Chapter II: Part 2

Is he a friend of your’s?—He is no friend of mine. I had only seen him at the door. It was _his_ wife and mine that wished me to make the application to Mr. Church.

Then Mr. Thomas went with you as far as the door, but did not go in with you?—No.

Do you recollect having any conversation with Mr. Thomas, in which you told him what had taken place between you and Mr. Church?—I told him briefly what had transpired; it was very short what did transpire.

And you told Mr. Thomas what had transpired at the interview with Mr. Church, when you came out?—Yes.

Then did you tell Mr. Thomas that Mr. Church admitted having been in the room?—I think I did; but I am not very positive as to that point. I know I told him that Mr. Church said that he did not lay hold of the boy.

The question I wish to put to you is this—whether Mr. Thomas did not ask you this question, “Well, is there any thing against Mr. Church, or not?”—and whether you did not answer, “No, he is not at all implicated?”—I never made any such answer to him.

Neither that, nor any thing conveying that meaning?—Never.

By LORD ELLENBOROUGH.—You never did tell him, directly or indirectly, that there was nothing to implicate Mr. Church?—No, never.

By Mr. GURNEY.—Did you either tell Mr. Thomas, or any other person that you would prosecute Mr. Church, because he had said disgraceful things of your wife?—I did; but not for this crime, but for defamation of my wife’s character.

By LORD ELLENBOROUGH.—You told Mr. Thomas that you intended to prosecute Mr. Church for defaming your wife’s character?—I don’t know that I ever told Mr. Thomas; but I believe I have said that, or words to that effect, to other persons.

By Mr. GURNEY.—Did you not tell Mr. Thomas that you were determined to prosecute Church for having said disrespectful things of your wife?—I may have told him amongst other persons.

Did you not mention that, amongst other things, on that very morning that you had the interview with Mr. Church?—No; certainly not. Some other time I might.

By LORD ELLENBOROUGH.—Was it after that morning?—Yes, my Lord, it must have been a considerable time after that.

_Re-examined by_ Mr. BOLLAND.

What did you inform him that you intended to institute a prosecution against Church for?—For defamation of my wife’s character.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH.—That I suppose is your case?

Mr. MARRYATT.—No, my Lord, I am going to call Mrs. Hunter.

Mrs. HUNTER sworn.

_Examined by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

I believe you are an attendant amongst the congregation, and a hearer of Mr. Church?—Yes.

Did he at any time write to you, early in the month of October last?—I received a letter in the beginning of the month of October, but there was no name to it.

There was no place of abode given, or any thing except the day of the month?—No.

Did you know from whom it came?—I cannot tell.

Did you put that letter into the hands of Mr. Patrick?—I gave it to Mr. Patrick’s daughter, who gave it to her father.

Was that letter returned to you again?—It was; but I took no farther notice of it.

Was that letter returned to you again?—Yes.

You had a subpœna _duces tecum_ to produce it?—I had but it is impossible to produce it.

Why is it impossible to produce it?—I will tell you why. After the letter was returned to me, I took no further notice of it. I put it into a drawer; but I know no more than his Lordship what is become of it; I looked for it on the Thursday morning before I came, but I could find no scraps of it. I was not able to find it.

Then you were wholly unable to find it?—I was.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you search diligently to find it?—I did, indeed, my Lord.

By Mr. MARRYATT.—Are you convinced there was no name to it?—I am.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Church’s hand writing?—I have seen his writing, and I have seen it written in a different hand: not always alike, but sometimes very different: not to say exactly two different hands, but such a difference in the same hand writing, that you would hardly think it was the same. I have seen it so different, at times, that I should not at all times think it was the same.

Upon receiving the letter in question, whose hand writing did you believe it to be, and state it to be?

Mr. GURNEY.—I submit to your Lordship, that this is not a legal question.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—It is not evidence of the fact: but it is a proper question to refresh her recollection, as to whether she did not receive a letter which she believed to be the hand writing of the defendant.

By Mr. MARRYATT.—Whose hand writing did you think that letter to be?—I rather think it was Mr. Church’s, but I could not be positive, as there was no name to it.

Do you now believe that letter to be Mr. Church’s writing.—I cannot say whether it was or was not. It is not in my power.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You are not asked whether it was or was not: but what your belief was then, and what it is now?—I believed at that time, I must own, that it was his hand writing, and I still believe the same.

By Mr. MARRYATT.—Did you not then believe it to be Mr. Church’s hand writing?—I did rather think it was.

