The Sun.
London, England, 1824-01-08 00:00:00

raiity ? They met there to examine the testimony given
babre them, that every thing might be sifted to the bottom.
The prisoner bad told them that if they had a doubt upon their
erninde, they ought to give him the benefit of that doubt,; so
they ought. If they had any doubt, such as conscientious and
ratienal men could entertain, the prisoner had the right to bene-
fit from it. There was another circumstance at the outset of
this case to which he must refer. He was reluctant to use harsh
language; but he should be unworthy of his Situation.t-he should
•• Ate opeti to irapeaehment, if, when ithecarne necessary, he were
not fee:les:4:i), to perform the painful duty. He hoped he was
in::llfrait's'ef any man oh earth ; and if he were certain of being
,attacited. by the whole artillery of libel, he wouldstill pro-
aced. It was painful for those engaged in the administretion
of: justice tobe compelled, in every case of, this sort, to com-
mence by beseeching Jurors to banish from their minds what
they had ticked out of doors, as they would drive: from them a
peetilence. To state the facts which were to come before the
tithey, as had been done in this case, was to poison the
springs of justice in their source.; and if- the practiO were
net checked, he'should tremble for the fate of the country.eLta
Juries were called upon to decide on. the case of a prisoner,
and to do justice to all parties as they should answer for it be-
fore God. But how could they dO justice if their minds were
-peryiouily poisoned ? But more than all the rest, he con-
demned the publication of what was stated to be the Confes-
That such a paper as that should haye been read in all.
the -new:papers and pamphlets veasc-cheadful. It had been
Published before it could be tendered to him as a confession.
}led it been ,tendered, he should have rejected Hunt's confee-
,iencn ;he evidence which he had before him. It was not ac-
cented as a confession, but it had been published as such, and
th-,:.s the public mind had been poisoned by that which was not
eth.enee. In consequence of this having been done, great
hd,.iitional trouble had been caused to himself by the determina-
tion he had taken .to come here at this .time. But it was not
fah: in the irritated state of the public mind, when he opehed
the Winter Circuit, to tent the prisoners on their trial:, The
-step he-had taken was satisfactory to his own conscience ; but
it r:at painful to have been obliged to adopt Sncli precaution.
I: was, however, a satisfaction to him to know that he had
goed reason to believe, from what he had seen-of the Gentlemen
of the Jury on this, and on former occasions,- that they were
men, on whose minds no statements of newspapers or para.
phletst no libels,-no calumnies, would have any influence. He
a-e-: confident that they would not be swayed by any thing of
the kind ; but that they would conscientiously pertbem their
dete-, as they should answer for it to their Maker. There was
anehher point to which he must allude. The prisoner Hunt;
notwithstanding the decision come to yesterday, on the motion
witieh was made in his behalf, still insisted on the patter which
haC. ieeen-given in as his defence, that he, as Judge, was bound
to tat: off the trial, in order that the prisoner might have an
opportunity-of seeking mercy from the Crown. Again, his Lord-
ship declared that there were nogrounds laid for his doing so,
as to have put off the -trial would only have been to give him a
new opportunityof doing that which a mouth had been allowed
rue: to dot but which, in the course of that month, had not been
aerie. He.repeated, that if the confession of Hunt -had been
tendered to him- by the Counsel kor the Crown, he should not
have received it; and chewed, by referring to the practice
of the Courts 'of justice every day -in regard to other errences,
that is being put on his trial after that confession, the prisoner
Runt had been put to no extraordinary hardship. Whether the
confession which he had made might avail him in a: other way,
was a question which neither he nor the Jury were entitled to
decide. That must:be determined by higher authority than
hie, high as waslis authority in that place; he could do nothing
with xespect qo it. He had now gone through all the pre-
liminary statements he had thought it necessary to malee.—
He sletuld next go most minutely through the evidence, volu-
minuus as it was, making such observations es. he proceeded
at circumstances might call for them. These thUJitry Would
adopt and reject as they thought proper. In the first place,
he must remark. or: that great part of the body of the evi-
:mu svhiode depended upon Probert and his wife. When
is put into the box, with -whatever crime he
an accomplice
came to charge the prisoners, he, of course, charges himself.
—Of that elobody can doubt ; so that if he come to charge the
prisoners with murder, he himself pronounces his own par-
ticipation in the crime, and he was as much a murderer upon

F?0:1

lis own evidence, as his accomplice could be upon his. But
it was said an accomplice could not be a witness. The law
u' on Otis subject I will state to yon. An accomplice can be set
u 7.), as I iI'AV3 -already stated, as a witness in the first instance.

