The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EV.ENING, AUGUST 9, 1864.

account to the 30th June showed that £942,394 had been ex-
pended, leaving a balance of £10,159 against the company.

GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN.
The report of the directors of this company states that
the total traffic for the half year ending June 30 amounted
to £210,020, and for the same half of 1863 to £203,746,
showing an increase of £6,274. The net surplus revenue for
the half year was £89,334, out of which the directors re-
commended that a dividend at the rate of 4} per cont. per
annum be paid to the proprietors of the consolidated stock
of the company, which would leave a balance of £1,035 for
next half year's account. The returns exhibit an increase in
every description of traffic, but did not denote any general
improvement in the traffic of the country, as a larger surplus
than £6,273 might have been expected from the amalgama-
tion of the Irish South Eastern Railway with this com-
pany and the opening of the branch line from Roscrea
to Nenagh. The general results of the working of the
line for the last half year had been highly favourable.
Since the beginning of May there had been a marked im-
provement in the receipts up to the present time, and,
with the prospect of an early and abundant harvest, the
directors had every reason to hope that the close of this year
would still more clearly exhibit increased prosperity. The
line from Nenagh to Birdhill was opened for traffic on the
Ist of June last, and they were enabled to state that this
branch would be completed, in the most efficient man-
ner, much within the Parliamentary estimate. The capital
account showed that £5,678,042 had been expended,
leaving a balance against the company of £19,792. The
revenue account showed that £220,061 had been received,
and £94,993 expended in working, and £35,734 for interest
on loans and stock, leaving a balance of £89,334.

DANUBE AND BLACK SEA.
The report of the directors states that the anticipations
expressed in the last report are in the course of being real-
ized. The period now under review embraces the winter
months, during which the traffic is carried on under disad-
vantages peculiar to that season, and the trade of last win-
ter was found to be cramped by insufficiency of warehouse
accommodation. In addition to this the corn trade has
been checked by the very low prices of grain in Western
Europe, and, concurrently with these, by the famine in
Hungary, which has diverted much of the Wallachian
grain from the markets for consumption in that country.
Notwithstanding these drawbacks the accounts, which
have been made up to the 31st of May, exhibit a clear
profit on working of £4,440, subject to payment of interest
on borrowed capital of £914, The working of each former
winter half year has been attended with loss, and it is but
reasonable to expect a much higher rate of profit during
the current half year. Before the approach of next winter
the want of warehouse room will be to some extent supplied
by the completion of the smaller block of warehouses at
Kustendjie. Five-sixths of the warehouse room which
will be thus provided have already been engaged at re-
munerative rates by some of the largest houses connected
with the Danube trade. The prospects of the present har.
vest in the Principalities are reported to be excellent.
About 45,000 of the unfortunate Circassians have during the
last three months been carried over the line at low but
remunerative rates, under convention with the Turkish
Government, which has provided them with settlements on
the Danube.

OTTOMAN (SMYRNA TO AIDIN).
It appears that this company have just received the gua-
rantee from the Imperial Ottoman Government, as settled
in the accounts for the last financial year, in accordance
with the terms of the late concession. This concession fixes
the amount at £32,360, which is to be paid to the company
annually until the line is completed for traffic to Aidin, at
which period the guarantee upon the entire capital of
4784,000 (shares and debentures) will take effect.

THE MURDER, OF MR BRIGGS.

