unlikely of being charged with this fact; and upon his being employed upon public schemes, I employed him in my own affairs; 1 employed his father to finish some houses for me at Hammersmith, the son was constantly employed till the 6th of April last; I have at different times paid to Mr. Barnard about 7007. all paid into the hands of the prisoner, except 50 or 701. of it. He has appeared as the person that managed his father's business: if he had come to me, and mentioned any want of money, upon his father's being out of town, or the like, he might have had 2 or S00l. at any time. When I first was acquainted with him, I observed he had a remarkable short sight; when he has looked full at me, I have thought he sneered at me; he has such a fall with his eye-lids on the account of his short-sightedness; I have found his eyes so fixed upon me, that I have been going to speak to him, which by my long acquaintance with him I since found was only an accident. Robert Vansittart, esq. sworn. R. Vansittart. I have known Mr. Barnard about five or six years; ny acquaintance with him was by being acquainted with his father, who was employed in carrying on a large building for Mr. Lee, an acquaintance of mine in Oxfordshire; and these five years I have been acquainted with the son, and frequently in company with him. In the beginning of April he was in my chamber, putting up some book-cases; I remember one morning at breakfast he told me the circumstance of meeting the duke of Marlborough in Hyde Park and in Westminster Abbey, in the same way as the Court has been told from his grace and the rest of the witnesses: it appeared to me to be a very strange story, and he seemed to tell it as such, as I or any body else would have told it. I suspended my judgment upon it, and never related it to any body, only to my father and another gentleman, and they looked upon it as a great lie that Barnard had invented; I, knowing his character, did not take it as such, but thought he must have known it to be as he said. What is your opinion of him as to his business?-From my own personal acquaintance with him, and from the many surveys 1 have seen of his, he certainly is very capable and master of his business. I never heard any thing ill as to his private character. Did you ever see him write?-No; he draws very well; I have seen him draw.. John Smith, esq. sworn. J. Smith. I have known him eight or ten years, and his father's family twenty-five. He always appeared an industrious, sober, diligent man, particularly within these four or five years, since he has come into business with his father. I considered him as very promising genius in his way, and one capable of conducting his business with reputation and character. Did you look upon him likely to be driven to distress, or in want of a place ?—No, I did not. I can with great truth say, most of the payments in my compting-house, on his father's account, have most of them been paid by the hands of this young man; except the last 500l.: then Mr. Barnard and his wife came over and dined with me, and paid it; and then I blamed him for not bringing his son. What are you?-I am a timber-merchant, Joshua Smith, esq. sworn. Josh. Smith. I am in partnership with my father, the last evidence. I have known the prisoner several years; I always thought him fession: the money that has been paid to us a very honest, sober man, capable in his prolately, except that 500l., has been by him; they never paid less than 100%. at a time, ex cept once. Have you any reason to imagine him in desperate circumstances?—There is no reason as I know of to imagine so. Robert Tunstall, esq. sworn. R. Tunstall. I have known him two years. What is his general character ?-He is industrious, and very capable of his business. His behaviour has been prudent; he is the principal man in his father's business in draw. ing and scheming.* Mr. Peter Brushell sworn. P. Brushell. I have known him from a child. What is his character?—I always took him to be a very sober, honest man. His father has done a great deal of business for me, and is now at work for me. Wilson. I have known him about seven years. What has been his behaviour during that time? It has been always very well. I always looked upon him as an honest man. Did you ever look upon him to be in a desperate way in his fortune?—No, never. Q. to Mr. Barnard the elder. Where was you when your son was sent for to the duke of Marlborough's?-Mr. Barnard. I was then out of town. I have not been in town above one week these five or six weeks. Mr. Serjeant Davy: My lord, and gentlemen of the jury; I am sorry to take up any more of your time; but the defence consisting of various parts, I would beg leave to trespass a little longer on your pa tience, and make a very few observations on the case, as it now stands before you. I do not claim any merit at all for their not opposing any evidence, as was attempted on the other side; I am sure I shall be justified in your opinion. Nothing has passed in the course of this prosecution, but what clearly manifests issue of it: in this matter he is only a friend to that the duke is totally indifferent about the justice, and would wish for the prisoner not to be disturbed in any method he should take in the course of his examination: be that as it may, I have done what I have thought right, and am very glad they have done every thing they could for the prisoner. I shall now consider two general questions : the first is, Whether the several circumstances that have been given in evidence, on the part of the prosecution, independently, are in themselves sufficient to convince a reasonable understanding of the prisoner's guilt; I mean your understandings as jurymen. The second question is, Whether the defence that has been repel the weight of the evidence; I mean, set up, those circumstances are sufficient to whether the defence is reconcilable to the