Th 3 distinction is this—an accomplice is a competent witness,
although not a credible one: As to his credibility, it is for you
to juige from the course of the trial. .I do not ask you to be-
lieve all lie says. An accomplice, to be believed, Must be sup-
ported generally in what he says. .But there are many things
in which the accomplice cannot be corroborated, which must
be known only to him and the prisoners; were it not so, he
-ought to be at the bar to take his trial with the other prisoners.
If, however, in all other points to which other witnesses can
-be brought, he should be corroborated, you will be entitled
-to give credit to his testimony in those particular parts, which,
from their nature, are incapable of other proof. This is all
Abut is necessary to say on this subject. Many s^rsii le ob-
aervations you have heard as to the character of Prober:, and
-consequently as to the credibility of his evidence. The pro-
priety of this I ad'u-ait generally to the'falest rite-dr fdo not
wish you to believe him where he is not corroborated. I per-

fectly concur, from what I have seen of I:ini here, with one

•of the witnesses, who has said that he would noL believe him on

his oath. I would not believe him on his oath, unless I found

him, as I find him here, fully corroborated by other witnesses,
and by circumstantial evidence, which it uOuld be difficult to

discard. A great deal has been said about admitting accomplices

as witnesses 1 hat if this were not done, a thousand wicked acts

would go unpunished. As a line of policy it is of the deepest

importance that they should be adniitted : because when men

are associated for-the perpetration of guilty acts, they should
know that they are upon treacherous ground, and that the faith

of their confederates is ready to be transferred upon the iirst

opportunity which offers an inducement more agreeable to

their interests. This is the nature of all confederacies, and it is

good that those who engage in them should know it.
respect to the expectations of the prisoner Hunt to receive

With

mercy in consequence of his confession before the Magistrates,
and I cannot but think that Mr. Noel did 'vary" wrong in giving

that man the advice, merely, it would appear, for the sake of
the 201. on conviction, to run and make that confession upon

such an expectation. The Magistrates have no power to grant
any such promise and if Mr. Noel so advised his client, he

did what was unwarrantable. All that MagitrateS can do is,
to say, that an accomplice shall be admitted as a witness. The

very act of the Magistrates, in taking the depositions without
their being sworn, proves that they had no intention to make
such a promise. For they knew that if they, take an examina-
tion of such a nature on oath, the Judges will never allow that
to be read against the prisoner. As therefore they did not
swear him, they intended to do nothing beyond merely taking
his deposition.
The Liearned JitimE then prOceeded to read over the evi-
dence, commenting on it wile went along. There were some

erroneous notions, he observed, on the subject of Lord Hays'
opinion relative to trials for murder. He believed Lord Hales'
opinion was this—that he would not allow a trial for murder to
be proved, unless the body had been found, or there was a per-
son who saw the blow struck. He entirely coincided wit
this opinion, which he had humbly followed when in SusseX.
&woman was put upon her trial for the murder of her child.
The body, it was true, had been found, but it was a mass-of
corruption and putridity ; all the lineaments of the human face
were lost ; and not even the distinction of sea could be discern-
ed, the body having been two months immersed in water. He
therefore; in such a case, stopped the trial, and directed the

