Изображения страниц

exhaustless capital, and refutation but supplies the and my answer are now before the world, and I food on which he lives. He may, however, pur- leave them to the judgment of all honorable men. sue his vocation undisturbed by me. His libels


From the Examiner, 24 Nov.


For the honor or for the dishonor of the proPUBLIC.

fession of the law it should be known whether

Mr. Phillips' speech in defence of Courvoisier, It is painful to allude to two cases of recent occurrence, after the murderer had confessed his guilt to him, where attempts were made to secure the escape of criminals froin conviction, by directing suspicions against the does or does not exceed the bounds of an advoinnocent; and in each instance the prisoner had privately cate's license. It would be unjust to present it as this fact. The subject may be dismissed with the single an example of professional morality; the question observation, that the opinion of the bar was in entire is, whether it is or is not accordant with profesaccoriance with that of the public, in condemning the sional morality? line of defence adopted.-Horlensius. 1949. (An His. torical Essay by Wm. Forsyth, M. A., Barrister, late

To the report of the Times a remark is apFellow of 'Trinity College, Cambridge.)

pended in which it is presumed that the conCourvoisier had made a full confession of his guilt the fession night before this distinguished advocate [Mr. Phillips] addressed the jury for the defence, and the feelings or prejudices of society have received a shock, not at all be taken by his counsel ; for it was generally

Entirely changed the line of defence intended to the fervor which he notwithstanding contriped to infuse rumored that a severe attack would be made on the into his appeal. We look occasion very recently to vin- fellow-servants of the prisoner, and also on the dicate the privileges of the bar, and we deem 'it quite police who were engaged in the investigation. unnecessary to prove again that a counsel is bound to see the due forms of law and the strict rules of evidence The intended line of defence (query, lie of observed, whatever opinion he may chance to entertain as an individual of the moral guilt of the party or the defence ?) was not changed by the communication actual merits of the case. At the same time we think in the two points mentioned—the cruelest insinMr. Phillips went too far. There was no occasion for uations were thrown out against the witness insinuations against the maid-servants ; nor was it in Sarah Mancer, and the foulest charges advanced good taste, to say the least of it, in attempt to work upon the timid consciences of the jurymen, by holding out the against the police. apprehension of a never-dying' omnipresent feeling of Mr. Phillips disclaimed the intention to crimreinorse.- Laro Magazine. August, 1840. It is alike improper and unprofessional for counsel to

inate the female servants. No, fursooth! do that for a prisoner which it would be unjustifiable in the prisoner to do for himself; and we apprehend there

God forbid that any breath of his should send can be small doubt that it would be unjustifiable in a tainted into the world persons perhaps depending prisoner to get an innocent man hanged in order to save for their subsistence upon their character. It was his own neck from a halter. We have been several years not his duty, nor his interest, nor his policy, to at the bar without once hearing such a course counte- do so. nanced ; and we believe Lord Brougham, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Seymour must divide between them the enviable But did he or did he not make the attempt in distinction of giving it sanction.- Law Magazine. Feb.

this ruary, 1848.


?The cases referred to by Mr. Forsyth are those peaceful bed, and was alarmed in the morning by

The prisoner had seen his master retire to his of the defence by Mr. Seymour in the Mirfield the housemaid, who was up before him, with a cry murders, and the advocacy of Courvoisier by Mr. of robbery, and some dark, mysterious suggestion Charles Phillips. Both liave been mentioned, of murder. “Let us go," said she, “and see from time to time, in this journal; and Mr. Phil- where my lord is.” He did confess that that lips has been induced to break what he terms expression struck him as extraordinary. If she “the contemptuous silence with whichi for nine had said, " Let us go and tell my lord that the years" he has treated the charge against himself, house is plundered,” that would have been natuby an allusion arising out of the trial of the had happened to his lordship? She saw her fellow

