Cite: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article686143

Tags (Keywords)

Add New Tags

41 corrections, most recently by mrbh - Show corrections

Maitland Circuit Court.

CIVIL BUSINESS.

Wednesday, February 22, 1854.

EVAN'S V. LANG.

(Before his Honor Mr. Justice Dickinson and a special

jury of four.)

This was an action of ejectment, in which William Evans was the plaintiff, and Andrew Lang was the defendant ; the land sought to be recovered being situated in the parish of Middle- hope, in the county of Durham.

For the plaintiff, Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Faucett ; attorneys, Messrs. Turner and Mullen. For the defendant, Mr. Meymott ; attorney, Mr.

Chambers,

Mr. Faucett opened the pleadings.

Mr. Broadhurst stated the case to the jury. The question for them to try was whether or not a particular strip of land fell within the grant of the plaintiff or not. The plan filed showed the piece in dispute, containing 19 acres. The case had been already before a jury, and this was a second trial, but with that the jury would have nothing to do. Dr. Evans had had for many years an estate, as a grant of land from the Government, and Mr. Lang had the adjoining estate; the piece in dispute had been occupied by Mr. Lang for many years, but the jury would have to decide, upon the evidence of the wit- nesses, whether it was not within Dr. Evans's grant, as he maintained. Tbe learned counsel proceeded to state the general features of the case, and put in evidence the deeds of grant, Dr. Evans's being dated 1842, although he had been in possession many years before, and Mr. Lang's 30th June, 1823.

For the plaintiff the following witnesses were called : George Boyle White and Richard Wright Goodall. Both the witnesses are surveyors, and Mr. White was formerly a Government sur- veyor. Both witnesses stated that the boundary lines of the plaintiff's grant would include the disputed land, if carried eastward (magnetic) from his south-west point to the River Paterson in a straight line; Mr. Lang, however, claimed the piece in question in consequence of, as he   stated to Mr. White, the section line on the opposite bank of the river coming opposite the northern boundary of the strip. Some short distance from the bank of the river a large swamp formerly existed, and the Government surveyor who originally marked the trees on the boundary line stopped at the swamp, and marked no trees either in the swamp (none indeed existing there), or on the river bank beyond ; a fence was put up on part of the marked tree line, westward of the swamp, and Mr Lang told Mr. White that that was his fence ; but on the river bank and back through the swamp (now flat alluviul land) Mr. Lang cleared, claimed and used, the line north of the other line some seventeen rods, a continuation of the line which he told Mr. White existed on the other side of the river. The northern line of Dr. Evans's grant was the southern boundary of a block of reserved land, and both witnesses found the marked trees on that line. In answer to Mr.

Meymott's questions respecting that line, Mr. White said he could not find any other marked tree line north or south of it, and that it was continuous with the line on the opposite bank ;

while Mr. Goodall added that if that line was shifted either north or south the quantity con- tained in Dr. Evans's estate would not agree with the quantity named in the grant, 1070 acres, from the sinuosities of the river, while Ur. Evans would have his exact quantity if he had the piece in dispute, and Mr. Lang would have more than his full quantity, 1050 acres, without that piece.

Mr. Meymott, for the defendant, contended that Mr. Lang was entitled not only to the strip in dispute, but to an additional strip west- ward along the remainder of Dr. Evans's pre- sent southern line, wtiile Dr. Evans must take his deficiency, if any existed, from the Govern- ment, out of the reserved land north of him. Mr. Lang did not possess the whole of the land he was entitled to, which was a continuous line from that on the opposite bank. Mr. Lang, clearing the river bank to his boundary, opposite the boundary on the other bank, and then run- ning a west line from that boundary, found that the fence put up westward of the swamp did not include tbe whole line of the land be-

longing to bim, but rather than have any dis- pute, he and Dr. Evans came to an arrangement that the boundaries should remain as they were, and a short fence ruuning north and south, con- necting the other two varying east and west lines, was put up at the joint expense of tile two

parties.