Jury to acqdit the prisoner.
[The remaining observations of his Lordship, we shall range
under the heath .of the respective witnesses, in the reading of
whose testimony the observations were made.]
Mr. Ward. Surgeon.—With reference to the testimony of
this Gentleman, I beg leave to say that I never knew a more
sensible Surgeon come into a Court of Justice. He gave his
evidence in. et plain unaffected manner, highly useful to us,
and creditable to him. I do not know him, but merely go upon
his manner -of giving his evidence. This witness has grooved ,
that the -Mow in the head; or the cut in the jugular vein, were
either °fallen] sufficient to cause 'death ; and, as there are two
counts its , the indictment einliracing these two modes, I need
1 not inform you that either of these modes being broUght home
-to the prisoners, will b sufficient for you to found a verdict
ofeguilty Upon. The 'great- question of the case eis, who
committed the act ; which Of the prisoners is the one, or
whether both were equally . concerned in it. It appears to
me, from the evidence --thatehas been adduced, that
.Hurst
was' not, presents when the lathW was struck. I take
this opportunitY, -before this-large audience, to observe that
there are many persons of low degree, who flatter themselves
that because their hand did not do the act, therefore they are
not guilty of the crime. There never was a more mistaken
notion, whether in law, or in morals ; for if any man go on an
illegal enterprise, and stands- by whilst the act is committed,
his agency, to that extent, makes him as criminal as the author
of the 'crime whom he aids and abets. It is a vain, a most tin-
happy and flattering unction to the soul to say, that because
his was not the hand that dealt the blow, therefore he is not
guilty. I-hope, therefore, you will not go away with so false a
notion. - -
William Probert's evidence—With regard to this man, I can-
not state - the case stronger in favour of the prisoners than to
say, that I look upon him as the concealer of a foul and deli-
Imitate murder. As to the unwary •ctemmunications which Pro-
bert declares were made to him by Thurtell, it may appear
difficult to reconcile them with that care for his own security
which every man is know to feel for himself. Such, for in-
stance. as, " I am going to take dawn a friend to your iihuse,
and if I can I shall do for him, for-he has robbed me of a great
-deal." But there-is' that in the conduct of persons who engage
in bad-designs, -which must always strike the minds -Of those
who are well brutight up as 'icing strange and unaccountable,
and •I hope it always will be so. It :eertainly appears that •the
iconer•Thuetell was better. .eduCated, and kept latterly com-
panypr . • , , ...
lower,. than he had --been formerly .eccustoined to. And
with regard to this Probert, he seems to have been- upon very
fnm iliac terms with bias ; sometimes-stopping forha week or
fortnight -in his house; and this state of intimacyenight have
warranted him in making thosedieclosuees which appear so-un-
accountable. Thi§, however, is a 'hatter for you to judge upon.'
As -to the reality Of the converearion between- Probert and I
Hunt in the gig going crown to -Gill's Hill-lane, yea will
.oh-
serve on what particulars it is theroborated - by -other state-
ments.
Probert states that Hunt bought for him pork chops
in Oxford-street, and we have the testimony •of the cook to
prove that she had theni to cook, coneeouently- that was true.
Then there is the estler at the Bald Faced Stag, who proves that
Hunt had in reality borrowed some horse clothes there wieich
he, did not return, as Probert declares Hunt to haved informed
him in going down.- That part of Prohert'ssieovn thei encniht of ,
e which
relates to the events of which he was
twoleine stehlish. the guilt of
the murder, squid be sufficient of itself a
In one Part he ' states,
the prisoners, if it could-be credited.
about the leaves
that upon thejnight in question they'
kickedwentoht, avid that Thor-
tell, at a part afar part of the lane, ~ the . ,
in search Of pistol and penknife. es OW
rhea next morning
-we have -the evidence of-the labouring rhea that they saw two
men searching about in the same spot for something which
they said they had lost. One of. these was
said to have a
white hat on - and one witness is quite certain, 1-•
the one
-with a white hat was Thurtell. • It appears, however, that
'
Thurtell had not a white hat, but that -Probert Lad one,---
and we have it in evidence that the cook,
Wockiruffe upongoing into-the sitting.room that same inorning, Thurtell
lying on the sofa, with her miter's white hat on his head._
This is a remarkable corroboration of that part of the case.
The evidence of 31rs. Probert also went to confine the evidence
of her husband. • She waa a competent witness the
moment her
husband was acquitted; She would have been-so, even had
her' husband been at the bar as an accomplice,
were it not for
that rule of law which forbids a wife giving evidence against
her husband. This is a very proper rule, and intended -to
prevent all intestine jars and domestic confusion tvhich would
otherwise result. -Thurtell is said to have used the term--a
Sing out;" as applied to the deceased AIL We • 'and -it
is not to pass unobserved, that this is' a sea phareeas'e which
may the more particularly be expected to
come from the
prisoner -Zhurtell's mouth, inasmuch as- it -appears that be '.
P-
has been part of his life in the sea service. It
wadenerally •
advisable to look for a motive to every action,
and here it a
peered the motive of the prisoner to this crime was, that Weare
had won -money of him, for he was a gambler. Ape if it be
true, as he says, that hedf -the Nobility and Gentry in the tend -
have been his marnple, I hope the business of this day, which-
ever
be wanted, for the-rest of their lives.
When the Learned Judge came to that part of the evidence
which related to the gun of the deceased being taken by Thor-
tell to town in his gig.
John Thurtell addressed his Lordship, observingehat he had
overloked in his evidence the tact, that the gun which he
brought down was sold at Probert's sale.
Mr. Justice PARK;_If you have any evidence to that effect,
although contrary to all rule, I will take it now, or I will state
to the Jury what you say, althodgh, Gentlemen, what the_pri-
soner says is not necessarily evidence..
The prisoner Thurtell asked leave to call upon the Under.
Sheriff to-prove that his gun was sold at the sale of Probert's
effects.

