The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-27 00:00:00

THE MURDER OF MR BRIGGS.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—Tras DAY.
THE TRIAL OF MULLER,
The trial of Muller having been fixed for this morning,
the Central Criminal Court was crowded in every part.
The public were admitted shortly after nine o'clock, and in
a very few minutes, although the Sheriffs had made such
extra arrangements as the limits of the court would admit,
every available space was filled by what might be termed a
rather fashionable company, many elegantly-dressed ladies
being amongst the spectators.
The prosecution was conducted by the Solicitor-General,
Sergeant Ballantine, Mr Hannan, Mr Beasley, and Mr
Gifford.
The prisoner was defended by Sergeant Parry, Mr Besley,
and MI Metcalf.
The Lord Mayor, Aldermen Waterlow, Sir F. G. Moon,
and Allen, the Sheriffa J. A. Roebuck, Feq , 113 P., and
sir Gaorgo Bowyer, M., P., occupied seats on thj bench.
Precisely at 10 o'clock the Chief Baron Pollock and
Baron Martin entered the court and took their seats on the
beech, and immediately afterwards
The prisoner, Franz Muller, was placed in the deck. Ile
looked rather pale and careworn, but he maintained the
same self-possession which has marked his conduct
throughout the whole of the proceedings in which he has
previously appeared.
The Clerk of the Arraigns said—Franz Muller, you are
indicted that you, with wilful malice aforethought and
felony, killed and murdered Thomas Briggs. How say
you ; are you guilty or not guilty ?
Muller (in a faint voice)—l em not guilty.
Sergeant Parry—My lord, the prisoner waives his right
to be tried by a mixed jury, and he elects to be tried by a
jury of 12 Englishmen.
The names of the jury who had assembled in the box
having been called over,
Sergeant Parry—The prisoner, I believe, is entitled to
have a jury selected from the whole panel of 60, instead of
as was about to be done from a selected panel of 14.
The Chief Baron—That is so, and I see no reason why it
should not be done.
The Clerk of the Arraigns then commenced reading the
names of the jurors, and after some delay, occasioned by
the learned counsel exercising his right of caallenge, the
jury was finally empanelled and sworn,
The Clerk of the Arraigns said—Gentlemen, the prisoner,
Franz Muller, is indicted for that he did feloniously, wil-
fully, and with malice aforethought, kill and murder Thomas
Briggs, and it is your duty to say whether he is guilty or
not guilty.
The Solicitor-General said it now became his duty to
place before them the circumstances of a most extraordinary
murder, and to inform them of the nature of the evidence he
proposed to lay before them, in order to show that the mur-
der was committed Ly the prisoner at the bar. The case
had caused extraordinary and painful excitement, it had
been canvassed by nearly every newspaper in the kingdom,
and, he might say, in every house some person had formed
an opinion. He must implore them to discard from their
minds everything they might have read connected with
the matter, and if any one cf them had formed
an opinion or felt a predisposition against the prisoner,
he, on the part of the Crown, called upon them to cast such
opinions away, and to try the prisoner on the evidence he
should lay before them, and on the evidence alone, It gave
him the greatest satisfaction that the prisoner had been
enabled to avail himself of the eminent abilities of hie
learned friend, because it would be a satisfaction to know
that the prisoner's interest would be most carefully and
minutely watched. It now would be his duty to give them
a plain and simple statement of the facts to be proved in
evidence. The deceased, Mr Thomas Briggs, was one of
the chief clerks in the house of Messrs Rebarts and Co.,
and was greatly respected and esteemed by all who knew
him. He had a house in Clapton-square, in the neighbour-
hood of the Hackney Wick Station of the North London
Railway,aed was in the habit of often travelling on that line.
On the evening of the 9th of July the deceased gentleman
was on his way home, after having dined with a relative of
his named Buchanan, and he arrived at the Fenchurch-
street station in time for starting with the quarter to 10 train,
'1 he train was late on that evening, and it did not start
until just before 10 o'clock, and he was recognised by a
gentleman when the train stopped, who, as he was passing
the carriage, wished him good night, The train then
started, and it appeared that within one-third of the dis-
tance between the Bow and the Hackney Wick stations,
which would have occupied but 3 minutes to traverse, the
body of the deceased gentleman was found lying upon the
railway. Upon the arrival of the train at the Hackney
Wick station the state of the carriage in which the deceased
had been sitting at once attracted attention. There was
blood nearly all over it, and the outside handle was also
bloody, and directions were at once given that it should be
locked up, and shortly afterwards it was examined minutely.
The result of this examination was, that in addition to the
marks of blood, it was found that the stick of the de ceased
gentleman and a bag also belonging to him were found in
the carriage, and also a hat which did not belong to him.