Did you, or not, believe it was?—Is there any difference between _thinking_ and _believing_?

That is a phrase we sometimes use in courts of justice.

I could not be positive; but I rather think it was his hand writing.

When you opened it, did you read it as a letter coming from him?—I was very much struck with the similarity, for it had very much the appearance of his hand writing; but, as no name was subscribed at the bottom, I could not be certain. It had the appearance of his hand writing.

Is it your belief now, that it was or was not, his hand writing?—It is exactly the same as it was then.

And it is now your belief that it was his hand writing?—I cannot say I firmly believe it, because it was not signed.

You are only asked whether you so acted as if it was his hand writing?—I did not communicate it to anybody but Mr. Patrick.

Did you communicate to Mr. Patrick that you had received a letter from Mr. Church?—I did.

_Cross-examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

The search which you made for this letter was not until last Thursday?—Exactly so.

For any thing you know, might it not be in your house now?—I have no reason to believe that it is, for I did not leave a drawer or place unsearched.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—As far as evidence can go of the loss of an original letter, to let in the copy, we have it in this case; for I asked her whether she made diligent search after the original, and she says, she has made diligent search.

Mr. Patrick _examined again by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

Were you acquainted in October last with the hand-writing of Mr. Church?—Yes.

You told us you made this copy from the letter you had from Mrs. Hunter. Was the letter from which you made this copy, and which you returned to Mrs. Hunter, in your belief, the hand-writing of Mr. Church?—It was.

Mr. MARRYATT.—Now, my Lord, I propose reading this copy of the letter in question.

The following letter was then read in evidence:—

“_October_ 6, 1816.

“DEAR MRS. HUNTER,

“My heart is already too much affected. Your letter only adds
affliction to my bonds. But I forbear. I would have called on you
this morning, but I was too low in mind to speak to any friend but
Jesus! _There_ I am truly comfortable. Pardon me; but I make no
remarks on what you have been told. I must bear it, though I am able
to contradict _three things_ I would rather not. Mr. and Mrs.
Patrick have always dealt kindly to me. I am only grieved that dear
Mrs. P. whom I really loved, that she should try to injure me in the
estimation of those who are real friends to my dear children. The
thought affects me. Why hurt my poor family? But I am too much
depressed to enlarge. I shall never forget their kindness. God will
reward them, as he has many who have dealt well to me. But he will
resent cruelty in those who have and are still trying to degrade me.
Mrs. P. will live to see it. Dear Mrs. Hunter, I am grieved at heart
I cannot relieve your mind. I am truly sorry to lose you as a
hearer, because your soul has been blest; and you know both the
plague of the heart and the value of Jesus. May he be increasingly
present to you in his person, love, and grace! Farewell, my dear
kind friend! The Lord Jesus will reward you for your love to me, and
your kindness to mine. God is not unrighteous to forget your work of
faith and labour of love. With many tears I write this. May we meet
in glory, when no enemy shall distress my mind, nor sin nor death
shall part us more! I need not remind my dear friend that I am a
_Child_ of _Peculiar Providence_; and that _heart_ of eternal love,
and that _arm_ of invincible power has protected me—has called me to
himself; and for every act of straying, will correct me with _his own
hand_, but will resent _every other hand_, sooner or later. This you
will live to see.

“_Adieu_, _dear friend_, _accept the starting tear_,
“_And the best wishes of a heart sincere_.

“Your’s, truly,

“Till we shall meet above.”

Mr. MARRYATT.—My Lord, that is the case on the part of the prosecution.

DEFENCE.

Mr. GURNEY then addressed the Jury on the part of the defendant, as follows:—

May it please your Lordship—

Gentlemen of the Jury—Gentlemen, I must agree with my Learned Friend, in entreating you to bestow your most serious attention upon this case, and in requesting you to consider (which, indeed, my Learned Friend fairly confessed you ought to bear in mind), that as the charge is heavy the proof ought to be clear; and that you will take care that your indignation against the crime shall have no influence upon your judgment respecting the person accused. That is a duty, Gentlemen, which is one of the most important, for a Juryman to attend to in this species of case, but it in one of most difficult performance; for such is, and such I trust ever will be, the feeling of abhorrence which Englishmen entertain against this detestable crime, that it is extremely difficult indeed, when a person is accused of it, to consider the case which in laid before us, in that dispassionate and unprejudiced manner, which is essential to the administration of justice. We all wish that no such occurrences could exist; and if a wish could blot them out of existence, we should be almost tempted to form that wish: but, Gentlemen, when these cases do come before us, they claim our very serious attention; and more particularly on this account, that it is a charge which, whenever made upon an individual, depends almost always upon the testimony of one witness, and where there is but one witness to make the accusation,—I mean one witness to the fact charged, so that the person accused can have no witness in his defence;—that, however innocent a man may be who is accused of this crime, provided the party is in a situation in which he cannot shew that he was fifty miles off at the time, it is quite impossible for him to have a witness to negative the fact. It must stand or fall upon the testimony of the principal witness, whose testimony, however, I need not tell you, is to be watched most scrupulously, and to be compared with the evidence of other witnesses; and if found inconsistent with the testimony of other witnesses, it is hardly then to be carried to the extent of full credence and of conviction.