ADJOURNED INQUEST.
The adjourned inquest on the body of Mr Thomas Briggs
was resumed yesterday morning before Mr Humphreys, the
coroner for East Middlesex, at the Vestry-hall, Hackney.
The coroner reopened the proceedings by observing that
the jury had already received every possible testimony that
could prove the cause of the death of Mr Briggs, and that
their next business wouid be to investigate every circum-
stance connected with the case that could possibly fix the
guilt of the murder on any particular person or persons.
The first witness called was Mrs Ellen Blyth, landlady
of the house in Park-terrace, Old Ford-road, where the man
Franz Muller resided before his departure from England
for America in the Victoria. She said that at the beginning
of July she had two lodgers living in her house, one of
whom was a German named Franz Muller. He loft on
Thursday, July 14, having given notice to do so a fortnight
previously. On the Saturday morning before he left the
house between 11 and 12 o'clock, but she did not know at
what time he returned. She and her family went to bed at
12 o'clock, but Muller had not then come in. The other
lodger, whose name was Goodwin, went out on the Satur-
day and did not return till Monday, according to his usual
habit. At the head of his bed hung a life-preserver, made
of whalebone and indiarubber, and loaded at the end with
lead. The instrument now in possession of Mr Tidey, police
superintendent, was the one belonging to Mr Goodwin. The
next time she saw Muller was at breakfast on the Sunday
following, between 9 and 10 o'clock. On the Thursday pre-
viously he stayed out all night, and when he returned on
the next day he was lame, having, as he said, hurt his foot
the day before. On the Sunday he went out for a walk
with her and her husband between G and 7 in the evening,
having. been at home all day until then. On the Monday
morning he went out early and did not come back till 8 in
the evening, but she did not notice any peculiarity either in
his dress or manner. She did not notice what kind of hat
he wore either then or at any other time. On the Tuesday
and Wednesday he also went out early and did not return
till late. The last week he remained at her house he did
not do any work. On the Thursday he took leave of them
all, saying he had taken a berth on board the Victoria
bound fur New York. He lodged in her house for seven
weeks, and paid her most punctually before he left. On the
Monday evening he had a gold Albert chain which she took
notice of. He took it off and showed it to Mr Goodwin,
but she did not see whether it had any watch attached to it
or not. She also noticed to him that he had get a new ring,
but, beyond an expression of assent to her two remarks, he
made no observation about either the chain or ring. The
photograph produced was that of Franz Muller.
The photograph was here shown to the jury. It is an
ordinary full length carte de visito portrait of a well-dressed,
short, thick-set young man, with a firm, compressed mouth,
and small, narrow, half-shut eyes.
The witness went on to say that Muller accounted for his
going to New York so suddenly by saying that he had been
sent there by his employers, the Messrs Hodgkinson. She
first heard of the murder on the Monday, but she could not
recollect whether the matter was talked of in Muller's pre-
sence or not. She could not identify the hat produced as
the one worn by Muller, neither could she say whether he
changed his linen on the Sunday or not, as he always had
his washing done away from home. The week before he
left, however, she had washed six new shirts for him.
Eliza Matthews, the wife of a cabman living in Earl-
street, Lfsson-grove, said she was well acquainted with
Muller, having known him for more than two years. He
was engaged to her husband's sister, and used to visit them
frequently. He came on the Sunday before the murder, and
again on the following Monday about 2 in the afternoon.
He did not look very well, and was dressed differently towhat
he was on the Sunday before. When he was leaving she
made some remark about his hat wearing well, to which he
replied that it was not the one he usually wore. She also
noticed that he wore a gold chain. Formerly he used to
wear a watch and chain, but on the Tuesday before the
murder she remarked that he had not one on, and he ac-
counted for the circumstance by saying he had lest it
through betting. On the Monday he took off the chain in
reply to her remark, and asked her what she thought of it.
She did not see any watch attached to it, but there was a
locket on it which Muller said belonged to Mr Repsch, a
friend of his. Thinking he could not afford to buy so ex-
pensive a chain, she hinted that it was not gold, but he
assured her that it was, and took a box out of his pocket
upon which was printed the name of "Death, jeweller,
Cheapside." He told her it was a first• rate jeweller's, and
that he had given £3 103 for the chain. The box he after

wards gave to her little girl, On leavinghc;iihe was
going to New York and wished them goodbye. She
walked with him to the omnibus and never saw him again.
She made the observation about the hat because she had
gone with her husband to buy the one he usually wore
in November or December last, at Walker's, in Crawford-
street. He alwrys wore it until the Monday. She first
heard of the murder on the Monday evening from a neigh-
bour, but did not say much about it, being busy with her
baby. She only read the newspapers on Sundays, and
said nothing to her husband about the matter, being busy
with her household concerns. She did not recollect saying
anything about it to her husband or to any ono elso either
during that day or the next. Her husband waa in the

habit of going out early and returning late, so she had

not much time to speak with him on such matters. On
the Thursday he spoke to her on the subject, and it was

not till then that the matter was mentioned between them

She was much employed all day with her children, having

a young family. Her husband seldom stopped for his

breakfast, generally only taking a cup of tea standing. He ,
mentionel twice that the murderer was taken, but she could

not recollect the days. She repeated that she had no cora-

munication with any one about the murder till her husband

speke of it on the Thursday. Her husband c,in read, and
frequently brought home newspapers left in his cab. When