but why should she suspect that anything Mannings. His attempted defence, which will servant sale, no taint of blood about the house, and be found in another column in exlenso, is a strik- where did she expect to find her master? Why, ing proof of what we took occasion also to state in his bed-room, to be sure. What was there to in remarking on the recent trial, namely, the lead to a suspicion that he was hurt? Courvoisier much greater difficulty of resisting public opinion

was safe, the cook was safe, and why should she in this direction at present, than at the time suspect that her master was not safe too? when the outrage was committed by Mr. Phillips. Here, too, was a direct attempt to shake the Whether or not the defence proves anything credit of the woman's evidence, and to induce the else, will be seen as we proceed.

jury to believe that she had perjured herself, The trial of Courvoisier occupied three days

The depositions taken before the coroner were Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, the 18th, 19th, now before the learned judges, and perhaps they and 20th June, 1810. On Saturday the 27th the would consider it their bounden duty to tell the subjoined comments appeared in the Eraminer. jury whether that woman swore before the coroner

[ocr errors]

as she did before the court. His conscience was He (Mr. Phillips) hoped the jury knew someclear; he had discharged his duty by throwing out thing of Leicester place. If they did, they knew that suggestion. The question he had put to the the character of this hotel, with a billiard-room witness was this—“ Upon the oath you have taken, attached to it, where, unlike at a respectable hotel, did you not tell the coroner that you saw-instead of any stranger, not being a guest, might enter and some blood on the pillow—his lordship murdered gamble. on the bed ?” That was matter for the jury to consider ; he would now pass on.

All these imputations, of different degrees of

blackness, were flung out by Mr. Phillips, in the If the coroner's inquest, which the Globe pro- hope of obtaining, by them, the acquittal of a nounced so eminently well conducted, had done man whom he knew to be a murderer of the its duty, the discrepancy between Sarah Mancer's blackest dye. evidence and that of the other persons who saw A correspondent of the Times statesthe napkin over the face of the murdered noble

Mr. C. Phillips, who defended the wretched man man would have been cleared up. The discrep- Courvoisier on Saturday, coinplained in court of a ancy was evidently nothing more than an inaccu- very gross and false statement which appeared in a racy of expression ; but the effect of leaving it notorious Sunday paper, and which, he said, might unexplained was, as we have seen, to expose the injure him in the estimation of his brethren at the principal witness to a charge of falsehood.

bar, as well as the public at large, if it were left Then, as to the police, does it appear that Mr. that he had made a solemn appeal to God of Cour

uncontradicted. The effect of the statement was, Phillips' line of defence was altered in these voisier's innocence. So far from having done so, attacks, the groundlessness of which he knew as the learned gentleman said he cautiously abstained well as his client's guilt? The witness Pearce from adopting such a course, and for the best reason is thus dealt with :

—that the miserable man had previously admitted

his guilt to him, and after he had heard ihe confes“Look here, sir,” said he to Courvoisier,“ dare sion he was about to throw up his brief, until his you look me in the face?" Merciful God! was friend, Mr. Clarkson, persuaded him not to do so. there any exhibition on earth so likely to strike He acted upon that advice, and did the best he him dumb with horror as the proofs of the murder could for the guilty wretch, although against his lying before him, and that miscreant challenging own feelings and conviction. Mr. Phillips added, him to look him in the face? He did look him in that he had spoken to both the learned judges upon the face, and answered him, “ I see them, I know the subject, and they assured him that they had nothing about them; my conscience is clear, I am purposely watched his speech, and felt quite coninnocent.” The learned counsel animadverted in vinced that he never attempted to use the language very strong terms upon the testimony of this wit- attributed to him. Many others in court gave simness, charging him with an attempt to intimidate ilar testimony. the prisoner, and thereby to extort from him a confession of the murder. He also condemned the

