report of the pistol. But, supposing him to have waited, as he naturally would, when he heard persons in the lane, in the hiding places which the yard afforded him for a few moments only, there was nothing either night to prevent his getting away The persons who were in the lane did not continue there for any length of time: the young women, of the name of Davis, after stopping (as they say) two minutes on the Thursday night, passed on, and Michael Wright and his wife, the only persons near, went into the house with me and left the gate open for him. The persons who were going by on the Monday night did not stop a moment, but, as one of them says, went on quickly, by which every avenue was left clear. This part of the prosecution depends on the supposition that the murderer must have attempted to get away immediately: if that supposition is negatived, the whole body of proof is disposed of; this supposition is negatived by the probability that the noise and light in the lane, would whilst they continued there arrest his flight, and also by the conduct of some of the witnesses who thought it right, when it was too late, to search the premises. I cannot leave this evidence without pointing out to you a contradiction which shews the inaccuracy of the observation or recollection of the witnesses, and affords a proof of the danger of relying on a case made out by a long string of facts, none of which, taken separately as they occur to the witnesses, make very strong or lasting impressions. The two Miss Davis's say they stopped two minutes in the lane, that they heard no noise except the pistol, nor saw any person come out of the premises. Wright says he heard the pistol near the watch-box; that he was at the gate in half a minute, and found me standing there with the gate open. As the proof, that no one but me could have fired that shot, depends almost entirely on the testimony of these persons, this contradiction is sufficient to shew you how little you can depend upon such testimony. If you consider well this evidence you will see that it is not sufficient so to shut out the rest of the world, as to leave to me alone the possibility of doing the act. No man's enemies can be numbered, nor can the causes of enmity, or the lengths to which it will carry those who feel it, be ascertained. Gentlemen, it will not be expected from me that I should touch upon every little point, or explain every expression that I may be charged to have used. I trust I have satisfied you on the great leading features of the case; and, having disposed of them, all circumstances of less importance will, I am sure, vanish from your observation. You will not rely on loose broken parts of conversations. No conversation can be trusted to, unless you know the whole that was said, and the circumstances under which it was said. Gentlemen, my fate is now in your hands-as you decide, I live or die. So completely subdued am I by the long imprisonment that I have endured; so galled and mortified by the slanders with which my ears have every day been assailed during my confinement; that, looking to myself alone, success and failure are alike empty sounds. But I have four young children, whose destinies are linked with mine, who, if I live, will depend on my labour for support; if I fall will be left to complete absolute beggary. I know their ruin could not and ought not to avert my fate, if the case were completely proved against me. But if there exists a doubt as to my criminality, let their misfortunes claim the advantage of that doubt, and restore to them their natural protector. Nothing further remains for me to trouble you with, but to assert, which I here most positively and solemnly do, my innocence of the dreadful crime imputed to me. EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER. Mr. JOSIAS SLEE sworn. Examined by Mr. SERJEANT BEST. Q. Where do you live? A. At the bottom of Tooley-street. Q. What are you by business? A. An ironmonger. Q. How long have you known the prisoner at the bar? A. About two years and a half. Q. During the time you have known him, what has been his character? A. I have never known any thing amiss of him. Q. Has he borne a good and respectable character? A. I have never known any thing to the contrary. Mr. JOSEPH HUFFAM Sworn. Examined by Mr. SERJEANT BEST. Q. What are you? A. A stationer and ship chandler, and a dealer in ship stores. Q. Where do you live? A. In Tooley-street. Q. How long have you known the prisoner at the bar? A. I think about three years. Q. During the time that you have known him, what has been his character? A From every thing I have heard from Mr. Blight, every thing that was honorable. L. C. B. MACDONALD. What has been his general character? A. His general character I only learnt from Mr. Blight from a very particular circumstance. Mr. RICHARD POOLE Sworn, Examined by Mr. SERJEANT BEST. Q. What are you? A. I have been a builder. Q. Where do you live? A. In Bermondsey. Q. How long have you known the prisoner? Q. Not intimately, no otherwise than dealing at the yard. A. From what you have known of him, what has been his general character? Q. I always looked upon him to be an industrious careful man. A. What character has he borne as to humanity? Q. I never heard any thing against him; I have heard him talking with the men in making a bargain, and he seemed very humane to his workmen in making a bargain. (Several others were called, but did not appear.) Mr. SERJEANT BEST. We will not trouble your Lordship with any further witnesses, as they do not seem to be in immediate attendance. Printed by H. Teape, Tower-hill. SUMMING UP. LORD CHIEF BARON MACDONALD. Gentlemen of the Jury, It has been very truly stated to you, in the extremely perspicuous opening of this case, that it is one which requires more attention perhaps than ever presented itself to a Jury; at least, in the course of my observation I have never met with one that required more. Gentlemen, before I proceed to lay this evidence in a connected state before you, I will make a few observations upon the nature of the evidence that has been adduced; it is true, it is what is called circumstantial evidence; that is, it is evidence no part of which is direct proof of the fact being committed by the individual charged; but that must often be the case; and it is very frequently the case in the crime that is imputed to the prisoner at the bar: for few people do these things when other persons are present; they take all the care in their power that no distinct witness shall be in the power of the prosecutor to produce. Now when those circumstances connect themselves closely with each other, when they form a large and a strong body, so as to carry conviction to the minds of a Jury, it may be proof of a more satisfactory sort than that which is direct. In some lamentable instances, it has been known that a short story has been got by heart by two or three witnesses; they have been consistent with themselves, they have been consistent with each other, swearing positively to a fact, which fact has afterwards turned out not to be true. It is almost impossible for a variety of witnesses, and speaking to a variety of circumstances, so to concert a story, as to impose upon a Jury by a L |