The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-05 00:00:00

TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENCE

Rev. Thomas S. Britten sworn.—Examined by Mr.
Sibley.—Called on Mr. Van Zandt on the 10th a Oct.,
~
1840. Went over to Coburg. Returned on the 16th
that month, by the cars from Carthage, at half-past ten
o'clock. I remained with him till the Saturday follow-
ing, and supplied his place in the pulpit on the Sunday
succeeding the 16th. He left home on Saturday to preach
in Batavia for Dr. . I found Mr. Van Zandt at
home on my return from Canada. We took a walk in
the city and returned for dinner. We sat some time in
his study. Dinner was not ready, for which Mrs. V.
expressed her regret. I remained with him to dinner,
and Mrs. V. excused herself from not remaining longer,
saying she was going to a sewing party, and considera-
bly beyond her time—two o'clock. She did not return.
After dinner we sat about half an hour, and then as-
cended into the study—the front room up stairs—a large
room.. We remained together (he and I) till about four
o'clock. He then took out his watch and begged to be
excused, as he had a party to attend at which he was
expected to be present. He asked me to accompany
him. I did as far as the door, and there we parted.
Cross-examined by Mr. S. L. Seldon—A paper was
handed to witness, and he was asked if that was his
declaration made to I am sure that Mr. Van
Zandt did not leave his study after our walk till dinner
--we had wine at dinner on that day, and on the other
day, the 10th of October, and on no other days. One
day a domestic, a female, came to the dining room-door,
and said that a young lady wanted to speak to bins
—Mrs. V. was leaving the dining-room at the moment
he was absent ten or fifteen minutes or mere Tie a
I crime
at the table with his mother that evening till
back. I cannot tell what day this occurred, but it was
one day that week. His mother asked who the young
lady was—he told her that she'only wanted a book—l
*do not remember her name. I cannot positively swear
that the young lady did not call for the books on the
16th, but believe not. I related this matter to Mr. Hill,
and on another occasion to Mr. E. Jackson. I think I
said nothing about the young lady's call to these gentle-
'l2, or to the Committee of the Church. I have passed
many sleepless nights trying to recollect what took place
at Mr. Van Zandt s
when I was there.
Here Mr. Seldo read a letter from this witness to
fr. Van Zandt, dated
that teSePtember
favours, and stating acknowleding past
that it was not on the loth he (Mr. -fi‘Tx)nwoas"abtclisentot showwih