Muller came to say goodbye, he told her he particularly
desired to sea her husband. Sho told him ho would n•>t be
at home all day, and ho said ho would call back en the

Tuesday or Wednesday, but did not keep his promise. On
the Monday week after the murder her husband came home

in the morning and asked her for the box that Muller had

given to the child, saying ho wanted to know the name upon
it. She told him it was in the corner of one of the drawers,
and he took it out, read the name, and said it was the same
that he had seen on the bills that were out about the mur-
der, On the Sunday before this Lloyd's newspaper was
bought as usual, but it was not; touched, as his brother and
sister dined with them. As soon as her husband read the
name on the box he took it away, saying ho was going to
the Qt4tion with it, and that he was afraid kranz Muller

was implicated in the murder. Her husband was now on
his way to New York, in company with the police who had
gone out to apprehend Muller. She had four children, the
eldest being 12 years old and the youngest nine months.
Mr Robert Death, jeweller, of 55, Cheapside, said that
on the morning of Monday, the 11th of July, a man came
into his shop about 10 o'clock and asked if he would ex-
change a chain which he handed him for one with a key.
He took some Albert chains from the window and rang the
bell for his brother to come and value the chain offered in
exchange. The chain having been valued the man chose one
in exchange, the worth being made up by a ring. The chain
taken in exchange was broken where it should have formed '
the hook, which was missing. It seemed to have been mended
with cotton or worsted, and a bent pin. The man to all ap-
pearance was the same as the photograph in possession of
the police, but he could only swear to his general character.
The box produced was from their establishment, but he
could not swear to its being the same as that delivered to the
man who exchanged the chain.

John Hoeffer, of Part-terrace, Old Ford-road, Bow, said
he worked at the same place as Muller, whom he had
known about three months. He left off working there
about the 2d of July, and said he was going to New York.
Witness then lived in Jewry-street, but afterwards by
agreement with Muller took his old lodgings at Bow when
Muller left England. He went there the Monday before
Muller left and slept with him until the Thursday. He saw
Muller on the Friday before the murder, and also on the
Saturday. He wee in the habit of bringing things to wit-
ness's lodgings for some time before he left. On the Satur-
day evening he called on him between 7 and 8, and told him
he was going to sec his sweetheart, who he believed was a
girl on the town. He was to have taken him to his lodg-
ings at Bow on the Saturday night, but he was too busy.
He went on the Monday, and that was the first time he was
ever at Muller's lodgings. When Muller called on him on
the Saturday he was quite sober. When first he knew Mul-
ler he wore a gold watch and chain, which he afterwards
said he had pledged He did not notice whether he had a
gold chain on on the Saturday, but he had on the Monday.
He showed it to him, and said it had cost £3 15s. He saw
no watch attached toit, nor did Muller show him the dupli-
cate of any watch. lie did not ask him where he got the
money from to btr:e. it with. On the Wednesday Muller
showed him the dupicate of a chain, and told hiui it was
that of the one he saw on the Monday before. On the Mon-
day evening he and Muller went home to Bow to his new
lodgings. On the Ttesday he went to see Mr Repsch, and
found Muller there. On the Wednesday he met him again
at Mrs Repsch's, and Muller showed him the duplicate of
the chain, telling him he had not enough to pay for his pas-
sago money by 12s. Mr Repsch had told him of the same
circumstance before while he was at work at Messrs Hodg-
kinson's, and he gave him a coat to pledge to raise the
money. On the same evening Mr Repsch gave him the
duplicate for the coat, and Muller that of the chain, re-
ceiving 12s in excaange, The chain was pledged for £1
lOs at Mr Harries, in the Minories. He neither had
nor saw any duplicate for a watch in Muller's
possession. The reason he could not go to Muller's
lodgings on the Saturday was that he had a private job to
finish for a gentleman, and bad to bring it on the Monday
morning. He did not go out at all on the Saturday night,
but stayed in door, working at the job till 10 o'clock. He
did not notice any change in Muller's clothes or appearance
when he saw him an the Monday. They were to have gone
for a walk together on the Sunday, but Muller did not call
on him as he had promised. Muller earned 25s a week.
The photograph produced was a likeness of Muller. He had
not spoken with Huller about the murder, but had con-
versed about it wth other persons.
Mrs Matthews was here recalled and identified the hat
produced as belonging to Muller.

