jens that the person to whom she gave the letter was not Franz.1 While there is no doubt that Kron employed various aliases - Jeretzky, Ahlborn, etc. - there is no evidence that any one personated him, if the statement of Franz is to be believed. Again, according to the prisoner Franz, the person who saw Madame Tietjens must have been Kron, who was very short and boyish looking. Franz did not accuse Kron, but stated that he suspected one Wilhelm Gerstenberg of having stolen the letters.2 There was, however, no proof whatever adduced that this man existed except the statement of Franz.

Again, it appears "sub modo" to support the view that Kron stole Franz's papers that all the six papers found by the corpse were bound up with one thread, and that one of them must have been in Kron's possession four days previously.

But the report in Foster and Finlason seems inadequate to the degree of inaccuracy in its account of the evidence. It does not mention the one circumstance that so strikingly corroborated Franz's story as to the loss of the letters: the fact that some documents identified with him had undoubtedly been found by tramps on the borders of Northamptonshire, far farther south and nearer London than Leek, in Staffordshire, where the entries in the prisoner's diary abruptly ended. The report in Foster and Finlason gives a very inadequate description of the rebutting circumstantial evidence adduced for the defense in two other particulars; it does not state that it was proved the prisoner had a pack when he landed at Hull, which might have been stolen from him; and also omits mentioning that, however peculiar the string found tied round the corpse of the victim, its correspondence with that purchased the day previously at Reigate and with that tied round Franz's shirt seems

deprived of any significance since it was easily obtainable in Whitechapel. It was a necessary assumption of the case for the prosecution that the string round the corpse of the victim must have been purchased by Franz in Reigate. Again, the report in Foster and Finlason categorically states that Franz's diary was found in the parsonage at Kingswood (p. 580), whereas the fact was that the three papers connected with Franz found near the corpse were a service book, a certificate of birth, and a certificate of baptism. The diary was found by tramps on the borders of Northamptonshire, about a hundred miles away from Kingswood, and a whole month afterwards. The discovery of the diary afforded nearly as strong presumptive evidence of Franz's innocence as the discovery of the other three documents in the room of the murdered woman did of his guilt, because it proved that some, at least, of his papers had passed out of his possession. As the entries in the manuscript book gave a consistent account of his wanderings after he landed at Hull, and purported finally to show that on the 10th of some month he arrived at Leek, in Staffordshire, and as the murder for which he was tried was committed on June 10th, if the entry in the diary could have been assumed to apply to the month preceding that on which it was found, Franz would have possessed clear, if not conclusive, evidence of an alibi, as he would then have been able to show that at the date of the Kingswood murder he was at Leek in Staffordshire. It is clear that, as he did not do this, the 10th day of the month referred to in the diary must have been May 10th, as the Foreign Office were informed that Franz left Konigstein, in Saxony, in April, 1861.4 But in his statement before the magistrates at Reigate, Franz entirely failed to account for

2 Times, July 9, 1861. 4 Times, July 11, 1861.

his movements either previous to, or at the date of, the Kingswood murder, or, it may be added, subsequently.

While the report of R. v. Franz in Foster and Finlason seems very clearly to err on the side of both inaccuracy and omission, there is nothing to confirm, in the Times report of the proceedings before the magistrates at Reigate, the statement in the "Annual Register" that three witnesses before the magistrates, who were not examined at the trial, deposed that two foreigners, one short and dark, and the other fairer and taller, were within a hundred yards of the Kingswood parsonage at five o'clock on the Sunday afternoon, June 9th- the day before the crime- - at which time two other persons specified that two similar foreigners were seated in the taproom at Reigate. Again, it was stated in the leading article in the Times that Franz was seen "in the immediate neighborhood of the murder the day before." 2 But there is nothing in the Times report of the police court proceedings that in the slightest degree supports the notion that there was evidence that any foreigners were seen in the immediate vicinity of Kingswood parsonage on the Sunday. That, in particular, Franz should have been seen in the vicinity of the murder on the Sunday is directly contradictory to the evidence of the potman at the Cricketers Inn, George Roseblade, who stated that, with the exception of about an hour's absence at midday on Sunday, the two foreigners who stayed there (amongst whom he identified Franz), remained indoors the whole of that day. As Kingswood is four miles from Reigate, it would have been clearly impossible for two persons who had no knowledge of the district to have gone out and made some purchases, and, in addition,