suspicions of the prisoner's guilt; for if they are irreconcilable with the prisoner's guilt, (as I do not intend to impeach the credit of any one witness) I am content upon that supposition, he may be acquitted: I don't mean that any witness has laid a single circumstance before you that is not strictly true, but that they may be reconcilable with the suspicion of his guilt. I do not mean to draw your attention back to the several circumstances of the prosecution 3 and striking to be easily forgot; they would they are all before you, and they are too strong be diminished considerably by attempting to recapitulate them, and therefore I shall not attempt it: and, as I said at the opening, they prisoner's innocence, independently of the deare irreconcilable with any supposition of the fence set up for him, if they are so strong in themselves, as it would be offering violence to circumstances necessarily inducing his guilt. one's understanding, not to consider them as It will remain for your consideration, it is now the capital question, Whether these cir cumstances laid before you, consisting of five or six parts on the part of the prisoner, may be reconciled with the suspicion of his guilt? Because, if they may, it is no defence at all. Gentlemen, the first is, the prisoner being sent by his father to Kensington on this Sunday on which he met the duke in Hyde-Park. I did not chuse by any means to ask the father any question; I should have disobliged my noble client if I had done it. As, why he was sent to Kensington? What conversation might have led to that matter? What happened at breakfast with his father was the sole occasion of his going there. The son, you see, is principally concerned in conducting his father's business; he might, or he might not propose the expediency of such a journey. It is a lit tle extraordinary, this business (not being urgent in its own nature) should be appointed by the father to be transacted on the Sunday, when the father might as well have employed his time in going elsewhere: going to ask whether a sum of money had been paid on the account of gravel, to make it necessary to be sent just at church-time. His father talked of his going; he did go-what does that prove? Does it prove he was not to go to Hyde-Park any other way? Whoever was the writer of these letters, certainly intended to have a meeting on both the Sundays, in the Park and in the Abbey, in a very public manner; and that agreeable to the tenour of the letter, he did provide himself with a defence in case of need. Now, be the author of these letters who it may, the author did contrive a subterfuge for himself afterwards, in order to reply to a charge of that nature. Gentlemen, the next part of the defence is, that he at several times and to several people related the meetings he had had with the duke, and the extraordinary occurrences. This in. deed corresponds with the observations I made: the writer of these letters proposed to meet the duke at a time that people were walking out on a Sunday, and in the Abbey, the most public places, and at the most public times: is that irreconcilable with the suspicion that the prisoner (if he was the author of these letters) might have been contriving with other persons, telling people of the several meetings he had had with the duke, and the substance of those meetings? But one observation will arise, perhaps not much to his service; and that is, when he told those people of his seeing the duke, he spoke to his seeing an attendant, which corresponds with the second letter: what does he say about it to the persons to whom he relates the meeting? He saw he was armed--he saw one likewise at a distance, and he thought there was a duel going forwards. Now, when he spoke to the duke of the surprize he had entertained on seeing the duke armed, does he assign that as a reason of apprehending a duel? No; it was because it was cold weather, and he wondered to see him without a great-coat: so that the same man that speaks of it to his friends as a circumstance that might induce a surprize, speaks of it at another time as being surprized, without giving that as a reason for it. The next circumstance is, Mr. Greenwood's evidence of going with him to WestminsterAbbey. There are two or three things a little particular after breakfast, about nine o'clock, he solicits the prisoner to dress hintself in order to go to the Park. The prisoner seemed unwilling to go there. He said, it was not an unusual thing, when they were to go together, for them to differ, and upon that occasion to part. Supposing the prisoner wanted to get rid of this companion of his, who had laid there, and was not easily to be got rid of, why might not that account for his being unwilling to dress himself at nine in the morning, in order to get rid of him? For he had time enough : to dress himself an hour after that, and to meet the duke in the Abbey at eleven. It is a little odd, that the prisoner wanted to go another way, and expressed a reluctancy in going through the Abbey. It is clear, he did not mean to be seen by Mr. Greenwood in the Abbey but when he could not get rid of that, and he plucked him by the coat for that pur pose, did they prosecute their design in going to the Park, and yet saunter a good while in the Abbey ? (No reason why they did so.) First they went to general Hargrave's monument, then to captain Cornwall's monument; there they stayed some time, the duke's behaviour being in Mr. Greenwood's evidence particular; from the duke's bowing, he thought that the duke wanted to speak to him in private. How is this reconcilable? There is not a circumstance in all that part of the story of Mr. Greenwood's evidence, which suits so well as this of his guilt: first he wanted to get rid of Mr. Greenwood, and when he could not do that, then making no secret of having seen the duke, and make that tally with his telling him