The Coroner :hen adjourned the inquest until Monday
week, the 22d in3t,

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT,--GUILDFORD, Aug, 8.
(Before Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)
DUEY V. HAMILTON AND OTHERS.

This was an action of rather a peculiar character. The
plaintiff, Loui: Direy, a Frenchman, who conducted his
own case, sued the defendant and five other gentlemen for
having conspired together to oppress and ruin him, and
prevent him from gaining his livelihood by his profession
of teacher of languages; and he claimed £l,OOO damages.
There was also a count for slander.
The plaintif, as above stated, conducted his own case.
The defendants were severally represented by Mr Bevil!,
Q.C., Mr Iltwkins, Q.C., the Hon. G. Denman, Q.C.,
Sergeant Ballcntine, Me J. Browne, Mr C. W. Wood, Sir
G. Honyman, and Mr Cohen.
The case occupied the Court a great many hours, princi-
pally owing to the mass of irrelevant matter that was intro-
duced into the inquiry, and the latitude that was kindly ac-
corded to the paintiff by the learned judge, to enable him
to bring what le conceived to be his grievances before the
jury. His opening speech occupied three hours, but as a
great many facts of the most disgusting character were in-
troduced it will be impossible to do more than to give a brief
outline of the case. According to the plaintiff's statement,
he had been fcr 20 months endeavouring to bring the mat-
ter before a jury, and ho had applied to no less than 18
attorneys, and ho said that six of them would not have
anything to do with the case on account of its filthy
character, six required more money than he could command,
and the other six he described as of the pettifogging class,
who promised him they would do what was necessary
and obtained all the money they coal] from him, and at
last left him in the lurch, and he was, therefore, at last
compelled to appear in person. It appeared that in the
year 1857 he established himself at Dulwich as a pro •
fessor of the French language, one obtained employment
in that capacity at several respectable scholastic establish•
ments, and also gave private lessons, principally, it ap-
peared, to young ladies, and for a considerable time there
was no doubt that the plaintiff was regarded favourably by
those who were acquainted with him, and who employed
him in his professional capacity. Things went on in this
way for a considerable time, but at length it appeared that
letters containing most filthy and obscene drawings were sent
to a number of young ladies living at Dulwich and the neigh-
bourhood, and this, of course, created very great annoyance
and excitement, and every endeavour was made to discover
who was the guilty party, and after some time it seemed
that suspicion fell upon the plaintiff, and the result was that
he was dismissed from all the schools that he had been in
the habit of attending, and lost the whole of his pupils.
The defendant, Mr Hamilton, it appeared, was a gentleman
of considerable property, who was in the habit of residing
occasionally at Dulwich; one of the others, Mr Lessem,
was a tradesman at the same place, and the Rev. Mr
Hichene, another of the defendants, was the principal of a
school at Camberwell, at which some of the boys referred
to in the subsequent proceedings were pupils ; and there
appeared to be no doubt that they had taken an active part
in the proceedings to discover the perpetrator of the disgust-
ing outrage that had been committed. The principal fact
that appeared to be relied on by the plaintiff was, that on a
certain day three of the defendants met at the Greyhound
Inn, Dulwich, and that they there examined the letters and
the obscene drawings that had been received, and that they
came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the guilty
party, and that they thereupon resolved to drive him away
from the place, and, in fact to ruin him and prevent him
from obtaining a livelihood. The case on the part of the
plaintiff was, that he was entirely innocent, and that the
charge had been Made by the defendant Hamilton out of re •
venge of his having detected him in the commission of an.
natural practices With two young lads, and in attempting
to debauch his own son. It will be seen from this brief
outline of the case that it was altogether one of a very
inquiry a great number of letters were put in evidence by
painful and disgustinthe plaintiff with a view of making out his case. One of
g character, and in the course of the
these letters he admitted was of such a nature that it ought
not to be read publicly, although he said he had merely
called things by their right names, or something to that
effect ; and he endeavoured to make out that his only object
in what he had done was to punish the guilty, and that this
was the only reason for the defendants' endeavouring to
drive him out of the neighbourhood.
The plaintiff, who during his long rambling speech had
been several times requested both by the learned judge end
the jury to confine himself to the charge he wished to estab-
lish against the defendants, at its conclusion called several
witnesses, but their evidence appeared to be almost as irrele•