young lady, and that in the meantime this witness's evi- -
dence would do defendant no good.
Alexander Hall sworn—Knows Mr. Van Zandt and
Sophia Murdoch. In the autumn of 1840 resided with
the defendant. Knew Thaddeus, who resided with his
uncle. Has observed intimacy between Sophia and
Thaddeus, and when he saw them together they were
always using familiarities. Saw him with his arms
round her kissing her. Saw nothing further but his arm
around her.
Cross-examined—ls brother-in-law to the defendant.
To the best of his recollection, it was in the month of
May or June. Was at one of the levees, on Thursday
evening, at defendant's house. Two rooms were full of
people. Were about thirty persons present, chiefly la-
dies. When he saw the familiarity witness was present.
Cannot say how many others were there. Was in the hall.
Mrs. Van Zandt, mother of defendant, sworn—ls the
mother of the reverend defendant. Thaddeus was the
child of her son, who resides in the city of New York.
Has seen Thaddeus and Mary Murdock come out of a
bedroom together.
John Marden sworn—Lived in St. Paul-street. Lived
next house to plaintiff. Houses on a line, and not dis-
tant more than 25 feet. Knows .Sophia and Thaddeus
Van Zandt. Has seen him at plaintiff's house six or
seven hours a day. Seen him with both sisters. The
table at which he worked faced the window. He is a
glover. Has seen improper familiarities between Sophia
and Thaddeus. Has seen him put his hand under her
dress. On another occasion he saw him put his hand
around her waist, and fall down together in the wood-
shed. Saw no further, but saw them get up again. On
another occasion he saw them playing in the garden.
Had seen him kiss Mary but not Sophia. Does not re-
member having said, within these last few days, in Mr.
John. Hay's store, that he saw Thaddeus more than a
dozen of times have connection with Sophia. Does not
remember having said to Mr. Benjamin, a dealer in hats,
that he knew nothing, nor had ever seen Thaddeus and
Sophia.
Charles 11. Briggs—Knows Marden. Has had a con-
versation with him in the store. Said he was acquainted
with the girl Sophia, and knew no hurt of her, that she
was a fine little girl. Always heard him speak in her
favour. Never heard him say anything about Thaddeus
Van Zandt and Sophia.
Mary F. Gray, sworn.—Knows Marden, and was pre-
sent at the conversation related. He came in to get some
work done, and said he had a job to do which he dreaded.
Mentioned something about their playing in the garden,
but does not remember any thing more. Was not pay-
ing much attention.
George B. Benjamin sworn—Knows Marden. Has
had conversation with him in his store. One evening
that he was there alone, asked him if he did not think
that report was too bad. He said he lived near them,.
and that she was a fine little girl, and they were all a fine
family. This conversation took place within four weeks.
Mr. Sibley summed up the evidence for the defence ;
said he could see nothing in this cause on which it was
pleasant to dwell, either on the one side or the other.
He (Mr. Sibley) was not here to defend the holy order
of the priesthood. Let them stand or fall by their con-
duct. But he would appeal to the discerning public,
when, in this neighbourhood, this county, this region,
has a similar offence been charged on a member of the
clerical profession ? No such case has occurred in man's
memory. The records of courts of justice furnish, it is
true, some instances where clergymen have been found
guilty of offences of this kind, but the counsel for the
prosecution forgot to state that in a far larger number
of instances, such charges are found to be false—
conspiracies, attempts to extort money. Mr. Sibley
here alluded to the case of the Rev. Dr. Phelps of
New York, who had been condemned to infamy and
disgrace by the public mind, willing to pay a sum of
money to stop a prosecution against him, proved to
have been in situations in which circumstances
might have occurred, and, by the confession of the
female herself, afterwards admitted to be innocent. He
is now pursuing there a career of public usefulness. The
plaintiff here charges that the defendant, in 1840, se-
duced his daughter. This is an action for seduction—it
means anything but force—it means that her lusts have
been invoked, or her affections captivated. This is the
charge, and it is denied. A charge like the present was
easily made and hard to be disproved. if the female
could not be a witness in a case like this, there would be
a wrong without a remedy, but the law directs that if
her story is improbable, and if it be not corroborated, but
contradicted in au essential point, it shall not be credited
—the law looks equally to the rights and liberties of
both defendant and plaintiff: He would now introduce
the principal and only witness to prove this case, the
daughter of the plaintiff. It is not enough that she may
have been proved to be with the defendant on the day
stated, on the oath of others—she must be sustained by
the testimony of credible witnesses in some essential
particulars in support of the accusation of guilt.
That she was virtuously brought up as far as the
instruction of her mother would admit, he would
freely admit—she had been intelligently and worthily
reared—and his client had been a pains-taking agent
in enlightening the mind of this young female, and
in improving her intellect. The Learned Counsel dwelt
long upon what he considered the improbability of
Sophia's statement, as to what took place upon the stoop
at her mother's door. He considered that the kissing
her was no evidence of lust—that men kiss the little
daughters of their neighbours, as innocently as they kiss
their own ; a good kind man will be kissed by the chil-
dren, whether he is willing or not—kisses, in cases such
as had been described, was innocence itself. If a man
tell him that he cannot kiss a couple of very playful
girls, for fear of a fall, he (Mr. Sibley) would say that
man stands upon a very insecure foundation. The
Learned Gentleman next referred to Sophia's statement
of the occasion when Mr. Van Zandt asked her and her
sister to go over to his home, he being alone ; alleged
that if Mr. Van Zandt had a vicious purpose of de-
bauching Sophia, he would not have also asked Mary to
accompany her, seeing she could be an evidence of his
guilt, which, if exposed, would to him, the father of a
family, the husband of a lovely wife, the pastor of a
Christian church, be utter ruin. Who can believe such
a story ? And yet you must believe it all or none ; there
is no half way in this case. You can't take part of her
(Sophia's) testimony, and reject the rest ; it must be
the whole or none.

