Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1815-12-13

smaaklng, and when they arrived ri Ito
place they found the building i'm question.
with scme panes of glass broke from a vim
dow aud Savings therein, and it was pro-
nounced, by some. or, one of them, as a
good place for SCOTCH. 1t appeared that
they iirst took .station on corner of the
street, opposite the building. ana that
Fraser, one of the prisoners. took a bunch
OF the matches and the lighted segar from
Pearsals. and went to the shop window.
and lighted the matches, thrust them
through abroken pane into the shop--tbat
the first attempt did not succeed-the Sc
+cond performed in a similar manner. sue
ceeded, and the fire sovn began to blaze in
the shavings.
As soon as they were certain The FIRE had "a.
len effect, the incendisries ran TO the shop of a
black man, by the name of Putnam. who kent a
shop on the corner of Greenwich & Cedar steets-
Tor cleaning boots and shoes. There they sta;d
forsome TIME, Informing Kingston Pease that
.iere was. nIe, AMI TIE. went TO the fire. from
the shop, but, according To the testimony Of
Prselles, did not Obtain any plunder. Tho
witness did not remember whether Pease was
Wit, them before at the time of setting fire IN
'he building, but thought ne was, and was cer-
tam he saw him after their return to Pu,ram,s
shop. Al ~''-".
The testimony of Pease was pr;ncipslly COR.
lopofa'eu ny Tie testimony Of Pa-seiles, but he
demed either going with theprjsnners To ser Ere
or BIS Snowledge of the design lie further show
ed, that after tho fire was set To the bo l1;nr tb
prisoners at the bar came with Parsel,es end
informed him ofthe fire, and that shortly after.
Parsel's, and one OF the prisoners weat out. and.
were soon followed BY himselfand the OTHER. and
una, Fanderpool staid with him at the shop that
n "a as,ar nnfA
shop. - = - -,
PUTNAM, the owner ofthe shop, who appeared
as a respectable witness, stated that there were
habits OF intimacy between Pease and tie -risnn-
ers, that ON the evening of the fire. he saw them at
me SHOP, but does not remember to hive seen
rarsaiis there that ever.ng and that he went
eatiy hour. -
In the progress ofthe trial, the public
read the examination of yanderpoolbeforet the no.
ice ohcers as in confrrna' ion ofthe testimony of
Parsalls, which in addition to what p had svcr, =
showed, mat Nanderpool was there when The firs
was set, but that Parsalls set FIRE to the building
himself, and that Parsalls took the drawer con,
tanning money from the grocery shop, burned as
s,oresaid, and informed the exaTfinant that he
had got a pocket book, both of which facts Par-
sails denied onhis cross examination.
In the cross examination of Psrsals, II further
appeared that after the fire in Mott street. II,
which he was concerned, he was determined r.,
reform, being touched with remorse at the d;rs
destruction-but that afterwards, and before the
l1th of September last he went TO the commence.
ment at Yale College, fheld on that day) for the
purpose OF picking pockets--but it did not an.
pear thathe had proited by the iourney--and
that he was induced to make the disclosure of
ms crime, and that of his comrades, TO save
HIMSELF"
Mr.. Hays stated, in substance, that the wit.
ness had voluntarily disclosed to him the facts
and circumstances touching the fire in question.
m substance, rs sworn on the trial. and that he
had not been influenced in the relation ov anu
promise that he should not suffer punishment.
In relation to Vanderpoo, this witness stated that
fanderpooi confessed to him that he was present
when the lire was set, bit added he was not
guilty. So -
The above, it IS believed. are the PRINCIPAL
facts and circumstances, Us disclosed on the TRIAL
exciuaIns matter arising from the cross exami-.
nation not deemed material
The counsel for the prisorer. abandonins- heir
original plan of showing an abb, rested the de.
fence principally on the grounds
l-fhat The bu'ldng an question was not nm
inhabited dwelling house, at the time of friag
2-On the turptude of Parsalls, the witness in
behalf ofthe prosecution.
These grounds were urged with much force
and ingenuityby Mr.. Hamilton, who was follow
ca on the same side by Mr. Wilson, who pour.
trayed W sonibre colours, The vile eharactersof
the principal witness on behalf Of the prosec,l.
tioR.
Inc defence was closed BY Mr. Graham. AZ
ter some argument by the counsel ON each s;,Ie
70 he court on the question whether the Ioc., :,
q7iS was and ought TO be considered dwelling
house in contemplation of the statute. Mr. ROD.
man adyerted TO the facts in the case and tbeja.
arising from the facts. He endeavoretl 10 sboy,.
from analogous cases, that this was an inhabited
dwelling house, inasmueh as il was shewn by The
S's{l mony that IT was used and occupi ed as such
'p' t:,ark, the witness-ihat tie spirit ofthe law
pstiised4ach construction, otherwise the evil
which the law sought TO remedy, might exist snd
crimes go unpublished.
Atier The argument of counsel, his honour che
msyo- in very pertinent charge to the iilrv
showed them the nature ofthe offiGce charged in
the Indictment against the prisoners That there
were substantially two crimes of winch they
stood indicted-Hrson, at connoa law. aud unfs-
statute ct This state, wherein the cpime Is slefn.
ed, tho 'wilfu and fcloDious setting fire Ia an IN,
habftch dwellng-house His Ilononi. ably Doint +,
ed ont The common and statute Inv distinction
That The simple Question:, IN this case, wss, whe
ther at the tune OF tie firing, this ho,is. was n.
habited land that the criterion was not whether
'th1s house was, or not originally designed az =
dwelling house; that by the Testimony of CLARK
was clearly shewnthatit was fAe1 used rs s,,cl
that the object and spirit of the law on this sub.
ifct was to protect the lives of individuals thar
the Jury were left 10 infer WHEELER n was z-rsb q