The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-30 00:00:00

morning, Gentlemen, between daylight and sunrise, he
heard some of the men in the tavern talking of M`Leod 's
being wounded, and was over on the opposite " stoop;
the witness looked across, he said, and then
thought he again recognised M`Leod ; he says he I
went over to see whether M'Leod was wounded ; he
saw no one apparently wounded, and did not see M'Leod.
He was then inquired of in relation to the degree of cer-
tainty with which he could say that the man whom he
saw was M'Leod, and he said in reply that " he saw a
man whom he called M'Leod." Another question was
put to him, and he then said, " I mean that I am as sure
it was M'Leod, as that he now sits before me." This is,
Gentlemen, his testimony. He submitted to a long cross-
examination, and how far it went to shake your confi-
dence in his statements, it is your province, Gentlemen,
to decide. There is, however, one consideration which
I will submit to you ; it is this, that when you are to
judge of the credit to be attached to the testimony of a
witness, it is right and proper that you should observe
his manner on the stand—the degree of intelligence
which he exhibits, the amount of power of observation,
and accuracy of recollection—and having done so, you
are to decide whether his answers satisfy you that he
is honest, and in the whole whether his statements are
of such a character, when taken all in all, that you can
I rely upoil them ; and if not sufficient to satisfy you al-
together, Y':on must decide in how far you should allow
what degree of confidence you must repose in his testi-
mony,'affa that you will bestow on it, and no more. It
is argued by the prisoner's Counsel that the degree of
darkness which prevailed there, and as testified to, was
such as niaile it exceedingly rash for this witness to pro-
nounce so confidently that he was able to recognise
M'Leod as well there as here to-day. It is also argued
that he stands before you impeached as to his character
for truth and veracity, and to sustain this impeachment,
witnesses have been called and have appeared before
you. One Mr. Bates has testified that he lives near
Canandaigua, near the residence of this witness, and he
says that he heard him speaking on this subject, I think
at some former period when subpeeaned ; and among
other things he said he knew nothing in reference to this
matter that could do M`Leod any harm or any good.
The statement which he makes of what he said, is some-
what qualified. It is remarked on the other hand that
witnesses who are subpeeaned, frequently make careless
observations, and that this person being a poor man,
might wish to avoid attendance on this trial. This is
very true that persons often make careless remarks, and
had Drown made such a statement in presence of any
one who could have excused him from attending here,
then the plea of Counsel could have been entitled to
greater regard from you. If in truth, the facts which
he has here stated, were remembered by him at that
time, then they were all facts material, and he could
not have said consistently with truth, that he knew no-
thing of sufficient importance to harm or benefit the
prisoner. This, Gentlemen, is the extent of that in-
dividual's testimony. You are to take it into your con-
sideration, and are to exercise your judgment in refer-
ence to the effect it may have in detracting from your
confidence in the evidence of Drown. I may add, that
in order to restore your confidence in Drown,
Bates was questioned, and in reply stated that
that individual's character for veracity had latterly
improved ; that formerly he had been an intem-
perate man, but was now reformed. The next wit-
ness, Gentlemen, is Isaac P. Corson. He is a native
of this State, a carpenter by trade—he had been at
Chippewa in prosecution of his business—he testifies
that he was at Macklin's store on the after-
noon of the 29th of December, 1837 ; and he there
saw Mozier, Usher, and the prisoner—that about nine
o'clock, he saw the prisoner passing out of Davis's—
that he also saw him next morning at sunrise with others
on the " stoop"—that he was at some little aistance—
that he could see only his head and shoulders—that he
was telling of his exploits—and saying that he had killed
a d—d Yankee—that he saw him again two or three
days afterwards—that he then said he would like to be
on another such expedition and burn Buffalo. This is an
analysis of this witness's testimony, which is spread over
several pages of my minutes. You will recollect, Gen-
tlemen, this witness's cross-examination, and will judge
how far that weakened the force of the statements piade
by him on his direct examination. There is, however,
one point which demands your particular attention. This
witness was inquired of as to who else were present
when he heard M`Leod flourishing and boasting of having
killed .a Yankee—at first the witness could not recollect
any one—at length he said he could name one Caswell—
he was then asked whether he was present at this trial,
and he said yes—he was then asked when it first oc-
curred to him that he saw Caswell there, that morning,
and he confessed that it was that very moment—the
cross-examination was protracted, and in the course of
it came out that he had conversed with Caswell as late
as the morning of the day on which he testified on the
stand before you— that they talked of the affair of
the Caroline, and that Caswell informed him that
he was there that morning. It may be that that
was all tine, and that it really did not occur to him
that Cassell was there till the moment that the
question was put to him. But you are to judge of that.