Now, Gentlemen, the story which this young man has told you, is, upon his statement, a very extraordinary one, of the attack made upon him. Were any attack made upon him by Mr. Church, it would indeed be most extraordinary under the circumstances which he has stated. He represents himself to have been previously acquainted with him—that he had been one of his hearers—and yet from the hour of that acquaintance commencing, to the moment of this supposed abominable attack, that Mr. Church had never, either by word or gesture, made any indecent overture to him of any kind, signifying his intention, or had done any thing whatever to ascertain if he, the prosecutor, was ready to gratify any brutal of unnatural passion he might form. Now, it is a very extraordinary thing, that it should be supposed, that a person should get out of his own bed, and go to the bed of another, and commence the attack with the indecencies described by the witness, without any preparation of any kind whatever, without having any reason to believe, that the object of his attack would accede to his base, and unnatural purposes, with the full knowledge, (one should think,) that he was encountering certain detection and punishment, by the resistance that every man would be likely to make, to such an abominable attack; and it is, to be sure, most extraordinary to observe in what manner this is done. The young man states that he did not see the face of the person—that he felt the arm, and found that it was a shirt sleeve; but he did not feel any part of the flesh, so as to make any distinction between male und female; but he concludes that it was the shirt of a man, because the arm was covered down to the wrist. And when my Learned Friend, Mr. Marryatt, supposed that females are not covered down below the elbow, I have only to say, that I certainly always thought that females in their night clothes were covered down to their wrists. I ever understood that was the case; and therefore a person awakened out of sleep, in the fright that such a circumstance was likely to produce, and finding the arm of the person making the attack covered down to the wrist, would not, I think, be very well able to say whether it was the sleeve of a shirt or that of a woman’s bed-gown; and that is all the means of knowledge which the witness has, as far as regards feeling the person.

Now I go on to the next evidence of identity. The next is the voice of the person who, he tells us, said in a feigned female voice, “Don’t you know me, Adam? I am your mistress.” Now, recollect, Gentlemen, the voice, it is thought, is a female voice; and whether it be feigned or not, depends upon his judgment and capacity of forming an opinion at a moment when he was in the greatest alarm and agitation; because if it was a female voice, then the voice was not feigned, and it could not be Mr. Church who was in the room. Now, I don’t mean to suggest (far be it from me) that it was Mrs. Patrick; but it is rather extraordinary and somewhat remarkable, considering the industry and the acrimony with which this case has been got up against Mr. Church, that they should not have produced Mrs. Patrick as a witness, and that they should think it right to withhold from your observation the other maid servant, who slept with Adam Foreman’s sister. I think it is rather remarkable, that considering the industry with which I know this case was got up, they have not thought fit to produce that other female before you as a witness in order to say, “I was not out of my bed room that night, and I did not go into the apprentices bed room.” Now, I think, that considering that the Prosecutors must have been aware of the powerful effect of such evidence, it is most surprising that they did not call forward the other persons in the house that night as witnesses, for the purpose of shewing, by their testimony, that they remained in their beds during the whole of that night, and for the purpose of giving some colour of probability to this very extraordinary and incredible story. But, no, Gentlemen, they choose to leave the case to the testimony of a frightened young man, wakened out of his sound sleep, and who, without seeing the face of Mr. Church, ventures to swear that the feigned female voice which he heard was that of the Defendant. I think, Gentlemen, in a case in which every thing depends, not so much upon his veracity, but upon the accuracy of his judgment in the course of his observation upon circumstances, with respect to which he was very little likely to draw any very accurate conclusions, that that servant ought to have been produced here, the more especially when the young man from the Pottery, going afterwards through the house for the purpose of seeing who was there, did find the female servant’s door ajar; a circumstance not observable with respect to any other room in the house.

