The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-28 00:00:00

asked the prisoner what it was, and he said it was .his
watch, and that the hat also in the box was his, and that
he had the watch about two years, and the hat twelve
months. I told him he would have to remain in custody.
He was kept on board all night, and in the morning taken
to New York.
Cross-examined by Sergeant Parry—Prisoner answered
all my questions with the utmost readiness.
Sergeant Parry—Did not the prisoner say when you told
him of the murder that he knew nothing about it ?
Witness—No.
Sergeant Parry—Are you sure of that, and that you said
so in your evidence before the coroner ?
The witness's deposition was referred to, and it then ap-
peared that the words used were found therein.
Witness—lf the words aro there I must have said so. In
speaking of the prisoner's shins I have said they were old
ones. I should have said they were soiled ones. They ap-
peared to have been wurn once or twice.
Richard Tanner, superintendent of the Detective Police—
By order of Sir Richard Mayne I took Mathews and Mr.
Death to New York. I found Muller on board the Vic-
toria. When I went on board I left Mr Death above and
went below. I placed Muller amongst eight others and Mr
Death at once pointed him cut. I said to Muller, " Have
you stated that you have lost a sing on board the ship.'
He said, " Yes, but it must have been stolen from me." I
said, " Tell me what sort of a one it is, and I will try to
have it found." He said, "It is a gold ono with a plain
white stone with a head on it. I bought it in Cheapside,
and gave 7s. 6d. for it," The ring was not found. I
took possession of the Effects of the prisoner. He said
all his things were in the box.

The box was here produced for the inspection of the jury,
and the hat of Mr Briggs was placed in the position in which
it was found. Tho box in addition contained two pairs of
trousers, some shirts, a pair of tailor's shears, some collars,
a towel or two, some brushes, but no coat.
The court here adjourned for re'reshment.
On the re-assembling of the court,

Inspector Tanner was cross-examined by Sergeant Parry
—Before I saw Muller I knew the ring had been lost. I
had a description of it from Mr Death. When Muller de-
scribed the ring to me he said it was a plain gold ring, with
a white stone which had a head on it. The examination
in New York took place after Muller had had the
opportunity of consulting a legal gentleman. I found lie
in money when I searched him. He did not tell mo how he
got the money. I believe he told Sergeant Clarke he had
sold some of his clo thee.

Sergeant Clarke recalled—Prisoner told me ho had ex-
changed the waistcoat for a little leather reticule. got the
garment back again.
Re-examined—The prisoner had on a very old waistcoat
when I arrested him. He wore the waistcoat ho had pre-
viously exchanged.
Sergeant Parry—Will your lordship ask the witness
Tanner whether the clothes the prisoner now wears have
been taken up for analysis ?
The Lord Chief Baron (to Tanner)—ls that so?
Inspector Tanner—They have been closely examined.

Mr Thomas James Briggs, son of the murdered gentle-
man (examined IT Mr Hannan), said—The last time I saw
my father alive to speak to him was on the 7th of July. I heard
of what had happened on Sunday. I saw him that day at the
Mitford Castle. He was at that time alive but insensible.
I accompanied him when he was removed from there to his
own house, No. 5, Ciapton-square. Ho died about a quar-
ter to 12 on the Sunday night. The watch produced is my
father's. My father for many years has purchased his hats
at Mr Diganoe's of the Royal Exchange. The one produced
seems somewhat shorter than that usually worn by my late
father. The chain and other articles found in the railway
carriage belonged to him.
Mr Titmarsb, watchmaker, Hackney, said—l know the
watch produced. It belonged to the late Mr Briggs. I had
it to repair in February, 1863. The watch, I should say,
is worth 112. I daresay it originally cost £25.
Mr Digance, hatter, of the Royal Exchange, examined
by the Solicitor-General—Mr Briggs was a customer of
mine for nearly 30 years. Every hat he has had has been
made to order. I took an order from him for a hat
in September, 1863. The one now before me is

lower in the crown than that ordered by Mr Briggs.
The other parts of it correspond. The hat originally,
was a little too easy, and I placed some tissue paper under-
neath the lining, a portion of which now remains. [This
the witness pointed out to the jury.] The hat has been cut

_ . ..
down from an inch to an inch and a half. The piece has
been removed, and then the upper part of the hat has been

stitched on to the brim. The silk has been pasted over to
hide the stitches. The hat has not been cut down as a
hatter would do it. I am certain of that. I never

knew such a thing to be done, but suppose it had
to be performed by a hatter, ho would use gum and
then put it on a block and profs it down with a hot iron.

That has not been done in the hat before me. The altera•

tion has been very neatly performed, and apparently by a
person who understands sewing. The hat, with the excep-
tion I have spoken of, corresponds in every particular
with that I made for the late Mr Briggs. When
a hat is ordered the name of the person so ordering it is
placed on the bind of the article. That is the portion that
has been cut from the hat I now hold in my hand.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, SEVEN O'CLOCK.

