The Sun.
London, England, 1802-11-01 00:00:00

read, knd he never even heard Ow reward men-
tioned in conversation at the Public Offices or else-
:.here, till vow that these questions wire put to
him in the Court. He was taken up for this offence,
account_of.being in the companr,,but did not
know that any one bad accused him of the murder.
He.had been, he said, at sea, and made .a voyage
to China, Out had never touched at Botany ray.
- Two Printer's boys, Howlet`and.gobinson,'svid,
they were at.theiHarrow public_house, but not in
company with the Prisoners at the time of-this
transaaion: . They saw Briscoe and others go out
when,:he former cvas called; and heard him on his
return say, "we have had a bloody row." Neither
of them had been .speetators of the scene, as they
did not quit the public-house while it was going
forward, as they had nothing to•do with -the bu..
siness.

James Hurst was in company w;th the Prisoner
Briscoe; on 'the Wednesday following the rnurder
'Briscoe asked him if, he had seen posting bills, about'
the streets, describing the murder .of .a BreWer's ser-
vant, in Compton-street: Witness said he had not :
when Briscoe entered into a detail of the insult
offered to his wife by two men ; adding, that he
hid sallied out: of the public house, with •Denham
and others, and had dashed a knife into one of them
up to:the handle ; loll Owing him up, giving it him
a second time. He also said, that he had tempered
his knife only a- week before, and it would turn to
nothing.
Chapman, an Officer, produced a knife token from
ILker, which not only ati-3wered. the apertures n►ade
in the deceased's clothing, but was stated to be the
'same Smith had seen in the-possession of Briscoe the
day of the 'murder, but did not turn out to be so, as
it had not a buckhorn handle.

All.the Witnesses disclaimed being in the feast
influenced by the reward of soh offered for the con-
viaion of the murderers.

Joseph Clarke stated himself to be House Surgeon
of The -Middlesex Hospital, and was in the house
wheirthe deceased was brought' there. He described
the nature of the three wounds, which he conceiv-
;ed must have been inflided by some pointed, sharp,
-flat instrument. Of these wounds, that on the left
side of the belly was the only-one mortal, as the
intestines suffered by it. All 'wounds in the in.
testines were considered to be mortal, thaugh some-
times ihey were known; to have been:cured. - He
believed the wound Mentioned to be the. cause of
- the man's Lath. It: might probably have been in
a better state than it.exhibited when he saw it, if
it had 'not -been so long negh_;(!ted ; but that was
not very Material, as, the inflammation in-Such a
case does not immediately commence. He died in
twelve hours after being takerfto the Hospital.
Being asked as to what the deeeaSed.had said of
the manner of his receiving th6Se wounds before he
died, Mr. ALLEY for the Prisoners, objeaed to it,
unless the deceased, at the time of his making the'
declaration, was in full expedition of his approach.:
ing dissolution.
• Mr. Clarke said, that the deceased did not appear
him to be sensible of his approaching death, upon
which the coutt Over-ruled the question.
The evidence for the Prosecution being here
closed, Mr,. ALLEY begged leave to-ask, whether
on account of the valiance in the evidence, the
Court was willing to have a Special Verdiet.given.
- -

Mr. Baron 'said, that the variance
tested with him to represent to the Jury, and when,
he was in possession of the whole case, should any
evidence be. called for the Prisoners, he would be
better able to forth a judgment, and to direa the
Jury whether or not their VerdiCt should be Special.
...The Prisoners being asked if they wished to say
any thing for '.themselves, Briscoe replied that he
had nothing to urge ; that he left the public:house
-to go to the assistance of his ivife, but having no
knife or other .sharp instrument, could not havegiven
the wounds, and firmly believed them to have been
inflifted by the Witness .(Wm. Smith) himself.
.0n
his first coining up, he said, he was knocked dowh
by the deceased. Denham contented hit-Itself with
asserting his• innocence, and denying that he gave
any blows ; and taker, not being called upon, said
nothing.
Mr. ALLEY then humbly begged the permission
of the Court to submit, that it was, his wish to
produce in the defence, a Witness the most compe.
teat to prove the innocence of the parties, but .;to
whom he was apprehensive
,some objeCtions might •
be made, he meant the-wifeof.Briscoe, whose tes-
timony could not fail of acqUitting Denham,' even
were it not allowed to-operate in favour of her hus.
banal. He was aware that Lord HALE had laid
it down, that a wife could not be o compelled t
give evidence in a case where -her husband-Was fl-
-1 eluded jointly with an. other or others in an Indift-
ment,.though her testimony might tend to convict
the other parties, and have no reference to her hus-
band's share in the transaCtion. When he quoted
this, ht was certain that he produced the strongest
authority that could be cited against hint ; but,
however great the respett that was justly paid to,
the opinion' of Lord HALE, and,the wisdom of our
AnceStors, the authorities drawn from them were -
not wholly to govern eases which were quite novel
in their nature. Courts must be guided as well by mo-
dern experience in new circumstances, as by the
colleaive wisdom accumulated in the progress of
time. Lord HALE here spoke of a wife not being
compelled to . give evidence which may operate
against her husband ; but . that was no argument,
why she might not be produced in favour of a per-
son joined in the same indiannent with him ; and
when. that wasdone,,he avast candidly confess, that
here the same evidence which would go to acquit
the one, must ofnecessity justify the other. However
new and unprecedented his, present application may
appear, he was confident the:wisdom of the Court
would go before him. in ascribing it to a sense of
duty to his Clients, and not to any presumption or
vanity in: him ;-fir surely these Rules of LaW and
Evidence, the wisdo‘n and excellence of 'which
were so truly admirable, must wear an aspeEt of
injustice, and even cruelty, if interposed to prevent
an innocent man from bringing before a Jury the
principal,. anti, perhaps the only evidence, that could
acquit hitn, merely becatie the husband of the
Witness was joined in the same, Indktment. Had