disclosed thereby, the case looked very black against the prisoner until his attorney was put in the box, and then the whole aspect of the trial was suddenly and sensa tionally changed. Now this attorney, before acting as Franz's legal representative, had appeared as inter preter before the magistrates, and he was called by the prosecution to verify the prisoner's answers to the questions put to him, and his own explanations of the pro ceedings to Franz, whose knowledge of Eng lish was very imperfect. In the course of his examination-in-chief, the attorney was questioned as to his knowl edge of Franz's handwriting, and a manu script-book was suddenly put into his hands by Serjeant Ballantine, who asked abruptly, "Is this the prisoner's handwriting?" The witness, not knowing what was being sprung upon him, but recognizing at once that the handwriting was that of Franz, answered hastily, " Yes — but I never saw this before." Counsel for the defense asked to be al lowed to look at the book and found that it was a diary kept by the prisoner. Each day's events were carefully recorded, with the names of the towns at which he had stopped, until he reached Leek in Stafford shire — at that point the entries abruptly ceased. Mr. Denman expressed his surprise that notice of the existence of this diary had not been given to the attorney for the defense, and then the following remarkable facts were brought to light. The diary had only come into the hands of the prosecution on the preceding evening. It had been picked up by two tramps on a heap of straw in a deserted hovel in Northamptonshire, on the 9th of July, tlw day after the prisoner had told his story to the magistrates. These men arrived in London a few days before the trial, and hearing some persons talking about the murder in a public-house, they caught the name Johann Carl Franz fre
quently repeated. On searching through a newspaper they saw the name printed, and recognized it as identical with that attached to a paper Which they had found inside the diary. They showed both documents to the landlord, who advised them to communicate with the prisoner's attorney, who would probably reward them for their ' find.' But by mistake they went to the attorney for the prosecution. Mr. Denman asked to see the paper which had been found by the tramps inside the diary. Apparently it had been thought of no account by the prosecu tion — at any rate, Serjeant Ballantine was not aware of its nature, and the surprise of the court may be imagined when it proved to be the railway guard's testimonial or cer tificate which Franz declared to have been one of the papers that had been stolen from him. This was a most singular corrobora tion of one portion of the prisoner's story, but there was a more startling coincidence yet to come. In cross-examination by counsel for the defense, the prisoner's attorney said he had taken great pains to try and verify the state ments made by his client, and with regard to one piece of evidence, which was held to tell strongly against the prisoner, he had made a remarkable discovery. Franz's ex planation of his possession of that damning bit of " rublay-cord" was, that he had picked it up on the pavement outside a tobacconist's shop in a street not far from that in which he lodged. The attorney, while trying to obtain evidence for an alibi in the locality in which Franz had lived, turned into a to bacconist's shop for a cigar, and the first thing which met his eye on the counter was a ball of this very " rublay-cord "! On in quiry he found that the tobacconist was in the habit of using this particular kind of string. Now this tobacconist's shop was but two minutes' walk from the street in which Franz had lodged, and on further investiga tion, it was discovered that the premises of the string-maker, who manufactured this