He called as witnesses, Andrew Lang, the de- fendant, John Graham, Daniel Whalan, George Powditch, Henry Carmichael, and John Russell. Of these witnesses, Mr. Powditch, Mr. Car- michael, and Mr. Russell, the two latter sur- veyors, simply proved that the northern line of the Woodville estate, on the eastern side of the river, was opposite and continuous to the line on the western side, struck from the river as the northern line of Dunmore, Mr. Lang's estate. Messrs. Lang, Graham, and Whalan, proved that there was originally a marked tree line between the river and swamp exactly opposite the Wood- ville marked tree boundary, and that the land now in dispute, and which was cleared in 1829 by Mr. Lang, was therefore within the Dun- more estate. Mr. Lang also deposed that the back marked line, westward of the swamp, also originally a surveyor's marked tree line, was er- roneous, trending too far northerly as it pro- ceeded westward, and that measuring from the point eight miles west of the Paterson, where this line commenced, easterly to and across the Paterson, and eight miles eastward to the Wil- liam, the line taken by him from the river westerly, and the northern line of ihe piece now in dispute would be correct, and would exactly correspond with the section lines east of the Paterson. When this was first discovered by him in running his line across the swamp com- mencing from the river, he applied to Dr. Evans, and ultimately rather than go to law about it, they mutually agreed to contiuue each line to the middle of the swamp, and then run a north and south fence to the other. This was done, and acquiesced in by Dr. Evans for years, but subsequently he laid claim again to the piece now in dispute. In strict right Mr. Lang said he was entitled to all the strip along the boundary continuous with that from the river into the swamp.

Mr. Broadhurst, in reply, contended that the description in the grant to Dr. Evans was what the jury most rely on, and not any fancied run- ning of lines which, if established, would disturb the boundaries of every estate along the line. Whether the marked lines on the eastern side of   the river were or were not continuous with those ou the western side did not matter at all, us no errors of surveyors could upset a grant of land. He thought the case one free of all doubt. No agreement between the parties could affect the right of the plaintiff to the land, if it were included in his grant.  

His Honor, told the jury the plaintiff's title     must be made out distinctly to their satisfaction first, before they could give him a verdict, and no deficiency in the defendant's title would super- sede the necessity of the plaintiff strictly prov- ing his title. He then read over the whole of the evidence to them, commenting on portions of it as he proceeded. The admission made by the plaintiff, by the agreement proved, must be considered in testing his title, but no admissions made by him could upset his title by the grant,

if that grant included the land.

The jury retired for an hour and a half, and returned with a verdict for the defendant.

BRADY V. HEUGH.  

(Before Mr. Justice Dickinson, and a special jury of

four.)                  

This, was an action on promises. The plain-   tiff's declaration stated that defendant having   promised to safely keep and ship within a week,     from Morpeth to Sydney, 250 bushels of wheat; received the wheat from the plaintiff, but neither shipped it or took care of it as promised, to the great injury of^ja&'êtft'.'. Damages were laid at £200. The defendant pleaded first the general issue; and to the alleged breaches he pleaded,         secondly, that he did safely keep the wheat, aud thirdly, that the loss complained of was not occasioned by his negligence.

For the plaintiff, Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Faucett ; attorneys, Messrs. Turner and Mullen. For the defendant, Mr. Meymott; attorney,

Mr. Shuttleworth.  

Mr. Faucett opened the pleadings, and Mr. Broadhurst stated the case to the jury, mention- ing that this was a second trial, detailing the general circumstances, and reading the corres- pondence that passed between the parties, con- tending that that correspondence confirmed the   statements in the declaration. The wheat, being detained in the stores of the defendant, instead

of being shipped to Sydney, got greatly eaten by weevil, and got further injured by laying next tallow, which made the wheat greasy,

The witnesses called for the plaintiff were Patrick Brady, the plaintiff, another Patrick Brady, John Portus, and James Duffin. The plaintiff bought 145 bushels of wheat, at 10s. per bushel, from Patrick Burke, on the 7th Nov., 1852, and being unable to dispose of it in Mait- land, although an offer of 11s. 6d. per bushel   was made to him when he showed the sample, he saw the defendant, a partner in a firm running sailing vessels between Morpeth and Sydney, and having made the arrangement with him he (plaintiff) now deposed to, he delivered the wheat on the 12th November, at defendant's stores, Morpeth, to be shipped to Sydney, con- signed to Mr. Craig, of Sydney, a partner in the firm. The wheat, however, was not sent, and on the 22nd December plaintiff took the wheat out of the stores, then in very bad condition, tried in vain to sell it at Mr. Portus's mill, saw de- fendant, and finally had the wheat sold by auc- tion, when it realised 2s. 6d. per bushel ; the purchaser became dissatisfied with the purchase, and plaintiff took it off his hands at the same figure, and the wheat being ground by Mr. Teas for plaintiff, he used some of the flour for feed- ing pigs, and gave away and sold the remainder for the same purpose. Plaintiff and Brady were examined as to the exact agreement with de- fendant, and as to the condition of the wheat at the first period: plaintiff and Mr. Portus as to its condition after leaving the stores; and Mr. Duf- fin as to the then value of wheat in Sydney. Mr. Portus was cross-examined as to the probable condition of the wheat previously, from its then condition, and as to the state of the stores.