Now, I come to the next observation of identity; and I do think it is a most extraordinary one. There is a lamp, it seems, in the footpath of the terrace, five or six yards from the door. My Learned Friend, Mr. Bolland, inquired what sort of a lamp it was—whether it was a parish lamp, or a gas light? And he found by the answer, that it was the worst kind of lamp in the Metropolis—a parish lamp. Well, then, there is a dull parish lamp, five or six yards from the door, which gives a light through a large window—No, through a fan-light! and the person, whoever it is, opens the door to go out, and, as the door is opened the Lad sees that the person has a shirt on. Now, I beg to ask you, as men of sense and of experience in the world, whether it was possible for him to see whether that garment was a shirt, a shift, or a bed-gown—was it possible? Recollect, the light is not in the room—there is some light in the passage. The back of the person is towards him; and he is to tell you that it is Mr. Church, although he only saw his back! But then the next observation after the shirt, is as to the height of the person. Why, Gentlemen, nothing magnifies more than fright: nothing! We, all of us, have often heard the descriptions of persons in great fright. They always magnify the objects they see. If a person is robbed, the thief is a _monstrous tall man_! Why, Gentlemen, fright does magnify every object; and, therefore, we must make allowances for the situation in which this young man was placed at the time. He is disturbed in his sleep—the thing happens in a moment—and he sits up in his bed in a great fright—and he tells you it is Mr. Church, because of the height of the person he saw. Now if you can say that a person in that station is capable of distinguishing between a tall and a short person, I think it is a great deal too much in a case of this sort. But what has the person on his head? My Lord Ellenborough asked the question, _whether it was a man’s_ or woman’s night-cap? and he says, “I cannot tell whether it was a night-cap or a handkerchief.” And upon being asked the colour, he says, “I cannot tell.” And there does not seem to be light enough to distinguish whether it was white or coloured. From this circumstance, therefore, Gentlemen, you will judge what sort of light there was to distinguish objects.

Now, Gentlemen, we come to the confirmation of this extraordinary story, particularly by Mr. Patrick. It is quite clear that Mr. Patrick has conceived some great anger against Mr. Church, on account of supposed slander of the character of his wife. Mr. Patrick himself is quite satisfied that his wife is not guilty, any more than the maid servant. But Mr. Patrick is angry, because he says, that Mr. Church has slandered the character of his wife. Why then, Mr. Patrick goes to Mr. Church, and he has some conversation with him. He tells him that he has seen some letter, but he does not mention what letter—he has seen some letter in which he, Mr. Church, has said that he could deny _three points_ in the boy’s story: and he puts questions to him, and he states to you, that Mr. Church having distinctly denied the indecent attack upon the boy, yet that he nevertheless admitted that he was in the room. Now, Gentlemen, upon that subject I must necessarily give you some evidence, as well as upon another part of this case; for I understand that Mr. Patrick distinctly stated to Mr. Thomas, who accompanied him as far as the house of Mr. Church, and whom he joined directly after he came out, that Mr. Church was not at all implicated; for on that occasion Mr. Thomas said to him, “Well, is there any thing against Mr. Church?” Upon which Mr. Patrick answered “No: Mr. Church is not all implicated.” Mr. Patrick has denied it. I am told that Mr. Thomas will positively state that to have occurred. I am told so. Then, Gentlemen, if Mr. Patrick be contradicted in that most material circumstance—if you discredit him upon that part of the case, how can you give him credit in that part upon which my leaded friend fastened, as the confirmation of the story of the boy—“that he admitted to Mr. Patrick, that he had been in the boy’s room.” But the contradiction will not end there, Gentlemen. You have already one very important contradiction in the case; for the boy went directly to the Pottery, and he made a communication to West; and I asked him distinctly, and more than once, whether he stated to Mr. West that the person who attacked him in the manner he had described, had his hand upon his private parts? and he said that he had distinctly told Mr. West, that Mr. Church had laid his hand on his private parts: but, when West came to be examined, he told us that the boy did tell him that Mr. Church had behaved in a very indecent manner to him: but that he never, before the search was made, nor in the course of the night, nor from first to last, said a word to him about that circumstance.

Now, Gentlemen, that is a very strong contradiction of the story told you to-day by this man; and if that induces you to disbelieve him, or to doubt respecting his evidence, it will be impossible for you to find the Defendant guilty of this charge.

