found to be a journal kept by the prisoner from
the time he left his home, recording his arrival
at Hull, his travel through Leeds, Oldham, and
Manchester, to Liverpool, his stay there while
endeavouring to get a ship for America, his
departure for London, and his passage through
Warrington and some other places to Leek in
Staffordshire, where the narrative abruptly ends.
A railway guard's testimonial, one of the papers
enumerated by the prisoner as stolen from him,
and a certificate of his confirmation, were then
also produced. These documents had actually
been picked up by two tramps on a heap of
straw in a roadside hovel on the borders of
Northamptonshire, and had been brought by
them to a magistrate on the 9th of July, the
day after the prisoner had told his story: thus
offering a most wonderful coincidence in
justification of it.

Here was evident proof that some at least of
the prisoner's documents had passed out of his
possession. Even this would have been
consistent with a loss of part and a retention of
the remainder, had there been, as there was not,
anything to suggest or countenance such an
assumption. But the simpler— and therefore
preferable— suggestion that all had been lost,
was now most tenable. It was clear that
Kranz's papers found in the room, were tied up
along with those delivered three days before to
another person. It was indeed contended that
the youth to whom they were delivered was
Kranz's supposed companion at Wegby and
acknowledged companion in Whitechapel.  No
such person, however, was produced by the
police for identification. So far as vague
description went, the various accounts were not
opposed to this view of the case, but the
descriptions were all vague, and without decisive
marks of identification. There was even one
discrepancy. Evidence spoke of Kranz's
companion as a youth on the verge of manhood,
beardless, short, small featured, and with curly,
very dark or black hair. But the description
given by the musical artist, of the youth whose
tale of distress obtained from her charity the
letter found in the murdered woman's chamber,
was a youth with light brown hair; and in this
point she was confirmed by her mother and by
others in the house. At about the same time
a German youth, it should be added, also asked
alms of Madame (Jenny Lind) Goldschmidt. He
advanced the same pretext as was made to the
other singer, and was, without doubt, the same
person. He was seen by the coachman and by a
female servant, who both alleged in total
ignorance of the statements made elsewhere that
he was fair with light brown, hair.

When first arrested, the prisoner was
interrogated by the police, then in possession of the
whole facts: a prisoner in the gaol acting as
interpreter. It was alleged that he then admitted
having gone with his companion to Madame
Goldschmidt. At the trial, however, it
appeared that the question put was, " Did not you
go with your companion to Madame Gold-
schmidt?" To which a simple affirmative answer
was returned: the prisoner declaring that he did
accompany his comrade to some lady, whose
name he never heard, and that when interrogated,
as he concluded that the question
supplied the name he did not know, he answered
"Yes" accordingly. It appeared also by the
evidence of the police that much more passed in
German between the prisoner and the
interpreter than was dictated by the police in
English. The interpreter was an untrustworthy
man, who happened to be then awaiting his trial
for forgery, for which he was soon after
condemned to ten years' penal servitude. But
while there were these curious saving facts and
coincidences to destroy the strong evidence of
the documents found on the scene of the murder,
there was direct identification of the prisoner
by persons who saw the two Germans before
and after the murder near the place where it
was committed. How was that to be
overcome? It had the following defects: The
Reigate potman saw the men repeatedly for two
days, his attention fixed itself upon them from
their using a foreign tongue, his opportunities
for becoming familiar with the prisoner's
features must have been incomparably better than
those of John Brown, the most positive of all
the witnesses, who only sat for an hour with
the two foreigners in the Reigate public-house.
Yet the potman, when taken to Newgate to
point out the prisoner from among others failed
to recognise him, although he was there for two
hours endeavouring to do so. It was not until
the third examination, after others had more or
less positively deposed that the prisoner was
one of the two foreigners seen about Reigate,
that he, leaning on the foregone testimony,
comes forward and adds his own declaration that
he too now knows the prisoner to have been one
of the two men. Moreover, he states
positively that the men remained in the taproom all
Sunday afternoon, whereas Josiah Lock says
that he saw them at four o'clock that afternoon
four miles away. If the potman be right, Lock
must be wrong.

The following evidence for the defence,
had it not been thought better to rest
content with a broken case for prosecution than
to invite a hostile reply, would further have
damaged the evidence as to identity. Mr. Hall
says: " I have lived at Wegby as gardener for
twenty-three years. On the Sunday evening
about five o'clock I was talking with a neighbour
in front of my house, not one hundred
yards from the parsonage, when one of two men
walking down the road came up and asked me
where the Reverend Mr. Johnson lived, who
resided somewhere between Kingston and Rei-
gate, and brought his wife from Canterbury? I
told him I knew of no such person; that
our clergyman's name was Bright, and that his
wife came from Brome. Thereupon he inquired
if Mr. Bright were at home, and how many
servants he kept. I again saw the two men,
after about half an hour, about a mile nearer
Reigate. I am sure that the prisoner is neither
of those two men. He who spoke to me talked