The herald., 1837-02-23

was forced about his room in every directionGomsr
times on the hoor-Hambln on his body-dashinQ
him s.out-Hamblin man Of stature and gigantic
DUH ana & %s' ~ ,be gohg 0n lRsIs were ss
danger and that il was tumuluous pr0ceeding-n-
side the cry was skill him" and outside, "go ahead
take his life" violent outrage could scarcely
be admitted than that the evidence submitted to the
jury.
In commenting spon the affair, the learned counsel
on the opposite side had said, that Hambln went with
propriety to Bennett, and pleaded this IN extenuaton
or in justification Of his conduct-that no violence had
been offered or had occurred
1t was not worth his while te enter upon this testi'
mony-there could be no doubt of the tumultuous
scene on intervening Of that affair on Mr., Bennett
II was confirmed by the paragraph, read in evil
dence nom the Now Era, and was by that much
more aggravated. After narrating the outrage pepe-
Tated on Mr.. Bennett-thath he was squeezed by the
throat till he was black in the face, and kicked and
spat uponit stated taat the whole affair by
three persons. We shall shortly show who these
three persons were.
Mr.. Hamblin had no right to enter. He had no
right to come in and demanded an apology.
Mr.. Hamblln is assaled in public paper-he goes
to ashland to enforce an apology.
Now what is contained in that principle? Had he
gone TO get a receipt for money or pr0missory note
the same manner-even though Mr.. Bennett owed
thlm, he would have been sentenced to the state pr-
son, and by, an old law, would have been hanged.
This is the principle for which the defendants
the whole right Of robbery! Is it TO be tolerated
Do counsel know the effects Of such cause?
Hamslin had no right to go. He ought to apply to
the law-not take the law into his own hands.
The counsel stated that Hambln behaved gentle
manly y-he behaved with a refined species of brutal
cruelty; He began by shaking him. 1t was under
stood that he was not to raise his hand. This was
from fear.-He feared he might incur the penalty of
the gallows-and for that alone he jek ked and
threw him about for the purpose of exhausting him
and but for the officers he would have proceeded to
extremes until Benefits life had been sacrificed to
this refinement of cruelty.
He thought if he did not break any bones he would
escape the consequences of his actf he did not take
life he could escape the consequences and this is cali
ed ge'tIeness in the words of the opposing counsel.
Is not this riot is not this breach Of thepeacel
The next inquiry. Who participated in this brutal
scenel Did all Of the defendants ? Did one or
more
nor to aggravarc it. But all the defendants pro-
per victims for the shrine OF nsulted justice.
Was Hamblin there? 1t was not disputed Were
Blythe Bell and Boerck concerned1
The evidence of Bennett when he looked round
proved it. He saw Bell, Blythe and Boerck He must
at the first moment have been stunned -shOcked-con
vulsed. He could not have distinguished at first;
recollection dawned he saw in the room Bell, Blythe
and Boerck. He swears this Mr.. Esler swears to
it, and Mr. West swears to the three persons although
not recognizing heir faces confirms the fact.
Now for the general evidence duplicating all.
Esler swears TO Boerck-he did not knew him frst
in violent manner, stated in Mr. Esers evidence.
, Mr. West did not recognize him, SO shocked was
he-so engrossed in attending 10 the chief actor in The
drama-so unhingcd that though turned ou, by more
than two persons he could not recollect them.
Burdett saw all unless Bell.
SO much for the general evidence for the pas
ticulars.
Blythe, it is admitted by ALL was there He was
seen coming up from the Era Office He was the per
son, by Mr.. Prices evidence, who excited Mr.. Ham
bin.
He went frst-what did he 60 for? He went to
reconnoltre the premises in order that the after act
might se successfully perpetrated-Dnper confirms
ths-he then was there.
Was Boerck there? Bennett swears to it-Bennett
swears to it-Esler had no less than two assaults
West confirms it, There can be little doubt that Bell
was one and Boerck another.
Mr Eser had good notice. He could not be mis-
taken. Boerck said to him you know who i am"
&c. At that time Bennett had the advantage Of
Hamblin. Esler sweaEs to that fact
Was MT Boerck there7
Burdett says l saw him twice, and know him.
He twice said upon examination-"I know hm-he
was there.
Draper says Price was there all the time (here the
counsel referred TO his notes and ready ~ think saw
Boerck in the room-I think did. Theperson took
to be Boerck remained all the time" (Here the coun
SCI thought that this description might have alluded 10
Blythe) He, however afterwards says he knew
BOerck-he could not mistake-he was there.
Smith saw him IN the Hall outside the private Of
hce Mr. Pnces evidence stated that Boreck had
pecn al Dell O6oit IL was f0r the opposite counsei
TO show that Beerck was not a friend Of Hamblins,
and was not at the scepe Of the rist
Ii is in vain for Counsel 10 thank he can escape.
Hambln was there-Blythe there-Boerck was
ihere-Bel unqnestisnably there. He is the per-
the least TO be questioned He was in both rooms
aiding the riot by hs actions.
Bennett said he was surprised at seeing Bell be-
cause he knew that he connected with the Era
most sensible reason The paper was set up against
Bennett--t was hostile to hnn-it wss rival paper
IF any person had reason 10 be against me il was
BeP'-thsisa reason against Bell sufliccnt-but not
all
Mr.. Eslsr says, 81 heard voices crying kill him.
Bell was actively engaged in preventing my going in
When he heard these cries he the door to get
interference from the street. Bell told those outside
they should not interfere" Ii is not material whether
he inside not-he the premises, and is
identified. Again Esler says Bell assisted in turning
him out-frst Mr.. Bennett recognised Bcll-thcn Es-
Ter Bell turned him (Esler) out Mr. Bell aided
e turning him out the first time Bell was not there
when the door was locked Mr. West corroboraes this
testimony though he cannot swear TO the persons.
You cannot doubt that Bell was in the room al the
time sworn 10 by Bennett and Esler and confirmed
by West.
Whsn came out the second tme says Esler,
found Bell thcro, II was after the door locked
cannot tell how he got there, have no doubt he was
there.
You cannot doubt this testimony; there is ne evi-
dence d deny that Bell found in the outer Office
There only two links in the testimony for the
defence that question. Here Mr.. Graham
L..