Croes-examined by Sergeant Parry—lt is not an unusual

thing to put tissue-paper underneath the lining of a hat
that is too easy. I know nothing of a second-hand trade
in hats. My hats might get into the hands of seoondbhand
dealers, as servants sometimes sell their masters' hats. The
two second-hand hats now submitted to ray inspection were
originally made by me. They are very old affairs. One of
them is, perhaps, about 7 years old. Mr Briggs generally
had a new hat once a year; he was a very careful wearer.
Some more second-hand hats wore here shown to the
witness, and he identified them all as being manufactured
by him.

Re•examined--Tho hat, cut down, is a superfine hat, and
cost one guinea. Thoso submitted to we aro some of
second rato Quality,

Sergeant Parry—Quite so; my object is only to show
that Mr Diganco's hats got into the second-hand trade.
Frederick William Thorn, a hat-maker—l manufacture
hats for Mr Diganco. The ono placed in my hand is my
manufacture. It bears my private mark. A portion 01 it
has been cut away since it lest my hands, I made it for
Mr Digance. I have known instances in which hats have
been cut down, but then a hatter would not use paste, as
in this instance. Mine are first-class hate. I have
different marks for each of my customers. I can't say how
many hats I make in a year for Mr Digance. They would
amount to many gross.

- --
Sergeant Tanner recalled-e-I tried the hat found in the
railway carriage on Muller's head, and found it fitted
Mrs Blythe recalled—The last tfme I saw the coat 'with
a velvet collar was on Thursday, the 14th of July.
Sergeant Parry then rose to address the jury for the
prisoner. He said it now became his duty to address them
in the performance of his very onerous and responsible
duty, and he did so in the firm and unshaken convic-
tionthat the prisoner would have a fair and impartial trial.
The conduct of a certain portion of the press in publishing
articles the tenor of which would leave it to be believed that
there was no doubt of the Prisoner's guilt, he could not but
think was highly objectionable and unfair, because those
articles were read, and exerted a prejudice which it was
nearly impossible to surmount. lie implored them, if they
had read any of those articles, to cast from them any impres-
sion they might have made; and after that appeal he should
pass to the performance of his task. He was not going to
imitate others who have damaged themselves, damaged their
clients, and damaged the profession to which they belonged
by making a solemn declaration as to the innocence of the
parties for whom they wore interested, If he was to make
a solemn as-everation that the young man was innocent of
the charge of which he was accused, they (the jury) would
treat it as it deserved, and supposing his learned friend the
Solicitor-General was to make a solemn declaration that the
prisoner was guilty, they would treat that declaration as
they would his asseveration. He felt that the evidence
that had been placed before them to convict the prisoner
of the crime with which ho stood charged, had altogether
failed, and when they heard the evidence he should lay
before them; he felt they would not have a doubt about his
being innocent of so heinous a crime as that of murder.
His learned friend had laid great stress on the evidence
relative to the hat. He seemed to think that it he could
but prove the hat found on Muller to be that of Mr Briggs',
it would be conclusive evidence against the prisoner, but
that was but his theory; therefore, before they (the jury)
could be of the same opinion, they must be so free from
doubt that not the shadow of any uncertainty remained in
their minds. The evidence that seemed to press hardly
against the prisoner was that of Mrs Repsch,
but it did seem exceedingly extraordinary that
Muller's hat should bo the one that seemed to have such
intense curiosity about it. It seemed to him most extraor-
dinary; but taken for what it was worth, he did not think
it was of a nature to make a deep impression upon the
minds of sensible men. With respect to the witness
Mathews, it had been thought that in defending Muller he
should attempt to involve Mathews in the murder; but
such a thought never for a single moment entered his
mind. The real perpetrator of the murder was known by
but One, to whom all hearts aro open, and from whom no
secrets are hid. Was it likely, therefore, that he, with
his finite knowledge, should attempt to fix that crime upon
such a person as Mathews. What appeared to him to be
most extraordinary is that Mathews should have purchased
two of the hats made with that peculiar lining, and of which
only one other was in existence. Why should not the hat
found in the railway carriage ho that of Mathews, but by
that ho did not mean to imply that it was on his head dur-
ing the murder. They had it from him that ho had loft
his old hat at Mr Downs's; was it, therefore, an impossi-
bility for that hat t) get into the hands of second-hand
dealers ? lie thought not. If that should be so, and
there was nothing to disprove such a surmise, it was just
possible that it might have been on the head of the mur-
derer of the 9th of July, but certainly it would not do
lightly to assume that the hat was Muller's. Mathews had
told a peculiar story about the manner in which he became
acquainted with the prisoner—did they believe him ? Did
they believe that he, a cabman, in constant attendance at
the railway stations, cabs-stands, and, by his own admis•
skin, public houses, should remain in perfect ignorance of
a murder, which had caused a thrill to pass through the
country, of the most appalling nature? He did not think
they would hastily commit themselves to Matthews' evi•
deuce. It was surrounded by the greatest doubt, and
therefore he felt certain they would weigh well every parti-
cle of it beton, they acted on it to the prejudice of the pri-
soner. There might be certain suspicions about the hat
being Muller's, but their suspicion would not do. The
ownership of that hat must be brought hone clearly and
unmistakably—totally devoid of doubt and uncertainty,
Mr Digance, with respect to the hat found in Muller's box,
could not speak positively even to that. He said in hie
evidence "1 will net undertake to otter Unit I bold teat