Page images
PDF
EPUB

lows: If a man should have a servant sick of the small рох, and should, contrary to the advice of the physician, hale him into the open air, in cold weather, on pretence that there was a natural occasion; the act would be unlawful, and if the servant should die in consequence of such treatment, the master would be guilty of murder.

Another case was supposed to apply to the second position: viz. If a man should, in a sudden passion, kill his child, or dear friend, it would be murder, though his prima intentio were to instruct or admonish him. It was, moreover, argued, that where no intention to hurt appears, as, for example, when a man has an unruly ox, and knows him to be such, but yet does not keep him in, if this ox gores a man to death, the owner is guilty of murder, and must suffer the penalty. Here, keeping the ox is a lawful act; but for suffering an evil to happen which he might reasonably be expected to prevent, the man was adjudged a murderer, by the Holy Scriptures. Again, in Exodus, Chap. xxi, 12. If a master smite his servant with a rod, which is a lawful action, and the servant die of the blow, as was the case with Sewell, he was to die for it. On the like authority, if a man strike another with his hand, or with any weapon that may cause death, and the person stricken die of the blow, the striker is a murderer; from whence it appears, that be the means what they may, if they be applied, voluntarily, to an evil intent, it is murder. To this conclusion

a case was cited of a woman, who had given a man a portion to procure his love, whereof he died, and she was, therefore, adjudged guilty of murder.

This course of reasoning would hardly be thought conclusive at the present day, though it seemed very forcible to the members of the Quarter Court, who apparently forgot that the Jewish code had been superseded by divine authority, and had given place to a more merciful dispensation. They found him guilty, and sentenced him to death; referring his case, however, to the magistrates, "who might, if they saw cause, allow him a second trial for his life at the next Quarter Court." Yet the same persons held a meeting before the sitting of the said court, and agreed to send their sentence to governor John Endecott, who signed it, though there were some who disapproved the proceeding.

The church of Roxbury, who it will be remembered, had excommunicated Franklin a month before, now that he was to die, agreed to have mercy on his soul. They therefore procured permission for him to be brought to Roxbury, intending to receive him again into their communion, if they found him penitent. Immediately after his condemnation, he judged himself, and acknowledged the justice of his sentence; but soon after, with a very natural inconsistency, he retracted this admission, justifying himself, and criminating the witnesTo the day of his execution, he declared his belief that God would never lay the death of the boy to his charge, and expressed a

ses.

strong assurance of salvation. On the scaffold, his firmness was somewhat shaken, and he expressed a fear that his heart was hardened since he could not see his guilt in the same light that others did.

It seems to us that though the Quarter Court argued from wrong premises they arrived at a proper conclusion, and that William Franklin suffered justly.

THE END.

« PreviousContinue »