In the Times' report we find this emphatic asconduct of Mr. Mayne and Mr. Hobler ini permit- sertion : The omniscient God alone knew who ting Pearce to hold that interview with the prison- did this crime." er. Such treatment was worthy only of the Inqui- This was said by the man who himself knew sition. Yet the fellow who did all this told the who did the crime, and who profaned the name of jary he expected to share in the plunder-the 450l. the Deity by thrusting it into a solemn assertion, rewardwhich was to be divided over the coffin of of the untruth of which he was cognizant. Courvoisier! He had hoped the days for blood

We pass to a less grave example of the lengths money were past.

to which this advocate carried his zeal for a murMr. Phillips, when he uttered this tirade, derer. knew that Pearce was right in fact, though not

The slightest expressions had been fastened upon perhaps in form-that he had confronted the

_“I wish I had old Billy's money, I would not murderer, and dared him to deny his guilt; but be long in this country," was construed into a Pearce is "the miscreant," and Courvoisier the proof that he had meditated murder. Yet it was injured innocent.

not an unnatural wish for a foreigner to express, The allack upon Baldwin is still more unjus- oiling for his daily sustenance, yet longing to retifiable, and it is accompanied with a general I had the wealth of such an one,

visit his fatherland, rugged though it be-" I wish

I would not be charge of conspiracy against the prisoner, of

long away from my own country!" Ambition's whose guilt the speaker was cognizant.

vision, glory's bauble, wealth's reality, were all Next came Baldwin, who had done his best in nothing as compared to his native land. Not all the work of conspiracy to earn the wages of blood. the enchantments of creation, not all the splendor He swore well and to the purpose—he did all he of scenery, not all that gratification of any kind could to send a fellow-creature “unhouseled, un- could produce, could make the Swiss forget his anointed, ananeled” before his God. That man

native land: equivocated and shuffled, and lied on his oath as

Dear is that shed to which his soul conforms,

And dear that hill that lists him to the storms; long as he could, pretending never to have heard

And, as a child, biy jarring sounds oppressed, of the reward because he was no scholar, although

Clings close and closer to its mother's breast, every wall in London was blazoned with it.

So the loud torrent and the whirlwind's roar

But bind him to his native mountains more. Next the character of Mrs. Piolaine was to be There never dropped from human lips a more innodefamed, in order to procure the acquittal of the cent or natural expression, “ I wish I had old Billy's murderer.

money, I would soon be in my own country.”

And this maudlin stuff was uttered by the man significance to facts ; and it is therefore contended in whose ears the murderer's confession of his guilt that it is the counsel's duty to act for the prisoner was yet ringing : Mr. Phillips, while harping on

as the prisoner would act for himself if he had bis those words, being conscious that his blood-stained

advocate's skill. Admitting this position, it does client had coveted the money, and cut his master's cate to have recourse to falsehood in defence of his

not thence follow that it is the duty of the advothroat to obtain it.

client; for the principle stated would only clothe Whether all this accords or not with profes- the advocate with the rights and duties of the prissional morality it is not for us to decide ; but, if it oner, and it cannot be the duty of the prisoner to does, the public will probably be disposed to think lie for his own defence. Society cannot prevent that the profession should change its name from his lying; the law must allow of his lying, it the profession of the Law to the profession of the chooses to lie ; but the impossibility of preventing

must yield him the opportunity of lying, if he Lie.

the lie and the opportunity of the lie do not render We should like to know the breadth of the dis- the lie a right or a duty. How then can it be continction between an accomplice after the fact, and tended that the advocate, knowing his client's guilt an advocate who makes the most unscrupulous and the circumstances of it, has a duty to uphold endeavors to procure the acquittal of a man whom falsehood which does not belong to his client? he knows to be an assassin.