vent to the real issue in the cause as the plaintiff's state-
ment had been, It seemed, however, when the investiga.
tion took place at the Greyhound, that it was the opinion
of everybody present that the writing on the envelopes
that contained a() obscure print resembled that of the
plaintiff, and that it was the general impression that it was
the handwriting of a foreigner.
Tne plaintiff in answer to a question put by the learned
judge as to Whether ho had any furter evidence to bring
forward, replied that ho should like to examine the de-
fendants.

Baron Martin said it was not a very usual course for a
plaintiff to take to call his antagonists witnesses, but if he
chose to.do so he might.
Mr Hamilton was the first who was called. Ho was
questioned by the plaintiff, and in answer to him he in the
most positive and indignant manner denied that there was
the slightest foundation for the insinuations that had been

made against him, He also said that the meeting at the
Greyhound was
quite a casual one, but they were all of
course anxious to discover the guilty party. They com-

pared the handwriting or the
ho was the plaintiff with some of the
letters, and the impression that was created by this was that
ho had written tended very much to strengthen that
Party, and the disgusting letter which ho ad-
mittedsupposition.

The plaintiff put several very offensive questions to the
witness, the effect of which was to reiterate the odious
accusation ho ha 3. made against him, but Mr Hamilton
indignantly reindiitted the suggestions that were made.
The jury
interposed, and said they did not wish to hear
any more, as ttey considered the plaintiff had entirely
failed in makingout his case.
Baron Martin said it would.porhaps be better that they
should hear the whole of the evidence the plaintaproposed
to lay before then before they gave a verdict;
The whole of the other defendants were thou examined
by the plaintiff, but their evidence went entirely to dis-
prove the case that he soks4e6ted. The plaintiff in the

course of the examination became very excited, and told
one of the witnesses that what he said was a lie.

Baron Martin immediately interposed,and told the plain-
tiff that if he made use of such an observation again he
would commit him.

The plaintiff, having shortly afterwards intimated that he
had closed his case,

Baron Martin said he was of opinion there was no case at
all for the jury, and that there was not a tittle of evidence
to support the charge of conspiracy.
The jury said they were of the same opinion.
The plaintiff wished to know if they were unanimous in
coming to that conclusion.

The foreman of the jury said they were.
A verdict was then formally returned for the defendants,