he had met him. The next circumstance is Mr. Ball's; and if that circumstance of his evidence strikes you as it did me, I wonder he was produced as a witness; for, you see, he was very forward: he was blamed for it by one of his witnesses; he thought he talked too much of having met the duke, that was so singular, that it demanded animadversions: yet notwithstanding, when he had had a third interview with the duke, and there appeared so very material a circumstance of the duke's having charged him with a very extraordinary and wicked proceeding against him; when he had told him of all these letters, and one of them set forth his name, as a person that could inform his grace of something which nearly related to his safety, and hinted to him the strangeness of these letters, and charged them upon him; and after having pretended a total ignorance of this matter, he afterwards conceals all this from Mr. Ball: and what is another circumstance, Mr. Ball says, he was rather more cheerful in relating what he did than usual. God knows, he had no reason to be cheerful! for the duke had charged him home with a capital offence; the duke had admonished him, and told him, either he was the author of the letters, or he was used exceedingly ill by the person that did write them. Yet, you see, in mentioning these things to his friend Mr. Ball, Ball considers it as a fruit of the duke's benevolence to him, and says, he will give you a post in the army. The prisoner replied, It must be a very good one, if I accept it. These are all the circumstances that they have insisted upon as proofs of his innocence, except one, that is his character. They have called to that many witnesses; they say he is very expert in his business, a very diligent, sober man; nothing about him as marks of distress; no vices to which they find him inclined, which give him an occasion for a de mand of this kind; and that, upon the whole, | the circumstances of the outlines are such, can he has passed as a very honest man. any doubt about believing he is guilty or not? Then all those other circumstances will have no weight at all to counterpoise the weight of the former. Gentlemen, when you come to consider that, character goes but a very little, and indeed no way at all, towards proving bis innocence. In the first place, character can only be of service to a man, where his case hangs as it were in equal scales, and it is doubtful whether innocent or guilty; there it is that a good character stands in some stead, and will balance the scale in his favour. But this is that sort of a case, that this particular character they have given of him will have no weight to repel those several suspicious circumstances that tally so exactly as to his guilt. Might it not happen, that a man betwixt twenty and thirty years of age, dependant in some measure on his father, might have a secret call for money, which he would wish his father, and those friends that are fond of lending him money, not to be acdequainted with? We know very well, there are certain circumstances, some in this capital city of London, where a man might be very hard driven for the want of money, which he would chase to hide from his friends. the a I know nothing of the prisoner's particular character; but it is enough for this purpose, that it possibly may be his case: if so, What then has the present character to do with it? If As I said at first, if upon any circumstances offered on the part of the prisoner, if the weight of evidence on the part of the prosecution is sufficient to charge him, there is nothing in the defence that will lessen it at all. Gentlemen, he is safe in your hands. doubt not but that you will do your duty if you think him guilty, you will find him so; if not, you will acquit him. With regard to the duke, his grace has discharged his duty which he owed to the public, which he will at all times do, and is perfectly indifferent about the issue of it. of The Jury acquitted the prisoner. He was a second time indicted by the name William Barnard, for feloniously sending another letter to the most noble Charles duke of Marlborough, signed F. demanding two or three hundred pounds; but no evidence appearing against him, he was acquitted. For other proceedings respecting this matter see the King v. Fielding, esq. 2 Burr. 719. 537. The Trial of JOHN STEVENSON, late of Bickerton, in the County of Chester, Cheesefactor, at Chester Assizes, upon Friday the 27th Day of April, before Mr. Justice Swinnerton, and Mr. Justice White, for the Murder of Mr. Francis Elcock, late of Nantwich, in the said County, Attorney at Law: 32 GEORGE II. A. D. 1759. . ABOUT nine o'clock in the morning, the Court being sat, the prisoner was brought to the bar. Counsel for the Crown. Mr. Hall, Attorney-General for Cheshire, Mr. Falconer, Mr. Hayward. Counsel for the Prisoner. Mr. Townsend, Recorder of Chester, Mr. Perryn, Mr. Maddox. Prothonotary. Prisoner, hold up your band. You stand indicted by the name of John Stevenson, late of Bickerton, in the county of Chester, yeoman, for that you, not having the fear of God before your eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, on the 21st day of March, in the 32nd year of the reign of our sovereign lord George the second, now king of Great Britain, &c. with force and arms, at Bickerton aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in and upon one Francis Elcock, in the peace of God, and our said lord the king then and there being, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of your malice aforethought, did make an assault; and that you the said John Stevenson a certain gun of the value of ten shillings, then and bullet; which gun you the said John Steventhere charged with gunpowder and one leaden son in both your hands then and there had and held, to, against, and upon the said Francis Elcock, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of