not bound, as his learned
friend had tried to show, to produce the weapon
used or the manner i• which the blows were
inflicted. That would be too much to undertake.
He was not able to show with what instrument the blows
were initiated, but that they were indicted with some blunt
instrument, and in that carriage, there could he no doubt.
His learned friend had represented Mailer aa a weak man,
and Mr. Bcigga as • (Atomic, heavy mac. The
prisoner was a young man of the age when physical drug*
was most fully developed, and Mr. Drips had only re-
cently recovered from a severe Mown, and ha argued that
Mr. Briggs woad have no thaws with such • man as the
prisoner. Hie learned friend also said there was no doubt
• terrific struggle, but he submitted there was so Wag.
gle, the only evidence of a struggle having taken place
was his shirt frost being • little crumpled, whereas if
there had been • terrific struggle, as his friend had proposed.
his clothes would have been torn to shrub. Mr. Briggs
might have been asleep, and theta is very little doubt that
the first blow indicted rendered Mr. Briggs immediately in-
sensible. A good deal had been said about the prisoner's
clothes. There amid be no doubt that Muller, oe
the Sunday, wore the same clothes he wore the
day before, and that was certainly a point in his boom,
but it might be that the man who committed the murder
would not have any blood on his clothes. Still it was quits
certain that neither the trimmers nor the oat with the velvet
collar were forthcoming. Having commented upon the
evidence for the prosecution, he proceed to glance
over the case for the defence. Mr. Lee had
been called, and be bad not bees celled by the prem.
cution, because his evidence was not deemed sum.
Meetly trustworthy. The evidence Mr. Lee had given
was the most remukable be bad ever beard in • court of
justice. He represents that be saw Mr. Briggs, who
called him " Tom." Mr. Lee saw the men is the carriage
with Mr. Briggs two or three minutes before he was
murdered, and had not given information to the police, and
he said he thought it immaterial, and he supplemented that
by saying he thought it • bother to attend. Such a witness
was not deemed fit for the prosecution. The evidence of
this witness was most extraordinary. He went to Bow,
spoke to no one, saw no one, and went back again, accord-
ing to his own account, having spoken to no one. Mr. Lie
was in the next carriage, and he heard nothing
of the circumstance at Hackney. Wu he there that
night at all, or was he speaking of some other
night. With regard to the alibi that bad been attempted
to be set up, he said it was ussatisfutory. If Muller bad
called at the hours of Mrs. Jones half an hour earlier than
was said that would have given the prisoner time. There
was Duthie( to fix the exact time be called upon
the mind of Mrs. Jones. Mn. Jones said it was
about half an hour after the girl went out,
which she knew was 9 o'clock, because she looked at the
clock, and the girl thinks she went out at 9 that eight,
because she always went out at 9. If the girl had gone
out • little before 9. and Moller went • few minuted
after—what then? How could Mrs. dome re-
collect so king after whether be called a few
miontes or half an hour after 9. Muller was at
ftepech's, and left about half-past 7 or • quarter to 8, end
it was said by Haifa that he said he was going to see this
girt. Supposing he did, if he had taken the omnibus, be
would have been there about ball-past $ or a quarter to 9
perhaps • few minutes past 9. He did not stay
loop sad if he took an consibus and started about
a quartr•past 9, he mild have arrived at Kin William•