Mr, Meymott moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the contract alleged in the declara- tion was not proved.

Mr. Broadhurst declined being nonsuited, but moved for an amendment of the declaration, to the effect that it should be shipped by the Tues- day or the Thursday following the agreement.

Mr. Meymott again moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that even this was not proved, but Mr. Broadhurst declining, Mr. Meymott ad- dressed the jury for the defendant, contending that the contract as altered must be strictly proved or the plaintiff could not recover, and that the contract was not proved ; what was proved was that the plaintiff said he could not send the wheat by the first vessel expected, but would by the second vessel to arrive. Such a contract was very different from one to ship by a particular day. But he should prove that the   real contract made was, that defendant said he could not send either by the first or second vessel expected, naming them, but would by the For- titude, the third vessel expected. Even sup- posing the jury could arrive at the conclusion that the contract really made had not been per- formed, what damages could they give after hearing the evidence of Mr. Portus?

For the defendant the following witnesses were called: David Logan, William Heugh, the defendant, Samuel Teas, James Portus, Robert Brodie, and Abraham Mills. Mr. Heugh's ac- count of the contract was, that he told plaintiff he was laying on vessels, that the two first ex- pected up from Sydney, the Chance and Ellen, were engaged, and could not take plaintiff's wheat, but that he expected a third to follow them in eight or ten days, and when she arrived the wheat could go by her ; but he advised plain- tiff either to send his wheat by the steamer, or to sell it in Maitland, rather than depend on his (defendant's) vessels. The stores were then full of goods waiting to go; they were dry stores, with a boarded floor.——Mr. Logan was also examined as to the contract.——Mr. Teas, who saw the wheat before and after it had been in defendant's stores, was examined as to its con- dition on each occasion, and as to plaintiff's ac- count of the contractor agreement he had made with defendant.——Mr James Portus was shown a sample of the wheat by plaintiff before it was stored, and described its then condition as wea- vily and bad.——Brodie, then storeman at defen- dant's stores, described the storing of the wheat. ——Mills assisted to take the wheat into the stores, and he corroborated Brodie that the bags appeared light.——In the course of his exami- nation Mr. Logan stated that the Fortitude was detained by stress of weather, and when she reached Morpeth was too leaky to take wheat.

Mr. Broadhurst, in reply, contended that the plaintiff had made out his case, and was entitled to damages at their hands. He urged that the plaintiff's account of the contract was most re- liable, and was best sustained by the general

circumstances.

His Honor briefly summed up the case, and pointed out the two issues for them to try.

The jury, without retiring, found for the de-

fendant on each issue.

This closed the civil busines. The court ad- journed till nine o'clock on Thursday morning.

CRIMINAL BUSINESS

Thursday, February 23, 1854.

MURDER.

Daniel Gardiner, alias Thomas Gardiner, was indicted for the wilful murder of Caroline Gardi-

ner, alias Catherine Gardiner, at the Rocky River, on the 7th August, 1853.

Mr. Faucett appeared tor the defence ; attor- ney, Mr. Brenan, but the latter gentleman being absent, Mr. O'Meagher consented to act as attor-  

ney for the defence.

The witnesses called were Samuel M'Crossin, Lloyd Bradshaw, Sarah M'Namara, and Dr.

Thomas John Markham.

