The Sun.
London, England, 1860-10-26 00:00:00

CRIht,IN4.

OLD COURT.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron.)
THE STEPNEY MURDER.—SECOND DAY.
THE DEFENCE.

The interest exhibited yesterday increased this morning,
and shortly after the doors of the court were opened every
seat in the court was instantly occupied.
At ten o'clock the prisoner, James Mullins, was again
placed in the dock, and the jury having answered to their
names,

Mr. Best, the prisoner's counsel, rose to address the jury
on behalf of the prisoner. He said it now became his
onerous and important duty to address them on behalf of
the prisoner, and he could not conceal from himself the
awful responsibility that rested on him. He felt
nearly overwhelmed with the responsibility, because
he was afraid that, in the discharge of his duty,
he should overlook some important fact which
might militate against tie freedom and life of the
prisoner. He could not but say he felt greatly indebted
to the learned Sergeant who had conducted the case on
behalf of the Crown, and he felt he need sincerely implore
the jury to do precisely as the learned advocate directed,
to judge the case by the facts as they had been proved
in evidence. In the month of August the unfortunate
woman was murdered, and from the witnesses for the pro-
secution it was clear that the crime must have been com-
mitted by somebody well acquainted with her habits. It
was proved that the deceased refused admission to her
house to all but those with whom she was acquainted. It
was without doubt that the person who committed the crime
entered by the front door of the house, and the next question
that had to be decided was, was Mullins the only man who
had access to the house. The old lady had purchased a
quantity of paper-hangings more than she hadneed for, and
as she was of penurious habits it was nob improbable she
was anxious to dispose of the property to any person dis-
posed to purchase it. Was it impossible that the murderer,
whoever he might be, gained admission on the pretext of
being a purchaser, and once having succeeded in overcom-
ing the first difficulty, there was the opportunity of com-
mitting the horrid crime, as the old lady resided quite alone
in the house. It was generally known that she was a woman
who was in the habit of collecting large sums of money, and
to possess the money so collected some person must have
secreted himself inside the house previous to its being locked
up for the night by the deceased. Now, had it been clearly
proved it was impossible for any other person but Mullins to
enter the house P Ho thought not ; and if they were of that
opinion the first doubt would entirely upset the theory of
the prosecution. Adverting to the allegation that Mullins
had been animated by the large reward that was offered for
the discovery of the murderer, he contended that the
communication had been made to the police before
the reward of £3OO was offered. He could not
pass from that part of his subject without remark-
ing upon the danger of the offering of these large
rewards. Happily they had passed from a period when
" blood money" was freely offered and paid, but the danger
to some extent still remained, and the fact being so it was
a subject that required deep consideration, With respect
to the facts adduced in evidence touching the discovery of
the strings round the parcel, the hammer, and pencil ease,
they did not in any way tend to fasten the crime on
the prisoner at the bar. The pencil ease, which
was one of the strongest points, was not of any pecu-
liar description, thousands of them were 'offered
for sale daily, and he did not think that any one
would take upon himself the responsibility of saying that
the deceased did not either sell or give it to Mullins, sup-
posing it was clearly made out—which he most strenuously
denied--that it wag the property of the murdered woman.
The next evidence which he should deal with was that of
the dock labourer, of Mitchel, and the sailor. It must be
recollected they did not agree so entirely as to be of any
service to the prosecution. Mr. Rose had given his evi-
dence as to the finding a key which had been given to Mul-
lins by Mrs. Goltz, but there was nothing to show
that the key had not been returned to the old
lady in the ordinary manner and placed whore it was
found. Dillon, the next witness, described the state of the
body, and said there were splashes of blood all about ; that
being so, the murderer must have been sprinkled, and had
it been attempted to show that Mullins had any blood on
his clothes. Dr. Gill also described the wounds as made
by several blows, and another, an incised wound, which
eorresponded with the size of the hammer, but they must
receive such evidence with care, as there was no evidence to
show that the hammer belonging to the prisoner inflicted
the injuries, and hundreds of hammers of the same descrip-
tion would make corresponding marks. He must impress
on them the fact that there was no peculiarity about the
hammer. On the contrary, he begged they would recollect
that it was one of the commonest description. Dr. Gill
talked about two pieces of tape both having 33 threads, but
ho had not ventured to say that the 33 threads were of the
same quality and texture. The doctor also looked at the
pencil-case ; there was a spot of some sort on it, but it was
impossible for him to identify it as human blood. With re-
spect to the lenses identified as belonging to Mrs. Emsley,
it had not been proved that they were in her possession
when she met her death. Then the cheque which had
been found in the parcel—it might have been paid away
on the very day she received it, or she might have given it
to some person. It was not a crossed cheque, and there-
fore he did not think that the same importance whia,
was attached to it by the prosecution would be giver. to it
by the jury. Sergeant Thomas found the boot, ar ii it was
said to correspond with the print of blood on
floor, and
that the boot came from Mullins's house
but where was the other boot? Why- ;:n Offord-street;
and as So the hairs found on was only one found ?
was
one produced they
might have come from the' atair in mortar, or out of the
rubbish in the dust-hole He thought, moreover, that if
the jury carefully i'lamined the boot they would find that
the 'not correspond with the nails in the sole.
There pr did
etwo prominent marks of nails, but if they were
to make a mark with the boot three prominent nails would
appear. He did not desire to criminate Emms, but he
must endeavour to satisfy them that there was a
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of his client. He
did not wish to say anything that would tend to act detri-
mentally to Emma, but it did appear exceedingly strange
that while he could not obtain admission to the house of
the deceased, he should not have gone immediately to the
friends of the deceased and made them acquainted with
the circumstances. As to the evidence of Raymond, he
thought the motive of his coming forward was plain enough.
It was well known that witnesses received part of the reward
in such cases if conviction followed, and perhaps this fact
stimulated the witness who gave evidence that he met
Mullins coming from Stepney-green. The learned gentle-
man then went on at great length to show that had Mullins
committed the murder he would not have kept the cheque
or remained in the neighbourhood ; and as to his agitation
when the murder was spoken of, it might easily be ac-
counted for, as he was in the habit of doing work for her,
knew her well, and felt sorrow at her death. He intended
on the part of his client to call witnesses to prove where
the prisoner was when the murder was committed; and it
would be for the jury to decide whether they were the
witnesses of truth. He should also call a man named
Stephenson, who would state that he saw a man come out