Gentlemen, I asked the boy at first, whether, instead of going to search in request of Mr. Church, he and the potter, West, had not gone to search for thieves? and he answered me, “Yes.” But afterwards, he gave us some explanation, and said, “that he did not search the house particularly for thieves, but made a search to find if any body was about.” Now, Gentlemen, upon this subject I am also enabled to give you some evidence, because I understand that both the boy and West distinctly stated, when they were before the Magistrate, that they did go and search the house for thieves, and that they made no other search but for thieves. Now, if there was any search made for thieves—if there was any notion in the mind of this boy that thieves were in the house, it would be quite impossible that he could be correct in the story he has told you to-day. And whether he has not magnified the thing—whether something which he has supposed to have happened between sleeping and awake that never happened—whether he has not been giving you a connected account now of what he had a confused notion then—is for your consideration.

But there is another circumstance respecting the case which is very important. The transaction, if it ever did take place, took place in the night of the 25th of September. On the 9th of October, and not until the ninth of October, does Mr. Patrick go to Mr. Church. There is a lapse of a fortnight. The witness whom I shall call to you will state, that after coming out from Mr. Church’s, Mr. Patrick expressed himself satisfied that Mr. Church was not implicated. Now let us try that by the conduct of Mr. Patrick and of this boy. This is the 9th of October, and until the 12th of November no charge before a Magistrate is made. I beg to ask you whether the conduct of Mr. Patrick, in forbearing to make any charge before a Magistrate until the 12th of November, is not the strongest evidence that what my witness will state to you is true? That he was then satisfied that Mr. Church was not implicated in this abominable, odious, and unnatural transaction. Gentlemen, such charges ought never to be slept upon. No, not for an hour. If there be such a charge as that, and if it be really true that such things have taken place, no man ought to rest on it for a single hour.—The charge ought to be made directly. But, what excuse is urged for this delay? “Oh,” says my learned friend, “At last the transaction reached the ears of the apprentice’s father.” Why, you wont suppose that the apprentice’s father had just returned from an East-India Voyage, and that the transaction coming to his ears on the 11th of November, he brought forward the charge. Gentlemen, there is no pretence for such an excuse. The boy slept at his father’s. He did not sleep at his master’s. Did he return to his father’s house? His father lived within a quarter of a mile of Mr. Patrick, and he was in daily intercourse with his father, and had abundant opportunities of conferring with him upon the subject; and yet, for six weeks, no steps whatever are taken to bring Mr. Church before a Magistrate. My learned friend then told you that the father was the person who made the charge: but he has not called the father. The only person who appears here as the prosecutor is Mr. Patrick, and not the father; and they have not ventured to call the father as a witness; and there is no pretence made for the delay of this charge, unless it was that at this interview with Mr. Church, the prosecutor, Mr. Patrick, was satisfied, as I am told he expressed himself to be to the person who accompanied him, and waited at the door till he came out, that there was no ground for implicating the Defendant in this charge: and, Gentlemen, I say that his sleeping on the charge for upwards of a month after that interview with Mr. Church, is the strongest evidence that at that time he was satisfied of his innocence, and that this charge is brought forward on account of some anger, or some supposed declaration respecting Mr. Patrick’s wife, which would make him extremely angry. If you find, Gentlemen, that there were no other motives than this to induce a charge of this kind, I have no doubt you will immediately acquit the Defendant.

Gentlemen, I have no further observations to make. The charge is most odious. The crime is most odious; and if it can be more attrocious in one person than another, it is in a person who is a public teacher of religion. If such a person, in defiance of every law human and divine. In contravention of those Sacred Scriptures, which it is his duty to read and expound, and having read and expounded them he can be found so far to forget every law of human nature and every principle of virtue, by the commission of this crime, he must be the most monstrous and attrocious of the human race, and no punishment can be adequate to his offences. But the punishment which must await him, would be infinitely worse than standing in the Court below to receive sentence for the completion of this attrocious crime; because I think that compared with instant death for the consummation of the crime, the being doomed to live the object of scorn, of hatred, and abhorrence by every human being, must be a punishment infinitely worse. Gentlemen, that is not too great for such monsters: but before you find the Defendant to be such, be satisfied by the whole of the evidence of his guilt. Compare the evidence on one side and on the other; and if it raises a doubt in your mind, the Defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and you will find him not guilty.

Mr. John Thomas _was the first witness called for the Defendant_, _and being sworn_, _was examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

Is your name John Thomas?—Yes.

Where do you live?—In Prospect-place, West’s-square, St. George’s-fields.

In what way of business are you?—An appraiser and undertaker.

Have you known Mr. Church long?—Yes.

Were you one of his hearers?—Yes.

