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.