The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-12 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

THE REV. Mr. Huns AGATN.-Mr. Richard Hibbs, a
clergyman of the Church of England, was placed at the
bar, before Mr. Flower, to answer the charge of having
caused an obstruction to the public thoroughfare by preach-
ing in Trafalgar-square.
The rev, defendant begged to be accommodated with a
chair, as he was suffering acutely from rheumatism. He
was at once provided with one, but immediately after wards
he appeared to forget his physical calamity and rose from
his seat, and, turning round alternately to the public, the
bench, and the reporters' box, continued speaking and
gesticulating in the most violent and excited manner.
Police-constable A 616 was about to give his evidence,
when the defendant demanded his address, questioned him
in the most insulting manner as to his comprehension of the
sacred obligations of an oath, and imputed wilful and cor-
rupt perjury to him almost before he had uttered a sentence.
The officer being at length allowed to proceed, stated
that he was on duty in Trafalgar-square, at half- past
three o'clock on Sunday afternoon, when he saw a
large crowd of persons assembled in the thoroughfare.
The defendant was mounted on one of the terraces giving
out a hymn. He was stationed near the National Gallery.
Witness went up to him and told him to go away, as he
could not be permitted to preach there. There was a crowd
of five or six hundred persons gathered at the time, causing
serious obstruction in the carriage-way to the carriages
passing. On Sunday week witness and other constable,
had removed him from the same place. The defendant came
down into the roadway but refused: to leave, and went on
"arguing" with the public. Finding that ho would not go
away witness took him into custody, and the charge was
taken at the station. The defendant, who had several friends
with him, was liberated on bail.
Defendant—Was I not walking towards St. Martin's
Church when you took me into custody ?
Constable—You walked a few yards only. You said you
had a written order from Sir R. Mayne to preach there.
Defendant—That is, not exactly an order, but a notice,
which I exhibited here on a former occasion, and which
gives me permission to preach, unless requested by the
inhabitants to desist. Now, sir (to witness), did I not call
on my friends to follow me to Leicester-square ?
Witness—Yes. You waived your hand and said, "Now,
friends, to Leicester-square."
Defendant—ls not this sufficient to prove that the con-
stable has perjured himself. He has sworn that I refused
to go, and now admits that I was actually going. The fa.t
is, I took his number in my book, and wrote by the side of
the entry the words " Very insolent." 110 then took me
out of revenge. _

Mr Flower—l think it very probable that you intended
to go, and that the constable may have been mistaken as to
your intention. I shall then bre discharge you, but you
must not preach in Dublin thornmihr.rpc to thn nhar..nf inn
of the traffic. I dareeay you think it is very wicked for
omnibuses and cabs to be out at all on Sundays, but you must
not expect your judgment to bo universally adopted. You
are now discharged.
Defendant—Oh, No not done with this man yet. Now,
sir—and this is—very grave matter, sir—are you the con-
stable that addressed to me, a clergyman of the Church of
England, the offensive words, " none of your slang."
Witness—Yes, I did use those words.
Defendant (with great vehemence)—Now, sir, let the
public see what sort of men they have to deal with.
His Honour—That was an imprudent remark, no doubt ;
but, Mr Hibbs, you must bear in mind tiat a policeman is
only a man, having blood, heart,
and temper, like other
men, and if you, a clergyman of the Church of England,
cannot keep your temper (and any one who has seen your
excited manner must be clear upon the point) you mast not
be surprised if a man in the constable's station in life should
forget himself also. I dismiss the ease.
The defendant, who seemed anxious to keep up the case
much longer, then reluotantly retired front the court.

SURRENDER OF MULLER.

QUEENSTOWN, Sunday Night.
The excitement in the court-room at New York
on the re-examination of Muller on the 27th ult.
was intense. The prisoner on entering, accompanied
by his counsel, appeared totally indifferent to the
charge against him. Amidst profound silence, Mr
Blankman said the questions arising in the case
were intricate, and required careful attention, and
asked for an adjournment for a week. As a prece-
dent he referred to the case of Anderson, who fl,.d
to Canada after committing murder in the United
States. The case was adjudicated upon in England,
and resulted in the release of Anderson on the
ground that he was a slave, and that the deed was
committed in 2:raking his escape. He also referred
to a murder committed on an American vessel by
pirates and murderers who escaped to Liverpool,
and the case was adjourned from month to month,
and the British Government declined to give up the
prisoners. Another feature in the present case was
that no finding of a coroner's inquest had been pro-
duced, but if the documents showed that a case of
murder bad been made out his honour's duty was
clear; but if the case was one of manslaughter it
did not fall within the treaty of 1842. His client
asserted his innocence of the charge, and he thought
the Cour.; ought to grant a postponement.
Mr Marbury said it was not his honour's duty to
try the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, but to
ascertain if there was sufficient evidence to justify
the committal of the prisoner. He did not wish to
say anything harsh against the unfortunate man,
but the ease seemed so plain that the Court could
not refuse to send the prisoner back to England,
where he would have a fair trial according to the
law of the land.
Mr Blankman maintained that the question was
one of guilt—that was a preliminary question. Was
it probable the prisoner was guilty P He was a
German, and his fellow-citizens of America were
interested in justice being done to him. It was not
a question whether Mr. Seward should touch his
bell and issue orders that the accused be spirited
away secretly and withhut the forms of law; but
the rights of the prisoner were to be guarded, and
hence his demand for postponement.
His Honour did not think the interest of the pri-
soner would suffer if he refused the application.
Mr. Schaffer then moved for the prisoner's dis-
charge, arguing that there were insuperable objec-
tions to his detention. The law must deem him
innocent, and if he declared his inteni ion of be-
coming a citizen the shield of the country would be
thrown over him, and there was, in his opinion, a
sublimity in the sudden awakening of England to
revenge the blood of one of its citizens. He con-
sidered the treaty to be a violation of the constitu-
tion. An amendment provided that no man should
be put in peril of his life without indictment by the
grand jury. The treaty of 1842 provided that fugi-
tives should be rendered up on certain conditions,
and if the prisoner was rendered up he would be
convicted before he was indicted. It was a prin-
ciple of national law that a state of war nullified all
treaties True, it might be said that there was no
war between the two countries in their sovereign
capacity, but there was between the citizens of the
two countries. There were three sorts of war—pri-
vate, public, and mixed war. Mixed war could only
be carried on between a nation on one side and indi-
viduals of a nation on the other, which was divided
into solemn and unsolemn war. Englishmen who
were committing depredations upon our commerce
must be restrained by their Government or they
would be in state of war with America, and to say
that such a state of war did not exist with Great
Britain would be to forget the events of the past
three years with England, which fact did away with
the operation of treaties. He then reviewed the
evidence against the prisoner, and contended that
accused was not one of the two men who entered
the railway carriage with Mr Briggs, and that
there was no evidence to detain him.
Mr Blankman called Inspector Tanner, who de-
posed—l have seen Franz Muller. I should judge
him to be five feet six inehps. He has nn haard 1
should think he never had any. Ido not call him
a tall thin man, nor a thickset man. He has no
whiskers nor any signs of having ever had any.
This closed the case for the defence.