1 Ann. Reg., 1861, Chron., 143.

2 Cf. ante, p. 216.

4 Times, August 7, 1861.

3

have walked at least eight miles, in the brief space of one hour. But the matter is concluded by the fact that no evidence was tendered that two foreigners were seen in the vicinity of the murder the day before the crime. If any such evidence had been tendered, it may be added, it seems certain that a report of it would have appeared in the Times notice of the police court proceedings of the Kingswood murder. That report was so full that, at the trial at Croydon Assizes, the learned reporter contented himself with a mere epitome of the evidence previously given, mentioning that there had already been a very detailed account of the evidence given before the magistrates. It seems, therefore, nearly essential to conclude that there was no evidence of a second pair of foreigners in the vicinity of Kingswood parsonage the day before the murder, though a little more doubt may possibly exist as to whether on that day there was not some evidence that there were two pairs of Germans in Reigate. Even this last point is highly uncertain, and the conclusion of the account in the "Annual Register" leads to the abandonment of that hypothesis.

The "Annual Register," in its final observations on the Kingswood murder, states that none of the foreigners who were at Reigate at the date of the murder have been traced, and that no clew has been found to unravel the mystery.5 This is, undoubtedly, incorrect as regards Kron, even considered merely as a résumé of annual information about events. The Times, on September 7, 1861, under a paragraph headed "Supposed Discovery of the Remains of Adolphe Krohn," stated that the police in Surrey had been informed that the dead body of a man believed to be Krohn had been found at High Leigh, near Warring

3 Cf. Times, July 9 and 16, 1861. 5 Ann. Reg., 1861, Chron., 144.

ton, Cheshire. The body found was that of a young man, apparently a foreigner, between twenty-five and thirty years of age. It was found in a field adjoining the highroad from the south to Liverpool. Decomposition had proceeded so far that no trace of features could be discerned, but in dress, height, and every other ascertainable particular the body corresponded with the published description of Adolphe Kron. It must be remembered that a reward of 200 pounds had been offered by Mr. Alcock, M. P., for Kron's apprehension, so the published description is likely to have been both detailed and widely circulated. No marks of violence were discovered; nothing whatever was found in the pockets of the deceased's clothing; and it is supposed that the man must have lain down and died from exhaustion shortly after the Kingswood murder was mitted, having fled from London on June 15th. From a statement

com

that appeared in the Times on July 11, 1861, it seems highly probable that the body found was that of Kron. It was for some reason anticipated Kron would proceed north, and that his sole modus vivendi would be that of soliciting alms from charitable foreigners under different aliases.

A curious feature of the Kingswood murder case is that no attention was paid to footprint evidence, which it nevertheless distinctly appears was available. The account in the "Annual Register" states that when Halliday went to see his wife at Kingswood Rectory the morning after the crime he traced the footprints of two persons, and that they proceeded up to the kitchen window, where an entry had clearly been foiled by the shutters, and that these same footprints were afterwards traced to beneath the window of the murdered woman. The entire neglect of such evidence appears culpable laches.

PRELIMINARY.

The Hillmon cases in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kansas are styled: Sallie E. Hillmon v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York; Sallie E. Hillmon v. The New York Life Insurance Company of New York; Sallie E. Hillmon v. The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company. These cases were docketed on the 13th of July, 1880.

The first trial was at Leavenworth, June 14-July 1, 1882, before the Hon. CASSIUS G. FOSTER, of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, the attorneys being L. B. Wheat, John Hutchings, R. J. Borgolthaus, and S. A. Riggs for the plaintiff; and George J. Barker and James W. Green for the defendants. The jurors were as follows: R. B. McClure, Thomas White, James M. Walthal, Wm. Stocklebrand, E. H. Hutchings, Leonard Bradley, J. T. Fulton, Daniel Horville, Wm. Lyons, J. S. Tood, John P. Gleich, and Samuel Kieser. This jury failed to agree, seven being for the plaintiff, and five for the defendants.