your malice aforethought, did shoot and discharge; and that you the said John Stevenson, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, out of the gun aforesaid, then and there, by force of the gun powder shot, discharged, and sent forth as aforesaid, the aforesaid Francis Elcock, in and upon the left side of the belly of him the said Francis Elcock, then and there, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, out of the gun aforesaid, by you the said John Stevenson, so as aforesaid shot, discharged, and sent forth, feloniously, wilfully, and of your malice aforethought, did strike, penetrate, and wound; giving to the said Francis Elcock, then and there, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, so as aforesaid shot, discharged, and sent forth out of the gun aforesaid, by you the said John Stevenson, in and upon the left side of the belly of him the said Francis Elcock, one mortal wound, of the depth of five inches, and of the breadth of one inch; of which said mortal wound the said Francis Elcock, on the aforesaid 21st day of March, in the year aforesaid, for the space of ten hours, at Bickerton aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, did languish, and languishing did live; on which said 21st day of March, in the year aforesaid, the said Francis Elcock, at Bickerton aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, of the mortal wound afore said died and so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that you the said John Stevenson, the said Francis Elcock, in mauner and form aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, and of your malice aforethought, did kill and murder, against the peace of our said lord the king, his crown and dignity. : Prothonotary. How say you, John Stevenson, are your Guilty of the murder and felony whereof you stand indicted, or Not Guilty?--Prisoner. Not Guilty. Prothonotary. Culprit, how will you be tried? --Prisoner. By God and my country. Prothonotary. God send you a good deliver ance. Prisoner. Amen: God send me a good deliverance. Then the Jurors were called and sworn. William Brown, of Stockport-Etchels, man. John Bennet of Marple. Samuel Jones, of Over-Bebbington. it is now my duty, as counsel on behalf of the crown, to use my endeavours for the obtaining that justice and restitution, which the law requires for crimes of this horrid nature. To which end, it may be necessary, that I point out some facts and circumstances antecedent to the commission of the murder, which I doubt not we shall be able to prove, and hope you will be satisfied in your consciences, that the prisoner did kill and murder Mr. Elcock, as laid in the indictment; and if so, that you will find him guilty. Gentlemen, at the time this murder was committed, Mr. Elcock was doing a legal and a commendable act: he was endeavouring to subdue the prisoner, and to bring him to a just sense of, and an obedience to the laws, which he had but a little while before violated, by an outrageous contempt of, and rebellion to those laws, which have been wisely (and happily for us) made, for the preservation of the lives, and security of the properties of the subject. The prisoner, gentlemen, bas been for many years a cheese-factor in this county; but failing in his credit some years ago, has since then taken sanctuary in his house at Bickerton, and there kept himself confined, to prevent the effect of a civil process, and to evade the payment of his just debts. Common attempts for justice to the creditors were vain: the sheriff's offi cers too well known, and indeed persons in ge neral (except a few confidents) too hardly sus pected, to gain admittance: art and policy became necessary. The unfortunate young gentleman, whose death you are now to enquire fore-into, was employed as an attorney, for one of the prisoner's creditors, to sue out a writ against him, which he accordingly did, and obtained the sheriff's warrant thereon, and delivered it to one of the officers named therein, with directions to arrest the prisoner. But the officer apprehending he should be denied admittance to the prisoner, had recourse to a stratagem, not unlikely to prevail. He wrote a letter to the prisoner, signifying, that the gentleman who sent it wanted to buy some young trees from the prisoner, and desiring that the bearer of the letter might be permitted to view the trees, or to that purpose. The officer went to the prisoner's house with this letter; and knocking at the door, a person came to the window, to whom it was delivered; and as soon as the prisoner had read the letter, the officer was admitted to him. After some discourse relating to the trees, the bailiff acquainted the prisoner Stevenson with the real errand he came upon, namely, to arrest him; and accordingly the bailiff did then and there actually arrest the prisoner, by laying his hand upon him, and telling him that he had the sheriff's warrant against him, which he produced. What was the prisoner now to do in this situation? Must he tamely submit to the legal authority of the bailiff, and quit his asylum, till he had given security, or rendered to the plaintiff satisfaction for his debt? No.-After a short pause, and taking a turn or two in his house, he suddenly pres N. B. The Prisoner challenged Abraham Darlington, of Brindley, as he came to be sworn; but no cause was assigned for such challenge. Mr. Attorney-General challenged Edward Hamnett, of Newhall, as he came to be sworn; as Mr. Hamnett owned he was related to the Prisoner. Prothonotary then read the indictment. Mr. Attorney General, counsel for the crown, opened the case to the following effect : Gentlemen of the Jury; The prisoner, John Stevenson, stands indicted before you, for the murder of Mr. Francis Elcock, late of Nantwich in this county, an attorney at law; which crime be (the prisoner) perpetrated and committed upon the 21st day of March last and : |