Adjourned till half-past two.
When we entered the Court, Mr. Sibley was giving
the Jury the view he took of Sophia's statement of the
occurrences in Mr. Van Zandt's study, on the afternoon
of the 16th of October, 1840. Unpleasant and
disgusting as the circumstances in this case are,
they would have to talk and think about them. The
Counsel argued as to the probability that it was not
defendant, but his nephew Thaddeus, now in China, who
was the father of Sophia's child. The Counsel took
much pains to show that the Jury must not take
into account anything that might have been stated by
itnesses, as to indecent liberties taken by the Reverend
Gentleman with Sophia's sister and other females. He
apologised for Mr. Van Zandt's assertion that the
Misses Murdock were strumpets, made secretly to his
vestry. Mentioned the many stories that were afloat
about them—commended his goodness of heart, his
charity, in giving Sophia, her mother and sister, all
dresses alike. Asserted that the defendant's benevolence
and charity had extended far and wide. Insinuated that
as Sophia allowed Thaddeus Van Zandt to put his arms
round her neck and kiss her, it might be inferred that
greater liberties were allowed him. Gave some weight
to Marden, the glover's statement, but admitted it
had been successfully ;Impeached, and that he wss
shown to be a garrulous, intemperate man—if his testi-
mony could not be believed, let it be cast out. If the de-
fendant is guilty of this outrage, he, Mr. S., was not
here to plead in mitigation of damages. No, in that
case take ample damages—take all he has and give to
the family he has NN conged ; abate nothing, he will not
mourn over it. The Jury could not say the plaintiff was
guilty ; they could not find a verdict on evidence which
they had reason to believe to be untrue. Mr. V. Z.
values not money ; but he desires to leave no stain on
his family to descend to his children; had he desired to
settle this with money, ample time and opportunity were
given him to do so, but knowing his own innocence he
comes before the country and confidently expects an ac-
quittal.
Mr. Sibley concluded a really able, interesting, shrewd,
and eloquent speech of nine hours, at a quarter to nine
o'clock.—Verdict for plaintiff—Damages 3,000 dollars.
The following are the remarks of the Editor of the New
York Herald on this singular trial
The late trial of the Reverend Mr. Van Zandt, for
the seduction of Miss Sophia Murdock, has been re-
markable in every point of view. The plaintiff and de-
fendant were remarkable persons—the circumstances of
the seduction were remarkable—the birth of the child
and its crooked finger were remarkable, and the verdict
of the Jury was remarkable, and their subsequent conduct
still more remarkable. In addition to the 3,000 dollars,
the Jury have unanimously agreed to present Miss So-
phia Murdock with the full amount of their pay, in to-
ken, as they say, "of their sympathy for her misfor-
tunes, and of respect for her conduct as a witness."
This case, it has been said, is without a parallel. We
sincerely hope.it is, and that it will ever be so. Indeed
what an alarming state of things would be presented were
the contrary the case. Here is a reverend clergyman—
the head of a large and wealthy, and beautiful flock—a
leading member of the Episcopal Church—going about
seducing young single ladies of his flock and kissing
many of the most beautiful married women therein—or
taking various other liberties with them ; at least so it is
stated. And if this be true, all that can be said about it
is that he has had the run of a very beautiful kitchen.
But, is it not our duty and the duty of every one to in-
quire seriously into these matters? Is the case of the Rev.
Mr. Van Zandt, an isolated one ? (which we hope and trust
it is) or is it but a sample of the conduct of the clergymen of
that or any other denomination? This is a matter that every
father, brother, and parent, should think seriously of,
and see settled to his own satisfaction without loss of
time. If other clergymen do such things, where is
the mischief to stop, and who is to be trusted ? Here
we all freely allow our wives, our daughters, to go to
places of worship every Sabbath, and several week days,
when we are unable to accompany and protect them,
trusting with peaceful confidence in the honour of the
clergyman. And, if they act thus, what, under Heaven,
are we to do ? Our churches are filled with lovely wo-
men. It is true that it may be replied to this, that such
things could not be without some one suspecting it ;
but who ever suspected the Rev. Van Zandt, until the
situation' of his unfortunate victim was seen ? Again,
we say, we hope for the best ; but we also say again, that
all parents should seriously inquire into this matter.

His MAJESTY THE KING OY PRUSSIA,
The King of Prussia has been graciously pleased to
signify his Majesty's approbation of the Shipwrecked
Fishermen and Mariners' Benevolent Society, by a dona-
tion of 501, in aid of itelunds.
DUNFERNILINE.—There have been remitted
from this parish to the distressed operatives in Paisley,
in different sums, 2071., raised by subscription, which,
considering the distress here, is very creditable to the
liberality of the community,