Were you acquainted with Mr. Patrick?—Not till the report was made respecting Mr. Church.

Did you know him as one of the congregation attending Mr. Church?—No, I cannot say I did.

Were you with Mr. Patrick on any day that he went to Mr. Church’s house—I mean on the 9th of October?—Yes, a few days after the report.

Did you go into the house with him?—No, I did not.

You were at the door?—I staid outside.

Had you learnt from Mr. Patrick that he was going to Mr. Church’s upon the subject of this business?—Yes.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did he tell you that he had a letter, and was going to make inquiries of Mr. Church?—He called upon me at my house to go with him.

By the COMMON SERJEANT.—And told you he was going to Mr. Church’s upon the business of this inquiry?—Yes; indeed it was my request that he should. Mr. Thomas went to speak to his wife; and it was at my wife’s request and Mrs. Patrick’s I believe that he went.

Your wife joined in her request?—Yes.

How long might his interview with Mr. Church last—how long was he in the house?—He seemed to be a long while; not much less than an hour.

As near as you could guess, the time, was it near an hour?—Yes.

When he came out did you put any questions to him respecting what had passed between; him and Mr. Church?—Yes.

What questions did you put?—I asked him what Mr. Church had said.

What answer did he give you?—He said that Mr. Church did not say any thing. He said Mr. Church seemed very much confounded on account of the cause, he supposed, but he said nothing about it; that it would be injurious to the cause of God. He did not say the _cause of God_, but I only supposed he meant the cause of God.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did he use the words “cause of God?”—No, he said Mr. Church seemed very much confounded or confused.

Then the rest is all imagination of your’s?—We both imagined alike. I don’t know that these were exactly the words, for I cannot call to my mind what he did say; but it was conjectured the cause of God, and which we heard afterwards was abused abroad.

You are now called, Sir, for the purpose of contradiction. You are recollecting the effect, you know, of a conversation and communication with Mr. Patrick, and you must say truly what passed, if you can recollect it.—I don’t recollect all that passed.

By the COMMON SERJEANT.—When you were stopt in your account of what passed, you were going to say something. You were asked whether Mr. Church had said any thing to Mr. Patrick which Mr. Patrick related to you. What did he say?—He said, No. He said Mr. Church seemed very much confused.

What did you ask Mr. Patrick next?—“Why,” said I, “what do you mean. Why, if you know any thing against the man, did you not charge him with it? I would have been very faithful with him, and charged him with it.”

What answer did Mr. Patrick make to that?—He said he did not know; he was not the person.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Repeat that in Mr. Patrick’s own words. Attend, and wait to hear the question. Be so good as to suppose that you were narrating the conversation as it occurred with Mr. Patrick. Instead of saying, _He_, say _I_. Attend now.

By the COMMON SERJEANT.—What further did he say? and give his own words.—He said, “I don’t know: I am not so proper a person as you,” or words to the same effect. I said to him, “What did he (meaning Church) say respecting the report?”

What had the report reference to that you spoke of?—The report respecting this transaction.

What answer did Patrick make to that? What did Patrick say to you when you put the question, as to what Church had said respecting the report?—I said to Mr. Patrick, says I, “what did he say respecting the acknowledging the report”—that is, what did Mr. Church say to Mr. Patrick about acknowledging the report that had gone abroad respecting him. He said, “It was false.”

Do you mean that Church said it was false?—I mean that Patrick said that the report was false.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—That is not the answer to the question put by the Gentleman. Did Church say that it was false?—I never saw Church upon the subject.

By the COMMON SERJEANT.—When Patrick made you an answer, did you understand that answer to be, that Church had said the report was false, or that Patrick himself said the report was false?—Patrick himself.

Patrick himself said that the report was false?—Certainly.

Did you then put any other question to Mr. Patrick?—I did.

What other question did you put?—I said, what answer did Mr. Church give respecting its having been reported that he was in liquor—that he made an excuse that he was in liquor?

What answer did Mr. Patrick give to that?—He said it was false. He said there had been a great deal of exaggeration.

Did you after this put any question to Mr. Patrick, whether he, Mr. Patrick, thought that Mr. Church was implicated in the transaction or not? Did you put any such question to him?

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you use those words, or words to the same effect?—No, I did not I put these words to him—“Why,” says I, “you did nothing! Did Mr. Church acknowledge nothing to you?” “No, Sir,” says he, “he did not.” Then he said Mr. Church had not mentioned a word about it.

