The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-15 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THIRD DAY.

(Before Mr. Baron Martin and Mr. Justice Willes.)
The prisoners Pierce, Burgess, and Tester, were again
placed at the bar, when they commenced their defence.
Mr. Sergeant Parry, in addressing the jury for the
prisoner Pierce, entreated the jury to dismiss from their
minds all they had heard out of doors in reference to
this case. It was one of a most peculiar character in
reference to the legal principles that must guide them in
coming to a conclusion of the prisoner's guilt, from
the main witness, and he was going to say the only
witness, who deposed to the commission of the offence,
being its perpetrator. He had given a statement that
it was difficult for ordinary minds not to act on ; but in
courts of justice they must act on the invariable rules
that guided the administration of the criminal courts of
this country, which was the cause of that unanimous
confidence that existed in this country in favour
of the administration of criminal justice. The
proposition that he sought to establish was—and it was
a principle not absolutely of law—that an anuomplice
should be corroborated, not merely however as to the
facts, of which no doubt he knew the truth, from having
been a participator, but also corroborated in reference to
the person against whom he was giving his evidence, as
well as in the material and substantial particulars of his
statement. The learned counsel then read the opinion
of Lord Abinger and Baron Alderson in support of the

proposition he had laid down. This was a case in which
a; an advocate could not, or ought not, to do more than
,tis calmly discuss the evidence, and see whether by the law