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—lrswfmr, AUGUST 8.
(Before Mr Baron Bramwell.)
EXTRAORDINARY CASE.
Solomon Hills, labourer, 22 years of age, was charged
with •feloniously assaulting Henry Rouse, at Stoke-by-
Nayland, then and there putting him in fear of his life,
and stealing 10s. in money and a gun, the property of the
said Henry Rouse, on the 25th of November, 1861.
Mr Orridge appeared as counsel for the crown; the
prisoner was undefended.
The circumstances of this case were very extra-
ordinary, as will be gathered from the following state-
ment. The prosecutor, a very old man, was living with his
son in a lonely cottage in Stoke, and about 8 o'clock on the
night of the 25th November, 1861, was going from his
house across the yard to the stable, when he was attacked
by two men. He was knocked down by one with a stick,
and when on the ground was beaten about the head till he
was nearly " unsensed," as he described it. They then
swore at him and demanded all his money, but he declared
he had only a few shillings, and those he handed over. The
ruffians threatened to murder him if he called out, and then
went into the cottage and helped themselves to beer and a
gun that was in the sitting room. They then came to where
the old man was lying, and seemed suddenly to have some
pity for him, for they offered to carry him in doors—but he
told them to be off, for he'd had enough of them, They
went off with the gun and money, and owing to the dark-
ness of the night the prosecutor could not see well enough
to recognise either of them. The police failed in all at-
tempts to discover the men, and this seemed likely to be
an addition to the list of undetected crimes. In January,
1863, the prisoner, with two other men, was tried at Bury
St. Edmund's county sessions fora murderous assault upon
a gamekeeper, and, being convicted, all were sentenced to
18 months' imprisonment. This term would have expired
in July of this year, and in April last a matter arose that
led to the prisoner being put upon his trial to-day. It was
this—At the spring assizes last year a wealthy farmer of
the name of Humphery was convicted hefore the Chief
Justice Erie of shooting at one Isaac Reed, with intent to
murder him, and was sentenced to penal servitude for life.
He remained in Bury Gaol some months before being re-
moved, and contrived to talk with his fellow-prisoner Hills.
Explaining to him what he had been convicted of, ho suc-
ceeded in persuading hien to make a confession, taking the
crime upon himself and exonerating Humphery, and for
doing this the latter was to provide the prisoner with
a large sum of money as soon as he got out
from gaol. Humphery, by this, expected to receive a
pardon, was to realise his property, and get out of the coun-
try, when Hills was to avow it was all a trick, and got his
release and reward. Hills sent for Mr M'lntyre, the go-
vernor, and to him made a very circumstantial confession,
and repeated it to the visiting justices. He said he would
find the gun with which Reed was shot if they would send
him to a place (a pond) he named. The governor took him
to the pond, and it was dragged and nothing found, but the
prisoner declared he had thrown the gun in ; that on the
night of the attempted murder he was watching for pheasants
by King Harry's grove; that sitting in the ditch his gun,
went off by accident as Reed was passing, and that he alone
shot Reed. This story was never believed for an instant,
bat to make the search perfect tha pond was emptied, and
there, deeply sunk in the mud, waa found a gun. But this
gun was found to be the one stolen from the old man on the
25th November, 1861. It was identified beyond all ques-
tion, and on being told of the discovery and the disbelief in
the statement as to Reed, the prisoner said it was his gun,
that he had bought it of some gipsies : and as to the con-
fession, Humphery had persuaded him to make it, and it
was all untrue. He was then told of the identification of
the gun, and that he would be charged with the robbery of
old Rouse. He was disconcerted at this. but declared he
knew nothing of it. During his imprisonment he had
learned to write a very fair hand, and one morning in May
last the cook of the gaol picked up a note in the yard where
the prisoner had been taking exercise. It was at once re-
cognised as his handwriting, and was as follows :—" Friend
James Wright, I now take the opportunity to write these
few lines to you, informing you that I have got to stand
trial for we robbing old Rouse, but I don't think they
have any suspicion of you, and you must keep dark, but
if they should have any suspicion and take you, you
must stick hard you don't know nothing about it. You
don't want to be afraid that I shall split, that is all my
fault, I don't think ho would swear to the gun all that long
time, but I think you will be all right. I shall have a coun-
sel, and if they don't collar you, you can pay for a coun-
sellor for me, for you ought to do that. You don't want to
bo afraid that I shall split, for I shan't do that, because
that is my fault. That would have been all right if I hadn't
went and shown thorn the gun, but don't you be afraid. I
will stick true, for I think I shall get oil at trial. So no
more from your old friend. I should sent by old Cooper,
but I couldn't get to him. Tell my friends that I want to
see them." This Wright was a man who with the pri-
soner had been originally suspected of the robbery, was in
gaol with the prisoner, and " old Cooper" was a prisoner
just leaving. The letter to-day the prisoner declared had
been written by a man of the name of Holmes, also a pri-
soner, and placed in the yard, to get him (Hills) in to
trouble, but this was satisfactorily negatived by persons
knowing the handwriting of both. Upon these facts, pro-
vided by the prisoner, the jury found a verdict of guilty,
and being asked what he had to say, said to the judge, " I
hope your honour will have mercy on me,"
Baron Bramwell—How much mercy did you show to
that old man ? You were strong enough to rob him with-
out beating him. You are a bad fellow, and I sentence you
to five years' penal servitude.
Another action of slander is being tried before Baron
Channel, and will last all day.