Mr Marbury said it was never a question for the
courts to decide whether a treaty bs in force or not;
that was the prerogative of the executive. The ques•
Lion was whether the evidence was sufficient to
justify his honour, as committing magistrate, in
holding prisoner for trial. The evidence went to
show that Mr Briggs entered the railway carriage,
and a few minutes afterwards was found moaning
on the track suffering from wounds in the head,
from which he died on that same night. Muller
was absent from his usual lodgings. In the com-
partment of the railway car was found a hat known
and proved to have belonged to Muller. Mr Briggs'
hat was gone, and when the prisoner was arrested a
hat similar' to Mr Briggs's was found in his pos-
session. A watch and chain belonging to Mr Briggs
were missing, and two days after the murder Muller
went to Mr Death's and exchanged a chain
answering the description of Mr Briggs's, and Mr
Death positively identified the prisoner as the man
who exchanged the chain. He was also fully
identified by Matthews: In regard to Mr Lee's
testimony concerning the two men seen in the same
compartment with Mr Briggs, there was nothing
to show that the same two men remained there or
in the train after it started. There seemed on the
whole to be abundance of proof that Muller was the
murderer. Mr Marbury concluded by saying the
chain of evidence was complete, not a link wanting
to connect the prisoner with the commission of the
crime with which he was charged, and called upon
the commissioner to grant the necessary certificate
of extradition in order that the case might undergo
investigaticn in England.
Commissioner Newton then delivered his deci-
sion. He said—My simple duty in this caseeis to
determine whether there is sufficient evidence to
enable me to remand the prisoner that he may have
an opportunity of being
.tried where the crime was
committed, and there prove his innocence, or if
guilty be punished. It is not necessary for me to
determine absolutely his guilt. The question to
determine is, has a crime been committed ? If so,
there is a probable cause from the evidence to show
that the party accused is the ono who committed
the crime ? My duty is simple and plain. Ido not
desire to sit in judgment over this man ; far be it
from me. I wish it were in my power to discover
a trace of innocence to justify me in withholding
the certificate of extradition, but I am free to say
all the circumstances point fatally to the prisoner
as the guilty man. So clear and distinct is the
question of probable cause that I cannot for one
moment have a doubt as to the proper course to be
pursued. Under these circumstances lam con.
strained to grant a certificate, and the prisoner,
therefore, stands committed.
This decision was received by some of those pre•
sent with evident astonishment, but Muller himself,
whose demeanour throughout was more that of a
spectator than a criminal, was not in the least
moved.
The prisoner was then handed over to the cus.
Ludy of the British officers, and will probably arrive
lin England on the 15th inst.

ANOTHER SHAKSPERIAN DESCENDANT !—With
a grave sense of humour, the Athenucein remarks
as follows—We regret to have to announce " The Hey.
Thomas Shakspere I" We are sorry to say it, but he claims
to be another kinsman of the bard ! No, we du him wrong;
his friends insist upon the consanguinity. A miter in the
Cat dlrano has encountered this offshot of the Warwick-
shire family at Nailsworth, in Gloucestershire, and has
found that the rev. gentleman was content to designate
himself as a" poor travelling preacher." ll° seems to Ibe
a man of some senco, for " ho resolutely persists in refusing
to trace the descent by baptismal register." Ile Conies from
the neighbourhood of Stratford, and remembers that his
grandmother had the Shakspero arms suspended not in
the best parlour, but in the kitchen. The Cardiff cor•
respondent was, of " struck by his singular like.
ness to several of the great bard's portraits," which was an
unlucky stroke, for this would prove that the travelling
preacher cannot closely resemble '' the swan of Avon."
But then this Shakspearian Thomas preaches with "a bold
thought and true poetic utterance not unworthy of the
great Poet himself!" Thomas Shaltspere was sent up
to the Stratford Jubilee, where, we are told, that "standing
on the tomb of the bard, his legs trembled ; nature indi •
Gated the tie!" We do not see the connexion.