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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 9, 1864.

account to the 30th June showed that £942,394 had been ex-
pended, leaving a balance o; £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, ont of which the directors re-
commended that a dividend at the rate of 4f per cent, 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
.lirectors 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 anel stock, leaving a balance of £89,334.

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
exchango. 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 was 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 S, and told him
he was going to see 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 ho 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.
Ho showed it to him, and said it had cost £3 15s. He saw
no watch attached to it, nor did Muller show him the dupli-
cate of any watch. He did not ask him where ho got the
money from to buy it with. On the Wednesday Muller
showed him the duplicate of a chain, and told him it was
that of the one ho saw on the Monday before. On the Mon-
day evening he and Muller went home to Bow to his new
lodgings. On the Tuesday he went to see Mr Repack, 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-
sage money by 12s. Mr Repsch had told him of the same
circumstance before while he was at work at Messrs Hodg-
kinson's, and ho 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 exchange. The chain was pledged for £1
108 at Mr Harris's, 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 had to bring it on the Monday
morning. He did not go out at all on the Saturday night,
but stayed in doors working at the job till 10 o'clock. He
did net notice any change in Muller's clothes or appearance
when ho raw him on the Monday. They were to have gone
for a walk together on the Sunday, but Muller did not call
on him as ho had promised. Muller earned 25s a week.
The photograph produced was a likeness of Muller. He had
not spoken with Muller about the murder, but had con-
versed about it with other persons.
Mrs Matthews was here recalled and identified the hat
produced as belonging to Muller.
The Coroner then adjourned the inquest until Monday
week, the 22d inst.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GunDronu, Aug. 8.
(Before Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)
DIREY V. HAMILTON AND OTHERS,

This was an action of rather a peculiar character. The
plaintiff, Louis Dircy, 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 plaintiff, as above stated, conducted his own case,
The defendants were severally represented by Mr Bovill,
Q.C., Mr Hawkins, Q.C., the Hon. G. Denman, Q.C.,
Sergeant Ballantine, Mt 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 plaintiff by the learned judge, to enable him
to bring what he 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 for 20 months endeavouring to bring the mat-
ter before a jury, and he had applied to no less than 18

attorneys, and he 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 could 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, ana 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 filthyand 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 Lassam,
was a tradesman at the same place, and the Rev. Mr
lichens, 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, Tho case on the part of the
Plaintiff was, that ho was entirely innocent, and that the
charge had been made by the defendant Hamilton out of ro •
venge of his having detected him in the commission of un-
natural practices with two young lade, and in attempting,
to debauch his own son. It gill be seen from this brief
outline of the case that it was altogether one of a very
painful and disgusting character, and in the course of the
inquiry a great number of letters were put in evidence by
the plaintiff with a view of making out his case. One of
these letters he admitted was of such a nature that it ought
not to be read publicly, although he said ho 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 and
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 the 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 he had any furter evidence to bring
forward, replied that ho should like to examine the de-
fendants.

chose to do so he mpilgahint-tia,
Baron Martin said it was not a very usual course for a
plaintiff to take to call his antagonists witnesses, but if ho
and in answer to him ho in the
quelsrtiolinaedruiblytonthewas the first who was called, He was
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 of the plaintiff with some of the
letters, and the impression that was created by this was that
he was the party, and the disgusting letter which he ad-
mitted he had written tended very much to strengthen that
supposition.
The plaintiff put several very offensive questions to the
witnecs, the effect of which was to reiterate the odious
accusation he had made against him, but Mr Hamilton
indignantly repudiated the suggestions that were made.
The jury interposed, and said they did not wish tc hear
any more, as they considered the plaintiff had entirely
failed in making out his case.
Baron Martin said it would perhaps be better that they
should hear the whole of the evidence the plaintiffproposed
to lay before them before they gave a verdict;
The whole of the other defendants were then examined
by the plaintiff, but their evidence went entirely to dis-
prove the caw, that he cuncsteo.. The 1214intq in the

courso 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.—lrswicir, 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 Orridgo 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 whoa 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 ho 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—hut 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 for a 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 today. It was
this—At the spring assizes last year a wealthy fanner of
the name of Humphery was convicted heforo 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, he suc-
ceeded in persuading hiss 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 suns of money as soon as he got out
from gaol. Humphery, by this, expected to receivo 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 get 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 murderhe 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 ho alone
shot Reed. This story was never believed for an instant,
but to make the search perfect tho 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 ho 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 bo afraid that I shall split, that is an my
fault, I don'tthink 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
be afraid that I shall cplit, for I ohniet do thot, beoatime
that is my fault. That would have been all right if I hadn't
went and shown them the gun, but don't you be afraid. I
will stick true, for I think I shall get off 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 Weight 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 fats, 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.