Upon the body of the deceased, which was found at a dis-
tance of not more than seven hundred yards from the Boa
station, being examined by medical rat n, it was disooveree
that it bore several marks of violence. One of these, which
was upon the head, might, according to the medical testi-
mony, have been occasioned by his head coming in contaci
with a stone when ho fell from the railway carriage; but
there were other serious injuries, which, according to the
evidence of the medical gentlemen, could not have been
occasioned in this manner, but were caused by blows fron.
some blunt instrument. He should produce before theme
stick belonging to the murdered gentleman, which it woulc
be seen was covered with blood, but whether that was the
instrument with which the wounds were inflicted the)
would have to say. The unfortunate gentleman
was not dead when he was discovered, but he was perfect])
insensible, and he remained in that condition for about 24
hours, when he died without being able to give any expla-
nation of the circumstances under which the fatal injuries
were received, but he apprehended there would be no doubt
that his death was occasioned by violence from some person
or other in the railway carriage, lie should state that it was
ascertained that a watch, a chain, and two seals which the
deceased was known to have had in his possession on the
night he lost his life were missing, but he did not appear to
have been robbed of anything-else, and a ring of consider-
able value which was upon one of his fingers, and severs
sovereigns that were in his pocket, were found to be safe.
The facts disclosed left no doubt that the transaction in th,
railway carriage was a meat hurried one, and was com-
mitted by one person, because had it been accomplished la
a gang the pockets of the deceased would most certain!)
have been rifled, and that all that occurred could not
have occupied a longer period than a minute and a
half at most, and the astonishment was that it
had been accomplished in so short a time. These
being the facts connected with the murder, the next ques-
tion was, what was the evidence upon which it was sought
to substantiate the charge against the prisoner ? It appeared
that the prisoner, Muller, was a German, and that he bad
resided in this country, and was by trade a tailor. Shortl)
before the 9th of July it seemed that he had announced his
intention of leaving this country and going to America, and
that ho had given notice to the landlady of the house et here
he was lodging of that intention. It appeared that he was
at home some part of the day on the gth of July, but he went
out towards the evening, and he was not seen any more that
night, and although his landlady sat up for him until 11
o'clock at night, nothing was teen of him until the
following morning, which was Sunday. About half-
past eight o'clock on the Sunday morning the prisoner
appeared to have been first seen, and he remained at
home the whole of that day, passing some portion of
the time in his own lodging and the rest with his
landlady. On the Monday morning the prisoner left hie
lodging, and the first that was seen of him was his making
his appearance at the shop of a jeweller, named Death, in
Cheapside, and he then produced the chain, the seals, and
the key that had undoubtedly been stolen from the deceased,
and asked the value of the articles. He was informed that
they were worth £3 103, and was asked whether he wished
to have anything in exchange, and he selected a chain of
the value of £3 ss, and for the remaining 5s he took a ring,
and the transaction was thus brought to a conclusion. The
chain disposed of by she prisoner would be clearly identified
as the property of Mr Briggs, and would be proved to have
been in his possession at the time he met his death, and
this was the first portion of the evidence against him. The
next point of evidence was the hat found in the railway
carriage ; it bore the name of H. IS' alker, Craw ford-street,
lelstrylebone, the lining cf which was very peculiar. He
had no doubt he should be able by undoubted testimony to
show that the bat found in the railway carriage was that
belonging to Muller. It eppeared that several
months before this transaction the prisoner had
asked a friend to purchase one like his for him.
This hat, it appeared, bearing the name of Walker
and Co., Marylebone, was purchased by Mathews et
a cost of 4s Gd, and was given to Muller. This witness
would also state that the hat found in the railway carriage
was the ono he purchased for Muller, and this testimony
would be to some extent confirmed by the fact that a hat-
box was discovered at the prisoner's lodging, If the hat
found in the carriage was not that of Muller, whose was it f
That would be a question for his learned friend to answer,
That there was a change in the hat worn by prisoner between
the Saturday night when the murder was committed, and
the Monday, there did not seem to be any doubt, for on the
last mentioned day ono of the prisoner's friends seemed to
hove noticed the fact, and to have remarked that he had got
a new hat, and that he was very extravagant in hats; to
which the prisoner replied that he had smashed his old hat
and bought a new one. The witness asked him how much
he gave fur it, and he replied 14s Gd, upon which the
other observed that the hat looked much more like a
guinea hat than a fourteen and sixpenny one. The fur-
ther evidence against the prisoner would be, that on
the Thursday after the murder bad been committed the
prisoner left this conntry and proceeded to America. The
prisoner was pursued end taken into custody at New York,
on board the vessel on which he had sailed from this coun-
try, and it was then proved that he was in possession of
another hat, which it would be proved was the hat of Mr
Briggs, and which he was wearing at the time the murder
was committed, and the name of Diganco was found inside.
At first it would scene thero was some doubt whether the hot