The next witness is Charles Parkes, bar-keeper at
Davis's tavern—lie testifies that the prisoner went to
bed at Davis's tavern early in the day, and got up be-
tween eight and nine o'clock in the evening—that a gen-
tleman called for him, and he went out—that half an hour
or three quarters of an hour afterwards he saw him be-
tween Davis's and the Chippewa Creek—that a good
many people were on the road—that M'Leod went
into one of the boats—that at about sunrise next morning
he saw him at Davis's—that he again saw him a few
days afterwards in the officers' mess -room, and there
heard him say that he had killed a d—d Yankee, or
something like that. At the close of his examination
this witness was asked whether he could say with consi-
derable icertainty say that he saw ll‘Leod at the " Cut,"
and he said he could ; he was Asked further, and said he
had no doubt of it. lie also states that it was pretty
dark that night, and testifies also to other things, on ac-
count of which the counsel for the prisoner contends you
should take his testimony with considerable grains of
allowance ; lie testifies as to his knowledge of M'Leod,
and among other things says that he once went to see
him in . company with a brother-in-law, whom he
accompanied as a witness in case his evidence would
be necessary—that money was paid to M`Leod ;
but that although he went as a witness, he cannot
recollect the amount of the money paid on
the occasion. It is also argued that this witness tells a
very extraordinary story in relation to the manner in
which he has been- induced to appear here ; that he
started from home to make certain purchases in Buffalo ;
that he suspected some one who accosted him •n the
way with the design of arresting him to ensure his at-
tendance as a witness on this trial— that he returned
home—again set out and was arrested in Buffalo before
he had time to transact any business—that, further, he
was ignorant of the laws of this State, and was so
frightened by the alleged representations of Mr. Haw-
ley, that he (Mr. H.) had power to enforce his atten-
dance here, that he consented to come. All this may or
may not be the truth. This witness also testifies that he
was solicited to come here by persons religiously op-
posed to bearing arms. Now, Gentlemen, I have no
opinion to express on these matters. You are the sole
judges of this testimony, and with you I-leave it. The
next witness is Caswell—he whom Corson spoke of,
and he testifies in substance that he also saw M`Leod
that morning at Davis's tavern. Then comes Quimby—
he is the witness from Pennsylvania—he testifies that he
resided some two miles from Chippewa—that he was
there on the 29th with a load of hay, which he sold to the
government—that he did not get paid for it at the time
of the sale—that he remained till evening, and in the
course of the evening saw the prisoner at Davis's
tavern—that he remained there from nine till ten
o'clock—that he then started for home—stopped at
Pettis, about a mile off, all night—that he then
turned back, and was again in Chippewa between day-
light and sunrise ; that he went back to get payment for
his hay at the Commissary's Office ; that he was going
there when he saw M'Leod • that he saw him on the
" ridge," and that he there heard him boast of his ex-
ploits on the Caroline, and heard him declare that there
was the blood of a Yankee on his sleeve. He is ques-
tioned then as to whether he expected to receive pay-
ment for his hay at that early hour, and whether there
were any persons in the office, and he said there were not;
that he wished to be there in good season, but did not,
after all, get paid, and finally went home. But, Gentle-
men, it seems, according to the testimony of Mr. Lott, of
Lottsville, Pa., that on one occasion this Quimby came
with another person for the purpose of making an affida-
vit before Mr. Lott, who is a magistrate, and that that
gentleman refused to take the affidavit, because Quimby
was unworthy of credit; that he went to another magis-
trate, by whom the affidavit was taken and sent on.
Lott says that he resides in Lottsville; that the repu-
tation of the witness, Quimby, while resident there,
was very bad ; that he was not to be believed on oath;
and that in informing the prisoner's counsel of his
character, he (Mr. L.) had no private motives of ma-
lice or revenge to gratify. Now it is said, and it is
true, that ordinarily a witness to invalidate the testi-
mony of another, should be called from the neighbour-
hood. But you are the arbiters of this question, and
res e isot
m
in your hands I leave it. The evidence of Seth Hun-
man, for whatever it is worth, is also before you. When
examined before, he said M`Leod was not seen by him
that
then caned
now swears he was. You will give
this the credit you deem it deserves. Justice F. T. Ste-
vens andnight
dhtin question, sueresssrtnio.n,laniedtestthiafiteshtehsaatwhethwreaes
present
n
beats go out and return, and he distinctly and
and posi-
tively swears that he saw M`Leod disembark b the
bea-
con light. That is a statement which is not contradicted
by any other witness, and is, on h
the statements of all the- other witnesses
traecsosensorhy, hhooths to
sides.
It cannot be true. He. was dismissed from the stand
without cross-examination. lie has testified to what is
a deliberate falsehood—a falsehood for which the
he palli-
ating plea of the probability of mistake cannot
of-
fered. Leonard Anson:is the next witness. He swears
that he saw M`Leod at the bar in Davis' tavern —that
there were others there who took part in the expedition
against the Caroline, each boasting as to who had cons-
'flitted the greatest crime—that there he saw M`Leod
draw out his pistol, and declare that he had killed a
d—d Yankee, and that he pointed out the blood
on the stock of the pistol. This, it is contended on
the part of the prisoner, is an improbable story—.
that he could not have seen the blood on the pistol ;
and other considerations have . been submitted to
you in relation to the testimony of this individual
which it is unnecessary for me to dwell upon now.
You are the judges of their weight, and the atten-
tion which should be given them. These are, I believe,
the only witnesses belonging to the first class of evi-
dence ; that is, these are the only witnesses, who
testify of their own knowledge, as to facts unallied
with confessions, which go to connect M'Lood with this
enterprise. And the prisoner's ou nsel contend that
some of these witnesses hare been impeached, and that
others have appeared in very doubtful circumstances—
that the. darkness of the night was a very good reason
why no very great confidence should be placed in the
statements of those testifying so positively that they