Samuel M'Crossin, a publican at the Rocky   River, Armidale district, deposed that prisoner   was formerly a blacksmith at Mr Marsh's, Salis-

bury, six miles from witness, on the 7th August, about eleven o'clock in the morning, prisoner came to witness's inn, and had a glass of brandy,   and left; about four in the afternoon he came   again, with a young woman, and a little girl, six or seven years old; he called the young woman   his wife, and she usually passed as his wife; the young woman was called Catherine, and they all had dinner at the inn; the woman had on a plaid shawl and a white silk bonnet, after din- ner prisoner said it was too late to go home, and called tor a bottle of port wine, and asked foi a room for the night; witness had some wine with prisoner, drinking bis wife's health, that being the first lime witness had seen them since they were married; witness had known prisoner's wife for years before; prisoner went out to where witness's men were, and, witness went into his own family room, where witness's wife was; five minutes after saw prisoner at the     bar, with some of witness's men, with whom he stopped nearly half an hour; all this time pri- soner's wife and the little girl were sitting in the room where they had dinner; prisoner then went in the direction of that room ; half an hour later witness went to prisoner in that room, and remonstrated with prisoner because he was scold- ing his wife, desiring prisoner to be quiet, and go to his bed; that was about seven o'clock; prisoner was not drunk; prisoner was accusing   his wife with being too great with some man at Salisbury, and he named Thorley as the man ; she denied the imputation. Some time after, about eight o'clock, prisoner came out into the verandah, and said he would go home, he wouldn't stop; had heard no further scolding in the interval; prisoner's wife and witness and witness's wife asked prisoner to stop, as it was a cold frosty night. Prisoner did not say why he would not stop. Prisoner's wife asked prisoner     repeatedly to stop, but he would not, and pri-   soner left, with his wife and the little girl.   Prisoner was quite in his senses, and his wife was perfectly sober. They left in the direction of the Salisbury road, and witness heard prisoner's wife again urging him to stop, as it was such a cold night, but prisoner again refused, and they went on. At ten o'clock witness re-

tired to bed. After midnight prisoner came back, and knocked at the door; witness got up and opened it; prisoner said at once, "I have   killed my wife, fill me a bottle of brandy, I want to get drunk to go to Salisbury, to kill two men," prisoner said he knew he should be hanged, but he would kill Thorley and some other man before he was. Prisoner appeared

very wild, and his face, shirt, coat, and waist- coat, were covered with blood ; he had an open knife in one hand, and a bundle under his arm, containing a shawl ; witness said he could not believe what prisoner said, but prisoner re- peated that he had killed his wife. No other person was present except the little girl, who came back with him. Witness gave prisoner the bottle of brandy, being rather afraid, and witness then aroused his men, the same prisoner was drinking with in the even- ing; witness sent one of these men, Murphy, for water to wash off the blood. Prisoner told witness he had put his wife in a waterhole, and covered her with logs, but the little girl said no, he had laid her under a tree ; this was before the men came. Witness saw no scratches or cuts on prisoner's face and hands, when washed. Witness got prisoner to take off his tweed coat, and put on a blue flannel shirt, the coat being bloody. Witness then sent information, by a man named Fox, to the gold police on the Rocky River, distant some three or four miles. Witness had made up a fire, and having put the little girl to bed, prisoner sat by the fire, and two of witness's men sat with him in the room, and witness kept about the place. In about an hour prisoner got savage, and said he would go away to Salisbury, and that he would kill wit- ness and the little girl if he was not allowed to take the girl and go; witness said prisoner should not leave ; and as prisoner tried to get at witness, witness directed the two men to knock him down, and they then tied him with a saddle strap and a rope. Prisoner was kept tied, and lying on a stretcher, until the police came, about noon next day. At daybreak next morning witness and Murphy went out on the Salisbury road, and about a quarter of a mile from his place he found the dead body of pri- soner's wife, lying on her back under a tree, close by a large waterhole ; the face and neck were greatly swollen, and there was a deep wound on the left forehead, breaking the scull ; there were marks of fingers on the neck as if it had been tightly compressed ; the legs, from the knee down, appeared greatly cut, as if from kicks, the bone being exposed in places, and the legs bare; witness did not touch the body ; saw no stick or weapon near; the body had on nei-   ther bonnet or shawl, and subsequently the bonnet was found 150 yards from witness's place, and an empty bottle, smelling of port wine, laying alongside of it. About 30 or 40 yards nearer witness's place than the body lay there were marks on the grass, it was beaten down, and bloody, and a woman's shoe was laying there; witness brought the shoe home, got a rug, and taking the rug to where the body lay, he laid the rug over it, and left a man to watch it. The body lay there until chief constable Bradshaw, Mr. Bligh, and Dr. Mark- ham came, and had examined it, and then it was buried. After the prisoner and his wife left, witness missed from their room the bottle that had contained the wine; did not think the wine had been all drank. Witness did not know   what had become of Murphy.