of Mrs. Emsley's house on the morning of the murder, and
he would swear that man was not Mullins ; and he should
corroborate Stephenson by a witness named Barnes, and it
would be for the jury to put the evidence in the

scale of justice and ascertain the value to be attributed to
•--- - - - -

it. If they had the slightest doubt they were bound to
give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt. Was it to the
fact as to the hammer or the threads of tape which cor-
responded that the prosecution hoped to convict the pri-
soner. After some further remarks, the learned gentleman
concluded a very powerful speech by calling upon the jury
to judge impartially, and again urged that if they enter-
tained any doubt with respect to the prisoner being guilty
of the crime, it would be far better that he should be al-
lowed to go forth and walk about—

"The poor man's fear—the bad man's dread,
The miserable outcast—the wretched vagabond."
It now became their duty to decide the fate of the wretched
man, and ho trusted God would oxide them to a right con-
clusion in this great mid ‘:,-,kemn matter.
The learned
Pr'.,--ilemait then called
Mary who said--I am daughter of the prisoner.
On 'ine 13th of August I resided with my mother at 12,

Offord-street, Chelsea. Father lived in Barnsley-street,

and sometimes came to see my mother. I had seen my
brother James in possession of the pencil-case produced. I
saw it as late as June last. I don't know where he is now.

Cress examined by Sergeant Parry—l first heard of the
murder on Saturday. I was in service at Mr. Gibson's, in
Sloane-street. I read the account of the murder in the
newspapers. I have seen Mrs. Emsley once. I saw my
father on the Saturday night after the murder. I was dis-
missed the day after my father was taken. That is the only
thing I can attribute my dismissal to. I was not dismissed
for moving a stone in the back kitchen in order to hide
something. I took up the stone to look for a
shilling I had lost. I called the other servant, a
little girl, to hold the candle for me. I was dis-
missed at 4 o'clock. I had the stone up at two. I have
not seen my brother James since July—he is at sea. My
father seldom came home except on Saturday. The stone
I removed was in the back kitchen, by the side of the fire-
place. Mr. Gibson's is a large house.
Thomas Mullins, son of the prisoner, said—l live at
Rose-court. I assist my father in his trade. I remember
Monday the 13th of August. I was staying with him in
Barnsley•street on that day. My father came home about
a quarter to seven. He did not go out again that evening.
He slept in bed by himself. I have never seen the boot
produced before. It is not my father's. I used to clean
my father's boots. I never saw my father wear a billy•
cock hat. Ho wore a hat on Monday.

Cross-examined by Sergeant Parry—l last saw my brother
James about three months ago. I remember the time of
the murder ; my father was at home then. I now recol-
lect—l have made a mistake—he was not at home. My
brother James is not in England. He went in the
Mechanic for New York. I was not in work when the
murder was committed. I was not working in the Marl-
borough-road in August. I will swear my father was at
home on the 13th. I will not swear I was not at work at
a greengrocer's, in Marlborough-road. The day I left I
Sunday, tho 12th, I've only dourlWownat:oamtwyofrakthoenes. I can't answer the question whether