We admit that there are grave objections to throwing up a brief. Cases not probable, but pos

sible, may be imagined, which a destroying The subject attracted very considerable atten

weight of prejudice might be thrown upon an intion, and the general feeling manisested against nocent client by such a step. A counsel might be Mr. Phillips elicited attempts to defend him on moved by ill-will or corruption to ruin a prisoner the part of his friends. Referring to these a by throwing up his brief, and thereby implying that fortnight after the foregoing article appeared, and he had discovered the guilt of his client. An adto a statement which had been circulated as to the vocate might therefore feel bound by rule, even defence originally proposed, the Examiner of the after a confession of guilt had been communicated 11th July had the following remarks :

to him, to go through a defence; but in this case

we contend that the advocate should scrupulously We observe the following startling statement in refrain from any line of defence the effect of which the Globe :

would be to procure the acquittal of his client by “ Courvoisier's INTENDED DEFENCE.—While the criminating or destroying the characters of persons preliminaries for the approaching execution were who had but borne true evidence against him. The in progress, and a large number of gentlemen were defence should turn, in such case, on the sufficiency assembled in a room adjoining the prison, waiting of proof and on technical points, and not on the for admission, it was stated by one of the city au- impugnment of honest evidence, or (worse still) thorities, as an admitted fact, that the line of de- on insinuations of guilt against the witnesses. fence which Mr. Phillips, the criminal's counsel on The truth known to the advocate through the conhis trial, intended to have taken was, that the fession gives him the key to other truths, and clears female servants had been engaged in criminal intrigue evidence of suspicion which might have attached to with some of the police, and had admitted them into it in his view before the know ledge of his client's the house for the purpose ; that the rolibery and mur- guilt gave the right reading of circumstances. der had been perpetrated by them. The secretion of

Our objections to Mr. Phillips' defence have apthe jewelry and other articles in the butler's pantry plied to the points in which he became the assailant was to have been thus accounted for; and the sub- or accuser of witnesses whose truth he had no reason sequent discovery, of blood-stained gloves, &c., so to suspect after Courvoisier's confession, and also to strangely rolled up in Courvoisier's linen, after the his solemn pretences of the murderer's innocence. real perpetrator of the deed was in custody, and Had he procured the acquittal of the guilty by this had left the house, was to have been adduced as course, and transferred suspicion to the innocent, further presumptive proof of the police being the and placed them on their trial, the morality of his guilty parties, for the purpose of criminating the conduct would have been brought to the practical prisoner.”

To judge of the attempt, imagine the success According to this story, then, Mr. Phillips' in- of it. Had he confined himself to weighing the tended line of defence would have been directed sufficiency of evidence, and examining flaws in its not only against the characters but against the links, he would at least have avoided wrong and lives of the innocent female servants. They were danger to others in the defence of an assassin. to have been murdered—for sentence of death upon

The policy of Mr. Phillips' course we question false accusation is nothing less than murder on the as much as its morality, for jurors, having seen, in part of those raising the false charge-to procure this example, the extremities to which his zeal for the acquittal of the miscreant. It is to be observed a client of whose guilt he is cognizant will carry that Mr. Phillips could have had no grounds for him, will in all other instances be apt to suppose believing that the maid-servants and the police had that he is pleading against his knowledge of tho committed the murder ; but the statement that such truths of the case. a defence was meditated is too horrible to be credited, and the circulation of it is an affront to public These two articles comprise our charge against morality.

Mr. Phillips. It has been re-stated by us from Quite bad enough was Mr. Phillips' defence as time to time, never with any other feeling than it was, yet, though condemned by the right sense these articles evince. It would have been difficult of the public, it has had its advocates. In the

to overstate anything so grave.