Cross-examined : Prisoner appeared quite sober, but excited, when he returned to the inn. At witness's request, witness's wife prepared a bed-room for prisoner and his wife, she having to pass through the room in which prisoner's wife and the girl were sitting in order to reach the bedroom. Witness's wife was the only per- son who went into that room while prisoner was in the bar. The woman was living with prisoner, witness believed, for some time before her mar- riage to him ; heard of their being married about November, 1852; witness had been mar- ried seven years. The witness was cross-ex- amined at great length as to the quantity of spirits had by prisoner at his house, and other   points, and his deposition at the police office was put in and read. Prisoner took two gallons of rum away with him in the morning ; witness had   forgotten this. Did not think that any one per- son who was present during the day or nignt

was now in attendance.

By the Jury : A great number of persons, passing to and from the diggings, dined at the house that day ; the house was quiet, and witness was perfectly sober.

Lloyd Bradshaw, chief constable of Armidale, deposed to his going to Mr. M'Crossin's on the 8th August, to his seeing the body, and finding prisoner lying on a stretcher in the house, se- cured; prisoner said, "I am not guilty." The witness described the appearance of the body of the deceased, and the wounds and bruises on it, corroborating Mr. M'Crossin's evidence. Witness found a woman's shoe fifty yards from the body, and found on trial that it fitted the woman's   foot ; there were no shoes on the feet as she lay.

Witness produced the bonnet, bottle, and coat spoken of, and a pocket knife which he found in the coat pocket. There were marks of blood and of struggling on the grass in two places, one about a hundred yards from M'Crossin's, and the second place about fifty yards from the body. Witness produced also the prisoner's waistcoat and shirt, and a shawl and petticoat received by him from M'Crossin. [Mr. M'Crossin re-called: These articles were in the bundle brought back by prisoner.]

Sarah M'Namara, the little girl who was with the prisoner and his wife, was examined by his Honor as to her competency to give evidence, but proved not capable of being examined as a

witness.

Dr. Markham described the wounds and bruises he found on the body, on removing the rug that had been placed over it. He corrobo- rated the evidence of the previous witnesses.   The outer wall of the skull was very slightly fractured beneath the extensive wound on the   left temple; the wound was semi-circular, or arched, in shape, and three inches long, and down to the bone throughout, a dig or down   ward blow from the heel of a strong bottle, like that produced, would cause such a wound and   fracture; it had not been inflicted by a sharp cutting instrument; a kick with the heel of a boot might have caused it. The face appeared greatly contused as by blows from the fist, and the neck had marks of fingers and nails, as if strangulation had been effected by the human hand; he believed strangulation to be the cause of death, from the appearances. The arms and legs vvere greatly bruised, but not the body.

About seventy yards from M'Crossin's house   was a spot where a quantity of blood had been spilt, and human hair, torn out by the roots, lay by it, corresponding with that on the woman's   head, and every five or six yards from that spot to where the body lay, there was blood on the

grass.

Cross-examined: Did not think it necessary to make a full post-mortem examination; did     not open the head or body ; the internal organs  

would indicate whether death occurred from strangulation or not, but in this case there ap- peared no occasion for doubt as to the cause of   death. Examined the body about eleven or half past eleven in the morning; the body appeared     to have been dead six or eight hours.

Mr. Faucett addressed the jury for the de- fence. Alter some preliminary observations on   the importance of the case, as one involving life and death to the prisoner, and the responsibility resting on them, he proceeded to comment more particularly on the evidence of the witness M'Crossin, as on his evidence, in point of fact,   the fate of the prisoner rested. He regretted much that the little girl, M'Namara, had proved not fit to be examined as a witness. No infer- ences must guide the jury, and their conclusion must be founded strictly on the evidence adduced before them, and unless that evidence led them clearly and unmistakeably to conclude that the prisoner was the man who inflicted the injuries   on the deceased, he relied on their verdict of   acquital. He contended that the crown had   not called-01 proved their anxiety to procure

the attendance-witnesses who it was clear could have thrown much additional light on the circumstances, and have corroborated, or dis- proved, the evidence of M'Crossin. Had he been