The second trial was at Leavenworth, in June, 1885, before the Hon. DAVID J. BREWER, United States Circuit Judge, the attorneys being L. B. Wheat, John Hutchings, and Samuel A. Riggs for the plaintiff, and George J. Barker, J. W. Green, and Charles S. Gleed for the defend

ants. The jurors were as follows: B. M. Tanner, J. P. G. Creamer, C. O. Knowles, H. D. Shepard, Nelson Giles, Jr., R. H. Stott, G. W. Greever, Wm. N. Nace, Joseph Kleinfield, Wm. H. Hamm, H. A. Cook, and P. B. Maxson. This jury failed to agree, Messrs. Tanner, Kleinfield, Stott, Maxson, Creamer, and Shepard being for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Greever, Giles, Knowles, Cook, Nace, and Hamm for the defendants.

The third trial was at Topeka, Feb. 29-Mar. 20, 1888, before the Hon. O. P. SHIRAS, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, the attorneys being L. B. Wheat, John Hutchings, and Samuel A. Riggs for the plaintiff, and George J. Barker, J. W. Green, Charles S. Gleed, and William C. Spangler for the defendants. The jurors were as follows: Samuel Kozier, Jacob Moon, J. S. Bouton, A. S. Davidson, N. S. Miller, Riley Elkins, J. S. Earnest, John W. Farnsworth, Enoch Chase, Furman Baker, G. W. Coffin, and J. P. Rood. This jury agreed on the second ballot, rendering a verdict of $35,730 (in all) for the plaintiff.

The cases are now (April, 1888) in the Circuit Court pending the argument of a motion for a new trial. If this motion is overruled, an appeal will probably be taken to the United States Supreme Court.2

In stating the facts in this controversy, the writer has confined himself to the evidence adduced at the second and third trials, except as otherwise indicated; and, though sure that the companies are in the right, he still feels bound in this sketch to make a clear distinction between the facts and his construction of them between citations from the evidence, and his opinions. Aside from his knowledge of the cases as an attorney, he was one of the first newspaper reporters to become familiar with them, and has a personal acquaintance with most of the witnesses. Such familiarity gives him a knowledge of many facts which, under the rules of evidence, cannot go to the jury, but which might properly appear here. He has thought best, however, to avoid criticism by confining himself to what appeared or was closely suggested in court, and to further give both sides of the case a hearing by quoting the reports of the arguments made by the plaintiff's counsel at the trial at Leavenworth. These reports were made in the Daily Standard by Henry C. Burnett, now of New Mexico, also one of the first journalists engaged on the case, and a thoroughly competent and conscientious reporter. All citations from the testimony of the second trial are from the bound volumes of reports made by Mr. F. O. Popenoe, the official stenographic reporter. If the writer has made errors of any sort in quoting the evidence, they are certainly trivial and unimportant, as the utmost accuracy has been desired.

THE EVIDENCE.

Hillmon and Wife, before Hillmon's Disappearance. (In Evidence.) John W. Hillmon was born in

Indiana, in 1845, and was therefore about thirty-four years of age at the time of his alleged death near Medicine Lodge, Kansas, March 17, 1879. He came to Kansas with his father, who settled near Valley Falls, Jefferson county, Kansas. He attended school more or less, and then became a cattle herder and farm laborer, working for various farmers and cattlemen in Jefferson, Leavenworth, and Douglas counties. He entered the army in 1863, at eighteen years of age, and remained about one year, In 1874 he went to Colorado, and worked in the mines at Quartzville and Central City as a miner and mining boss. In 1876 he returned to his home in Kansas, and resumed his occupation as cattle herder. He left Kansas again in 1876, going to Sweetwater and Reynoldsville, Texas, where he engaged in killing buffalo, gathering buffalo bones and hides, and in hauling freight. He returned to Kansas via New Mexico and Colorado, selling the ox teams of his Texas outfit at various points on the return trip, and arriving at Lawrence in August, 1877. For a time he bought and sold hogs in Lawrence. On or about December 15, 1878, he left Lawrence for a trip to Wichita, Dodge city, and other western and southwestern points, as he said, to find a cattle ranch, leaving Wichita December 26, 1878.

The following extracts from his pocket journal will show the character of this first trip, the journal or memorandum book having been taken from the body of the man killed near Medicine Lodge on the 18th day of March, 1879:

"John W. Hillmon's book; residence, Lawrence, Kansas. Mrs. S. E. Hillmon,