of the land, and the practice of the courts the evidence
brought home the obarge to the prisoner. If he be
Ig. guilty, he (the learned Sergeant) freely admitted he was
7 guilty of a most serious and grave offence, and one
7 which, should they consider him so, would render him
5
r liable to a serious punishment. He hoped, however, to
t be able to demonstrate to them that by law and practice
of the Courts the evidence produced in this case failed
; to establish his guilt. The learned sergeant then refer-
red to the history of the case, and said that it was im•
possible for him or any other person to add a word of
detestation beyond what must be entertained by all who
had heard Agar's statement against that man's conduct,
• and which statement stamped his character as a man
unworthy of belief. From the age of 18 or 20 he had
followed a course of crime, and it was on the evidence
of such a man this charge was to be supported.
There could be no doubt that Agar and Fanny
Kay entertained a malignant feeling towards Pierce, but
unfortunately no one but himself oould explain his con
duct towards that woman and her child. An impression
was endeavoured to be created against him as to his
non-investment of Agar's money for the woman and her
child, but it fortunately happened for him that Mr.
Wontner who defended him defended Agar also, and to
the kindness of his lordship Mr. Wontner had been al-
lowed out of order to give a satisfactory explanation of
the matter, and if the woman and her child did not
receive the money, it would be the South-Eastern Rail
way Company, in whose possession the Turkish Bonds
were, that would deprive them of it. The learned ser-
geant then proceeded to analyse the evidence, and al-
though admitting that Pierce had known Agar, who no
doubt bad endeavoured to corrept him, said that the
evidence did not establish Pierce's guilt, but rather that
Agar was the planner and perpetrator of the robbery.
Agar's statement of the leading circune,tancee of the
robbery, connecting Pierce with it, was not in the
slightest degree corroborated—viz , the perpetration of
the robbery and the return and sale of the gold. It was
essential, according, tn the judgments he .bad read of
Lord Abinger and Mr. Baron Alderson, that Agar should
be corroborated in these material facts, to entitle his
statement to belief. Alluding to the 1001. note changed
for Pierce by Raffin, whose name appeared on the back
of it, he reminded the jury that it was not changed until
November, 1855, six months after the robbery, and
after Agar was arrested. Who was to say that this
note was not one of the number Agar received on the
division of the spoil, and were in his box at Pierce's
house when he was apprehended, and that Pierce had
taken it and changed it, with which to relieve Fanny
Kay, and it shoUld he borne in mind that he had given
her from 601. or 801. towards the support of herself and
child. It was now by Agar's malignity turned into
evidence against Pierce. If that were so, Pierce's
possession of the note would be legitimate, and that
was the only thing that had been traced to Pierce.
Mr. Giffard addressed the jury for Burgess. He said
he should not address them on the approver's statement,
after the remarks of Mr. Sergeant Parry. Agar was a
man making capital out of his former crimes, and there-
fore his statement should be fully corroborated. The
evidence of Agar would not bear examination. Sup-
pose Agar had stated that Sharman, who was admitted
by all to be an innocent man, had allowed him to take
an impression of the keys, he would have been unjustly
placed upon his trial for participating in the robbery, and
therefore he asked the jury not to convict Burgess upon
the unsupported testimony of a man who, from a ma-
lignant feeling, desired to crush an innocent man that
he might be the gainer ; for, by convicting Burgess on
Agar's evidence, they might be unjustly condemning
him as they would Sharman if he had been put upon
his trial and convicted on his statement. The learned
counsel, in a speech of great ingenuity and ability,
dwelt upon the unreasonableness and improbability of
the leading features of Agar's statement. It was not
to be denied that Burgess met Agar at Folkestone and
had some conversation with him ; but that fact was not
to be found in Agar's statement, which undoubtedly
would have been had Burgess connived at the planning
of the robbery. There was no corroboration of
Burgess's complicity. He thought Agar's statement
untrue that he had gone down the line seven or eight
times and tried the keys in the bullion chest without its
being known, because it was well known to the company
that bullion went down generally with the tidal train,
and not the mail train. A. railway company must, he
should think, keep an account of such a thing as bullion
going over their line, and it would only have been fair
in the company towards Burgess to have given a state-
ment of the time the bullion went down, with which to
test that part of Agar's story. The probability, in his
(the learned counsel's) opinion, wa, that the robbery was
not perpetrated in the railway van, but on the pier
at Folkestone, where the chest remained two hours
and a half before it was put on board the boat. One of
the keys of the bullion chest kept on board the steamer
was lost, and it was not improbable that the person who
got possession of it took an opportunity to lull the vigi-
lance of the watchman on the pier and perpetrate the
robbery. Agar's statement was on the whole very im-
probable ; and he asked the jury if they believed that he,
Pierce, and Burgess could have come out of the guard's
van, at either of the stations, without being seen by the
porters in attendance on the arrival of the train, and
who rushed eci the van to get out the luggage that might
be there belonging to the various passengers in the
train: He contended there was no confirmation of
Agar's evidence, and after referring to several other facts
in Agar's statement, he called on the jury to acquit the
prisoner Burgess.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine neat addressed the jury on
the part of Tester. He said that he was happy to find
that he had been preceded by Mr. Sergeant Parry and
Mr, Giffard, who, having alluded to many points he in-
tended to touch on, precluded the necessity of his again
referring to them. This had truly been denominated a
romance in one of the public papers, but it was not a
history founded on fact, but a fiction got up with devilish
ingenuity. Let them review the position of the pri-
soners at the bar. The learned counsel then referred
to Tester, who was respectably connected, and
held a responsible situation on the South-Eastern
Railway, which he left for a more lucrative one
on a railway, in Sweden. Hearing there of
what was doing in the country with reference to the
inquiry relative to the robbery, he voluntarily left a
place of safety and surrendered himself to justice in this
country, feeling he was an innocent man. There were
a variety of scoundrels in this country, and, by his own
' confession, Agar was one. He was a perfect miracle,
and deserved their careful attention and study, for it was
on the statement of such a man that Tester's position
depended. After alluding to the dangerous character of
Agar and his effect upon society if again he obtained his
liberty, the learned counsel said Agar was one of the
class of men they read of in the middle ages,
who would not hesitate to poison the cup of
his nearest relative a wretch who, if he
remained in a house, would not hesitate to commit
murder, and everything that was bad, and who would
rather fix, if possible,guilt on an innocent man, than one
who had committed crime. He charged Agar with
having deliberately made a charge against Tester,
which be knew was false, and he had made this false
and scandalous charge against Tester, because he was a
man he could not corrupt, and one in whose conviction he
would derive more pleasure than over the conviction of
OAO of his ORA clam After some farther remaxica on