When the fact most ingenious argument we have seen in vindication of it, the counsel is said to represent the pris- became known that Sarah Mancer had been lodged oner with the advantage of the knowledge of the in a lunatic asylum, driven mad by the sufferings law and skill in sifting evidence, and giving due and terrors arising out of the Courvoisier trial,


it was an illustration, not an aggravation, of Mr. said, we did not accuse him of solemnly protesting Phillips' defence of his client. If we tolerate the that belief, but of solemnly acting it. Our asserone, we cannot make a crime of the other. lion was, not that he invented a falsehood to pro

We desire attention to a summary of the fess faith in his client's innocence, but that he charge, thus advanced by us, before we proceed to invented a falsehood to prosess ignorance of his the attempted exculpation.

client's guilt; and that he profaned the name of Having received a private confession that his the Deity by using it to give solemnity to this client was the murderer, Mr. Phillips, disclaiming falsehood. The third and last accusation to which an intention to criminate the female servants, pro- Mr. Phillips replies, is that of having endeavored ceeded to cast upon Sarah Mancer the most 10 cast imputations of guilt upon the female serfoul suspicions. Knowing that the police had vants : and the sum of his answer on this head is fixed the imputation of guilt in the proper quarter, to requote that very “God forbid he should,”' &c., he branded individual members of that body as which we carefully quoted in our original comment liars, bloodhounds, and miscreants; and accused on his speech; and to declare the charge to have them generally of a conspiracy to obtain the gov- been solely derived from his cross-examination of ernment reward by convicting an innocent man. Sarah Mancer on the day when he still supposed Thoroughly conscious that the evidence of Mrs. his client innocent, to which cross-examination we Piolaine, if she was believed, would complete the never even remotely adverted. case against the murderer, he threw out the most Now here we might close the subject, as far as unfounded aspersions upon her character and that this journal is concerned. Mr. Phillips has only of her husband. Finally, being in possession of done his best to evade every charge specifically the knowledge of who did the crime, he solemnly brought against him by us. He does not mention protested that the OMNISCIENT GOD ALONE KNEW who his attack upon the police, whose efficiency and did it. This was our charge, from which, at the character, so vital to the interests of justice, he same time, we not only omitted nothing put forward labored 10 damage irretrievably. He does not in so-called extenuation, but interfered to throw mention his gross imputations on Mrs. Piolaine, discredit on a charge yet more incredibly revolting. of whom he knew nothing but that she was the We carefully quoted Mr. Phillips' God forbid decisive witness against his client, and that her that he should do what he afterwards did. We identification of him on the evening of the first day gave him what benefit might be derivable from of the trial had led to his confession on the followhis denial of having made a solemn appeal to ing morning. He would evade the profanity of Heaven of Courvoisier's innocence; from his having introduced the name of the Deity into a assertion that he had acted on the advice of others false assertion, by setting up a difference of asserin retaining his brief after the confession ; and tion hardly material. He would escape the confrom the favorable testimony of the judges who sequence of having imputed guilt to Sarah Mancer, tried the case, in regard to his appeal to the Deity. by suggesting a confusion between her cross-examWe even admitted his right, in the peculiar cir- ination on Thursday and his speech on Saturday. cumstances, to retain his brief; and contended But this shall not serve. We have been challenged only that he should have refrained from any line to reöpen this affair, and we will not shrink from of defence, the effect of which, if successful, doing so. The reply which was meant to dispose would have procured the acquittal of his guilty of our accusations, will now enable us finally to client by criminating or destroying the character establish them, on authority above suspicion. of persons who had borne true evidence against The report of the trial which appeared in the him. In short, our charge was restricted to Mr. Times has been lately restudied by Mr. Phillips ; Phillips' solemnly acted belief in the murderer's he has in particular “read with care the whole innocence ; and to those points in which, in the report in the Times” of his three hours' speech ; course of that performance, he became the assail- and of these reports he guarantees the strict ant and accuser of witnesses whose truth he had fidelity. Now we have compared with the Times no reason to suspect after receiving the murderer's every passage quoted in the Examiner of the 27th confession. Let us now mark how this indictment June, and find them to have been taken, verbatim is met after nine years' rest and reflection. et literatim, from that journal. We now write