able to get the evidence of the little girl, he could have proved, what passed in that important half hour in M'Crossin's house, when prisoner was in his bar. Now he (Mr Faucett) was un-     able to tell them what did pass, although it was   ¡mportant. Had the evidence proved to them satistactory that the prisoner, and no other

man, could have caused ihe death of the unfor-   tunate woman ?—for this the crown was bound to prove, before they could convict the pri- soner. The learned counsel proceeded to com- ment severely on the witness, M'Crossin's evi- dence, pointing out discrepancies in his present  

evidence and in his former evidence, at the police office, and contending that they deprived his evidence of credit to so great an extent that the jury must regard the whole of it with suspicion. The alleged admission of the pri- soner to M'Crossin that he had killed his wife must not be taken as proving his guilt unless the other circumstances corroborated it, yet while the prisoner returned to M'Crossin's soon after midnight, Dr Markham had told them that the woman had only died six or eight hours before eleven o'clock the next day. What was there shown inconsistent with the conclusion that some other person met with and injured the woman after prisoner left her. They had evidence that the grass showed signs of a struggle, and it was quite possible that a quarrel and struggle took place between the prisoner and her, and that after he left some other person inflicted the injuries that caused her death. Even if the prisoner did inflict them in the struggle, without any intention of killing her, the fact that a struggle preceded death would warrant the jury in returning a verdict of manslaughter.

Mr. Broadhurst replied, maintaining that Mr. M'Crossin's evidence was fully reliable, and that the alleged discrepancies amounted to nothing, while not a single contradiction was elicited in his statements. It was undoubtedly the duty of the jury to acquit the prisoner if they had any reasonable doubt, but not on unreasonable doubts. The imputation on Mr. M'Crossin, of some improper familiarity between him and the deceased in the half-hour interval dwelt upon, they now heard for the first time, for prisoner in his cross-examination of M'Crossin at the police office, did not ask a single question of the kind ; and under the circumstances it was a manifestly absurd and unfounded imputation. But even if proved, it would not relieve prisoner from the charge of murder, for injuries inflicted many hours afterwards. The suggestion of a struggle between the parties could not be fairly deduced from the evidence, nor could any doubt be raised from it as to some other person inflicting the injuries causing death.

His Honor, in summing up, told the jury the death of a woman known by the name of Cathe- rine Gardiner, by violence, was clearly proved, if they believed the evidence, and it remained for them to inquire, whether the prisoner inflicted the injuries causing her death. In this case the jury had both a direct confession and circum- stantial evidence put before them. He read to them extracts, adopting the sentiments ex- pressed as his own, as to the weight to be at- tached to these different kinds of evidence. Having described to the jury the distinction made between justifiable homicide, manslaughter, and murder; and alluded to the argument of Mr. Faucett that a struggle having preceded death tbe killing would be only manslaughter, he told them that if they arrived clearly at that opinion, they could return a verdict of man- slaughter; but that if the evidence proved in their opinion that prisoner inflicted the mortal in- juries, while it did not prove that a struggle was proceeding between him and the deceased at the time, their verdict must be murder. If the jury, after fully considering the evidence, felt a reasonable doubt whether or not prisoner was the man who inflicted the injuries, and they could not get rid of that doubt, they must give him the benefit of it, and acquit him, even if they believed the evidence against him was much stronger than that for him ; but the doubt must be one naturally arising from the evidence, und not one arising from a sug- gestion that there was a bare possibility in favour of the prisoner's innocence. His Honor then read over the evidence verbatim, com- menting on and contrasting different portions as he proceeded ; cautioning the jury, however, not to accept as necessarily correct any conclu- sions he might accidentally indicate as his, but to form their own conclusions from the evidence.

The jury retired for twenty minutes, and re- turned with a verdict of guilty.

His Honor impressively addressed the prisoner, expressing his full assent in the verdict of the   jury, and that it was almost impossible for them to find any other verdict. It appeared to him that the murder committed by the prisoner was one of a most barbarous nature, and he could hold out no hopes to him of any mercy in this world. It now only remained for him to counsel   the prisoner to seek for mercy in another world, and to obtain the assistance of a minister of the Gospel ; and he entreated him to lose no time in repenting him of his sins. His Honor then passed sentence of death on the prisoner, in the

usual form.

[For remainder of Thursday's proceedings see page, 2 ]

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down