Did you make any observation to him, or he to you?—I don’t recollect any thing in particular. I said, says I, “As you can bring nothing against him, let us pray for him, and if he had the least idea of such a thing; and as you say you cannot bring any thing home to him, and can’t prove any thing, that is all we can do. Let us pray that he may not be guilty of such sin.”

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you say, pray for him, if he was under any such temptation?—Yes; pray for him, if was under any such temptation.

THE COMMON SERJEANT.—Did Mr. Patrick after that deliver any opinion to you whether he thought Church was implicated in the transaction or not?—No, he did not.

Did you at any other time see him, and hear him say any thing about this transaction?—No.

Did any thing more pass at this meeting than what you have told us? No.—Yes, Sir. I ask pardon: I met him in June last, coming over Waterloo-bridge. I did not at first know him; and he spoke to me, and he said, “My name is Patrick.” I said, “Mr. Patrick, why what are you doing with Mr. Church?” “Why,” says I, “I hear you have brought something else against him: what is that?”

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—There is no contradiction of Mr. Patrick in this. He was not asked to this (continuation of the answer). “Why,” says he, “Sir, I should not have done it, but that Mr. Church has spoken more disrespectful things respecting Mrs. Patrick.” He said he should not have done it, but that Mr. Church had said many disrespectful things of Mrs. Patrick.

_Cross-examined by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

Was it the Sabbath after the 27th of September that you first heard of this?—I believe it was. It was within two or three days after.

I think we have learnt that upon the Thursday night Mr. Patrick came home, and that on the Friday morning the boy communicated to him what had happened. Now on the Saturday, was not this matter currently talked of about Mr. Church?—No, I believe not.

You mean that you heard of the report two or three days after the thing happened?—Yes.

You then heard of the report?—Yes.

You told us that you were desirous that Mr. Patrick should call on Mr. Church?—Yes.

Then he did so, at your desire?—Yes.

Did Mr. Patrick bring the boy to you, and offer to have him brought face to face with Mr. Church?—I believe he did.

Mr. Patrick said the boy was outside?—Mr. Patrick called at my house in the course of the morning, and he sent him, and he said the boy was outside.

Did he wish you to see the boy?—Not particularly, I believe.

For what purpose did he bring the boy?—To go to Mr. Church’s?—I supposed so.

To go with you or with him, or with both of you to Mr. Church’s?—I was to go with him, and therefore the boy followed.

Did the boy go with him into Mr. Church’s house?—He staid outside the door. He walked on the other side of the way, opposite to where I was.

But he waited whilst you waited?—Yes: we both waited outside.

Ready to go in to Mr. Church’s when you were wanted?—Yes: Mr. Patrick was to go in and hear what Mr. Church had to say; and then we were to go in, too.

And he took the boy with him, in order that he might be taken in and see Mr. Church face to face?—He brought the boy with him, and I suppose that was his intention.

Did you decline introducing the boy to Mr. Church?—I had no particular acquaintance with Mr. Church?—I was only one of his hearers, and I thought it would be too great a liberty for me to go to him. Mr. Patrick wanted me to go in alone to Mr. Church, first.

Did he not invite you to take the boy in with you?—He said nothing about that; I don’t recollect any thing that he did.

Why did you tell me, then, that you supposed the purpose of bringing the boy was that he should be introduced to Mr. Church?—No doubt about that. I don’t know any other reason he had than that, for bringing the boy.

Did he say so?—I don’t know that he said that that was his reason. He said he had the boy there.

Do you remember your declining to go in with Mr. Patrick to Mr. Church’s?—I told him I had no particular interest in the business. I had no intimacy with Mr. Church, except hearing him. I thought I had no business to be interested in the knowledge of the fact, being only a hearer. I thought therefore that my visit would be obtrusive.

Because you had no particular interest in the business?—Why, I certainly had no interest in it.

And therefore you declined going in and taking the boy with you?—I saw no necessity of so doing, as he did not acknowledge himself guilty of any thing bad.

By Lord ELLENBOROUGH. But the boy being there, had you not the curiosity to examine the boy?—I did not, it being delicate subject.

Did you not think it important to come at the truth upon the subject, as the boy was there and you might have examined him yourself?—If Mr. Church had confessed any thing, I should have thought it my duty to take the boy and have them face to face.

But I should have thought that the circumstance of his not confessing would be the reason why you would take them face to face; or else why should you take the boy at all. But Mr. Church not having confessed any thing, you therefore would not examine the boy.—Was that your reason for not examining the boy?—Yes, my Lord.