Mr. Phillips, in his exculpation, alleges our with the file of the Times before us, and with the attack to have been threefold, and proceeds to dis- assurance of Mr. Phillips himself, therefore, that pose of it under three distinct heads. The first is such additional expressions as we may at present that of having retained his brief, which we express-quote are not colored by exaggeration or unfairness. ly excepted from our charge. It now appears that Nor is it less important that we have also the ashe retained it with the sanction of the judge, Mr. surance of Mr. Phillips that he knew of his client's Baron Parke, who assisted Chief Justice Tindal guilt before the commencement of the second day's in trying the case, and to whom the fact of the proceedings, a day earlier than has commonly been confession was communicated. The second is that supposed. Before the court opened on Friday, he of having appealed to Heaven as to his belief in heard the confession ; he cross-examined all the Courvoisier's innocence, which we, gave him at the police constables, except Baldwin, in the course time the credit of having denied. As we have of that day; he cross-examined Mrs. Piolaine ia

[ocr errors]



the afternoon of that day; and on the following inised thus much, we solicit the reader's attention morning he spoke for the defence. Having pre- to the subjoined parallel passages. WHAT MR. PHILLIPS ASSERTS HE DID NOT SAY.

WHAT MR. PHILLIPS ADMITS HE DID say. I am accused, secondly, of having " appealed to Heaven It was not his business to prove who did the crime: as lo my belief in Courvoisier's innocence,” aller he had that was the task they (his opponents) had undertaken. inade me acquainted with his guilt! A grievous accu- Unless that was proved, he would beseech the jury to be sation. But it is salse as it is foul, and carries its own cautious how they imbrud their hands in this man's resuration on its face. **** What! appeal to Heaven blood. The OMNISCIENT GOD ALONE KNEW WHO DID for its testimony to a lie, and not expect to lie answered THIS CRIME: he was not called on to rend arunder the by its lightning? Whai! make such an appeal, con- dark mantle of the night, and throw light upon this deed scious that an honorable colleague sat beside ine whose of darkness.

If they acquitted the prisoner valued friendship I must have forever forfeited ? But; of the murder, he was still answerable for the robbery, if above all, and heyond all, and too monstrous for belief, guilty of thai. And even supposing him guilty of the would I have dared to have ultered that falsehood in the murder, which INDEED WAS KNOWN to ALMIGHTY GOD very presence of the judge to whom, but the day before, Alone, and of which, for the sake of his eternal soul, he I had confided the reality? There, upon the bench above hoped he was innocent, it was better far that in the me, sat that time-honored man, that upright magistrate, dreadful solitude of exile, &c., &c. * pure as his ermine, "narrowly' watching every word 1 anxious task was now done ; that of the jury was about said. Had I dared to make an appeal so horrible and so to begin. Might God direct their judgment.--Times, impious-had I dared so to outrage his nature and my June 22, 1840. own conscience, he would have started from his seat, and withered me with a glance. No, Warren, I never made such an appeal ; it is a malignant untruth, and, sure I am, had the person who coined it but known what had previously occurred, he never would have uttered from his libel mint so very clumsy and self-proclaiming a counterseit. -- Times, Nov. 20, 1819.


* His







THEY FOUND THE MURDER ER GUILTY. At the close of the to me most wretched day on which the He spoke to them in no spirit of hostile admonition. confession was made, the prisoner sent me this astound- HEAVEN KNEW HE DID NOT. He spoke to them in the ing message by his solicitor: "Tell Mr. Phillips, my spirit of a friend and fellow-Christian, and in that spirit counsel, that I consider he has my life in bis hands." he told them that is ihey pronounced the word (guilty) My answer was, that, as he must le present himself, he lightly, its memory could never die within them. It would have an opportunity of seeing whether I deserted would accompany them in their culks, it could follow him or not. I was to speak on the next morning. But them in their solitary retirements like a shadow, it would what a night preceded it! Fevered and horror-stricken, haunt them in ineir sleep, and hover round their bed; it I could find no repose. If I slumbered for a moment, the rould take the shape of an accusing spirit, and CONFRONT murderer's form arose before me, scaring sleep away, AND CONDEMN THEM BEFORE THE JUDGMENT SEAT OP now mullering his arcful crime, and now shrieking to me THEIR God. SO LET THEM BEWARE HOW THEY ACTED. to save his life! I did try to save il. I did everything Times, June 22, 1840. to save it except that which is imputed to me ; hút that I did not, and I will prove it.-- Times, Nov. 20, 1849. MR. PHILLIPS' DEFINITION OF THE DUTIES OF AN MR. PHILLIPS' ILLUSTRATION OF THE DUTIES OF AN

