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

BRITISH POSSESSIONS.

Paie

Closing
Prioe.

THE MURDER OF MR BRIGGS.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT-THIS 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 ehortly 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
Gitlard.
The prisoner was defended by Sergeant Parry, Mr Bexley,
and Mr Metcalf.
The Lord Mayor, Aldermen Waterlow, Sir F. G. Moon,
and Allen, the Sheriff, J. A. Roebuck, Feel , M P., and
teit George Bowyer, M.P., occupied scats on the bench.
Precisely at 10 o'clock the Chief Baron Pollock and
Baron Martin entered the court and took their seats on the
bench, and immediately afterwards
The prisoner, Franz Muller, was placed in the deck. He
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 Mu'ler, you are
indicted that you, with wilful malice aforethought and
felony, killed and murdered Thomas Briggs. How any
you ; are you guilty or not guilty ?
Muller (in a faint voice)-1 am 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 sea no reason why it
should not be done.
The Clerk of the Arraigns then commenced reading the
names of the juror's, and after some delay, occasioned by
the learned counsel exercising his right of cuallenge, 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 his
learned Wend, 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 ie
evidence. The deceased, Mr Thomas Briggs, was one of
the chief clerks in the house of Messrs Roberts 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,aad was in the habit of often travelling en 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,
The 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 Bitting 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 ehortly 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 deceased
gentleman and a bag also belonging to him were found in
the carriage, and also a bat 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 Bow
station, being examined by medical m, n, it was discovered
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 contact
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 from
some blunt instrument. Ho should produce before them a
stick belonging to the murdered gentleman, which it would
be seen was covered with blood, but whether that was the
instrument with which the wounds were inflicted they
would have to say. The unfortunate gentleman
was not dead when he was discovered, but he was perfectly
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. He 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 several
sovereigns that were in his pocket, were found to be safe.
The facts disclosed left no doubt that the transaction in the
railway carriage was a most hurried one, and was corn-
milted by one person, because had it been accomplished be
togang the pockets of the deceased would most cortainl3
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 had
resided in this country, and was by trade a tailor. Shortly
before the 9th of July it seemed that he had announced his
intention of leaving this country and going to America, and
that he had given notice to the landlady of the house v. here
he was lodging of that intention. It appeared that hews
at home some part of the day on the 9,h of July, but he went
out towards the evening, end he was not seen any more that
night, and although his landlady sat up for him until 11
o'clock at night, nothing was eeen 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 ho 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 loft his
lodging, aed 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 10s, 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 be took a ring,
and the traneaction was thus brought to a conclusion. The
chain disposed of by the prisoner would be clearly identified
as the property of Mr Briggs, and would be proved to have
been in his po-session 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 11. Walker, Crawford-street,
Marylebone, the lining of which was very peculiar. He
had no doubt he should be able by undoubted testimony to
show that the hat found in the railway carriage was that
belonging to Muller. It appeared that several
months before this transtretion 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 at
a cost of 4s 6d, and was given to Muller. This witness
would also state that the hat found in the railway carriage
was the one ho purchased for Muller, and this testimony
would be to some extent confiimed by the fact that a hat-
box was discovered at the prisoner's lodging. It the hat
found in the carriage was not that of Muller, whose was it ?
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 teem to Le any doubt, fur on the
last mentioned day one of the prisoner's friends seemed to
have noticed the fact, and to have remarked that be 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 or is, and be replied 14s 6d, upon which, the
4)&1:Ed much more,
other observed that the ha: _
The fur-
guinea hat than a fourteen and siii:`,:nnY that on
ther evidence against the prisoner wont('
the Thureday after the murder had been committed the
prisoner left this wintry and proceeded to America. The
prisoner was pursued and 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
litiggs, and which ha was es eat ieg at the time the murder
eves committed, aed the Lathe of Digance was found ineidu.
At first it would seem there was some doubt whether the hat