By Mr. BOLLAND.—But if he confessed any thing, you would have taken the boy to have them face to face?—Yes.

Your object was to take the boy and have them face to face, if Mr. Church acknowledged the crime?—Yes.

But surely when you found that Mr. Church had acknowledged his fault, then there would be no reason for taking the boy to have them face to face?—I should have thought it proper to take the boy in, if Mr. Church acknowledged his crime. I wished the boy in fact to come in with us; but when Mr. Patrick came out and said that Mr. Church did not acknowledge any thing of it, I did not think it necessary to have them face to face.

Then you did not think it right to have the boy in?—I never spoke to the boy.

You never asked the boy about this transaction?—No.

Mr. Patrick never gave any opinion whether Mr. Church was implicated in the transaction; but in answer to a particular part of the transaction, he said that Mr. Church asserted that it was false?—Yes.

Did you see the letter sent to Mrs. Hunter?—No.

I mean the letter about the three points of the boy’s statement which Mr. Church said he was able to contradict?—No.

Mr. JAMES REEVES _sworn_.

_Examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

Were you the Clerk attending the Magistrate when the charge was made before him;—I was.

Who was the Magistrate?—I must refer to the book—(_Witness produced a book_.)

That is your minute book in which you enter the proceedings of the day?—Yes.

Who was the sitting Magistrate on that day?—Mr. Serjeant Sellon appears to have been the Magistrate on the 19th of November, as it appears by the book.

This being a charge of misdemeanor, do you find by your book that any account was committed to writing of what the witnesses said?—No; it was not. It is merely a note, or entry of the names, as follows: “Warrant for a misdemeanor, parties appeared by the Officer, and ordered to find bail.”

_Cross-examined by_ Mr. MARRYATT.

Was that the Magistrate by whom the warrant was granted?—Yes.

Was the oath administered before the warrant was granted?—Yes; there had been an _ex-parte_ examination to grant the warrant on the oath of the party.

That is in another book?—It is; that is left behind; I do not know any thing of it.

But there is a deposition on oath prior to the granting of the warrant?—Yes.

_Re-examined by the_ COMMON SERJEANT.

The depositions in cases of misdemeanour you don’t take in detail?—No.

Were the depositions taken in writing in any book which you have not here?—I am not aware of that.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You were not told to bring it?—No.

Was that the only information upon which the warrant was granted?—There was nothing taken down in writing when all the parties were before the Magistrate.

Were the depositions taken down before the warrant was granted?—Yes.

Then, after the warrant was executed, and at the time of the examination when the Defendant was there, you took no minutes?—No farther than the names of the parties; and what I have here.

Mr. WOOD _sworn_.

_Examined by_ Mr. Gurney.

Were you present at the examination of Mr. Church before the Magistrate?—I was.

What are you?—A hatter, near the Elephant and Castle, in St. George’s Fields.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you take the testimony of the witnesses down in writing?—No.

Mr. GURNEY.—Did Foreman, the boy, in the account he gave before the Magistrate, say for what purpose he searched the house?—He said that he went out to the Potter and told the Potter that there were thieves in the house, and that the Potter and he came to search the house. He was asked a question by Mr. Sellon, whether or no he searched the room where Mr. Church slept. He said, No, he did not search that room. Mr. Sellon said, “Why not search that room?”

What answer did he give to that?—The answer he gave was that the Potter wished to break the door open. Mr. Sellon said, “Did you try the door to see whether it was open, before the Potter talked of breaking it open?” He said, No: he did not wish to disturb his mistress.

Whilst the Potter was examined, did he say what was the alarm that Foreman gave to him; did he say what was the alarm?—I cannot charge my memory as to that.

Mr. GURNEY.—My Lord, this is the case of the Defendant.

Mr. MARRYATT then replied to the Defendant’s case, as follows:—

May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury—My learned Friend has almost admitted the case on the part of the Prosecution, in the nature of his address to you, by saying, in effect, that if you believed Mr. Church to have gone into the boy’s chamber at that unseasonable hour of the morning, he could hardly come there for any purpose but that ascribed to him by this Indictment. At least, if my Learned Friend did not make that confession in terms so explicitly as I have given them, certainly he has not offered in his address to you the smallest explanation of so very suspicious a purpose. And although I invited him, when I first had the opportunity of stating this case, to assign any possible reason, except that which is imputed to the Defendant as matter of crime, why he should be in the Boy’s room under such circumstances, we have had no motive assigned, nor any suggestion of apology or excuse offered for such conduct.