ADVOCATE. The counsel for a prisoner has no option. The moment * His learned friend demanded, who murdered he accepts his brief, every faculty he possesses becomes • Lord William Russell ? He (Mr. P.) was not bound to his client's properly. It is an implied contract between show that; but he had a right to know who placed the him and the man who trusts him. 'Out of the profession bloody gloves in the prisoner's trunk betueen the 6th and this may be a mool point; but it was asserted and acted 14th of May, when the prisoner had been already three on by two illustrious advocates of our own day, even to days 'in gaol? Had there not been practices here? the confronting of a king, and, to the regal honor be it Thus bud begins, but worse remains behind.This spoken, these dauntless men were afterwards promoted man, it was evidently determined, should be made the 10 the highest dignities. You will ask me here whether victim of some foul contrivance.

Some I contend on this principle for the right of doing that of villains must have been at work here to provide proofs of which I am accused, namely, casting the guilt upon the guilt against the prisoner, and endeavor to make the jury innocent ? I do no such thing; and I deny the inpula- instrumental in rendering him the victim, not of his own tion altogether.- Times, Nov. 20, 1849.

guilt, but of their machinations.- Times, June 22, 1840. WHAT MR. PHILLIPS NOW SAYS OF COURVOISIER's WHAT MR. PHILLIPS SAJD OF COURVOISIER'S FEL

FELLOW-SERVANTS. Thirdly and lastly, I am accused of having endeavored They were bound to show the prisoner's guilt, not by to cast upon the female servants the guilt which I knew inference, by reasoving, hy that subtle and refined ingewas attributable to Courvoisier. You will observe, of nuity which he was shocked to hear exercised in the opencourse, that the gravamen of this consists in my having ing address of his friend, (why does Mr. Phillips now done so after the confession. The answer to this is omit this?) lut by downrighi, clear, open, palpable obvious. Courvoisier did not confess till Friday ; the demonstration. How did they, &c. And here he would cross-examination took place the day before, and so far, beg, &c.

He wished not to asperse the therefore, the accusation is disposeil of. But it may lie female servants. God forbid, &c., &c. It was not at said I did so in my address to ihe jury. * * * I all necessary to his case to do so.

* The find these words reported in the Times" Mr. Phillips prisoner had seen bis master retire to his peaceful led, said the prosecutors were bound to prove the guilt of the and was alarmed in the morning by the housemaid, who prisoner, not by inference, by reasoning, by such subtle was up, before him, with a cry of robbery, and some dark, and refined ingenuity as had been used, but by downright, mysterious suggestions of murder. "Let us go," said clear, open, palpable demonstration. How did they seek she, “and see where my lord is.” He did cosess that to do this ? 'What said Mr. Adolphus 'and his witness, that expression struck him as extraordinary. If she had Sarah Mancer? And here he would beg the jury not to said, “Let us go and tell my lord thai the house is suppose for a moment, in the course of the narrative with plundered,” that would have been natural; but why which he must trouble them, lhat he meant to cast the should she suspect that anything had happened to his crime upon either of the female servants. It was not at lordship? She saio her fellow-servant safe, no taint of all necessary to his case to do so. It was neither his blood about the house, and where did she expect to find interest, his duty, nor his policy to do so. God forbid her master ? Why, in his bed-room, to be sure. What




« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »