Mr Briggs' Hat: The True Story of a Victorian Railway Murder by Kate Colquhoun Read Free Book Online

over.
    Proceedings resumed at ten o’clock. First to be called was Müller’s old co-worker John Henry Glass, followed by three pawnbrokers’ assistants from separate businesses in Houndsditch and Minories. Central to the prosecution’s case was the need to establish that Müller had been short of cash – that he could not have paid for his ticket to America in any other way than through robbery, and that it was not possible that he could have afforded to buy an expensive watch, chain or ring from a vagrant at the docks. Glass testified that Müller had earned about thirty shillings a week – just enough to cover his rent, food and clothing. The prisoner’s habitual need to pawn his belongings further evinced that he had not earned enough to put aside any savings.
    The testimonies of Glass and the pawnbrokers’ men proved that in early June Müller had pawned his old watch and chain atBarker’s in Houndsditch, raising three pounds. Following Müller’s supposed exchange of Mr Briggs’ chain with John Death on Monday the 11th for another worth three pounds, ten shillings, he had taken this ‘new’ chain on Tuesday to Mr Annis’ pawnbrokers in Minories and received thirty shillings for it, using the money to reclaim his own watch. On Wednesday 13 July, Glass lent Müller one pound in order to redeem his old chain. Now the two men took Müller’s old watch and chain and pawned them both in Leicester Square for four pounds – about three weeks’ salary. Glass bought the ticket from Müller for five shillings. Undoubtedly, therefore, Müller owned four pounds and five shillings on Wednesday 13 July, besides some few shillings he had raised with the help of Elizabeth Repsch who had pawned one of his coats. On that day, he purchased his ticket for the Victoria .
    The various transactions showed that, had Müller come by Thomas Briggs’ possessions by robbery, he had profited only a paltry thirty shillings from his dealings. When added to the money raised from pawning his old watch and chain, this just covered the price of a ticket to sail while allowing him to keep Briggs’ valuable gold pocket watch. Set against this, Hoffa had previously testified that he had seen Müller in possession of two or three pounds in the days before 9 July – enough, with a bit of scrambling, to pay for the passage without resorting to crime.
    Broadly, the convoluted deals were easy enough for the court to understand, though the maths was tricky to remember. Two things counted. First, all three very different chains were held aloft in court, each representative of stolid respectability against impoverished graft; all three were glittering reminders of a motive for murder. Secondly, Parry would need to establish that Müller had funds prior to the 9th, in order to have bought Briggs’ stolen watch and chain in good faith. Since the prosecution did not recall John Hoffa, he was unavailable for cross-examination and his testimony would have to wait for thedefence. Meanwhile, the impression that Müller had been in desperate need prior to 9 July was allowed to settle in the minds of the jury.
    Despite the array of circumstantial evidence against Müller, the prosecution were unable to place him at the scene of the murder. Additionally, on the first day of the trial, the Blyths and the Repschs had given conflicting accounts of the clothing worn by him on and after 9 July. According to Elizabeth Repsch, a pair of dark trousers was missing but the remainder of his coats, shirts and trousers appeared to be accounted for, and none showed any evidence of blood. It had also been proven that the injury to Müller’s foot took place on Thursday the 7th and that he was still using a slipper on Saturday the 9th. Despite the fact that he went walking with the Blyths on Sunday evening, this suggested that he had been unable to move fast.
    The broken Walker hat and the ‘cut-down’ silk Digance hat remained in full view on the lawyers’ central