Mr. Nicholson was accordingly put into the witness-box and
sworn, and exabiined by the prisoner Thurtell.
Q. I wish to ask if any double-barrelled gun was not sold at
the sale of Probert's effects taken in execution ?—lt was sold
there, but I know not to whom it belonged.
.Q. Was it not sold as mine P—l and all beside certainly
thought it was Probers s, as well as all the property sold under
the execution.

Mr. Justice PARK—Gentlemen of the Jury—this examina-
tion has-turned out as I thought it would. The prisoner can-
not prove that the gun sold at Probert's was his. Indeed it
could not he the one_which the, boy saw when he went away in
the gig; for it wasproved that that day Probert shot with one
in his garden, and was seen with it in the lane at twelve
o'clock.

Mrs. Probert's evidence,--The evidence of this person iden-
tified the gold chain which is traced to Thurtell's possession,
and proved to have belonged to Mr. Wear; and together with
the. whispering conversation and the dragging of the body
through the garden, and the circumstances of that night and
the folloWing morning is highly important.
Rezworthy's Evidence.—This man supplies the chain of evi-
dence as •to the last place and time at which the deceased was
seen by persons knowing him. If a great deal depended on.
the evidence of this man I should think it necessary to make
some severe remarks opon his character. I have no mercy for,
men who keep such houses. His vocation is not a creditable
one, and he appears as a pander to-the worst appetites.
Ann Maloney.—This evidence is most important; and if
Gentlemen, you believe what she states, namely, that •
those things which lay upon the table, the carpet bag and ,
its contents, the gun and the other articles to have been the'
property of her master, and that at three o'clock they were
at Lyon's Inn in his possession, you will find it difficult to
conceive how they could have got to the place where they. were
found, near Elatree, if he had not been murdered in the way
related. If stolen property be found in the early possession
of any one who can give no satisfactory account how he came by
it, it is enough for human judicatureto fix that person with the
theft. Here are all the clothes of the deceased, and we find
the dead body in a pit a few days afterwards, the party not
having been heard of after three o'clock on the day mentioned.

The prisoner Thurtell here interrupted his Lordship. - Ile
wished.to observe that it had escaped his Lordship, that Hunt,.
according to Field's evidence, was in his house alone on the
Tuesday night following the murder. The inference to be
drawn from which was, there to confer with Probert on the
case they were to make up about him. He did not know till
his Counsel told him that several jailers were ready to give e,i-
dence that Probert said Hunt and be met on Tuesday to ar-
range what they were to say. They were all ready to swear
to this, but he had not knoWn that their evidence could be
received.

Mr. Justice PARK could not allow this to be received as evi;.
deuce. He did not think it would avail the prisoner.
- Thurtell—l wish also to remark on what was said about a
yellow gig. If your Lordship will look at the depositions, you