Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1841-11-02

cned answering whether or not he had harb)ed the no
torous Lett To rebuke his testimony, respectable IN
habant Of the town Of Niagara named Hamilton was
produced and testified that he well knew RayncOck and
that that individual absent in England al the time
specified by wilson.
The next witness worthy of notice il Timothy Whea-
ton He was called by permission after prosecution rest
the Attorney General supposng that there had been
reservation IN favor of this witness. lie depoSes that
about year before he had gone from NhItby, canada
where he lived, Niegara-wes near the ierry-saw NC
Ieod coming up from the side - and the witness
remarked to him that the sentnes had hard time of 1t
that they then talked Of the Navy Islanders, and about
their nunber-that Mcleod SAID they never would have
the Caroline there again. and added that he was the sec
ond third board Of her, and then some person.
stranger TO witness interrupted the conversation by TAX
ing Mcleod of-that he, the witness, turned from the
ferry retoectng ne had pass and went back to the
town.
Ciencn-r you carefully % examine this evidence.
and declare according to your CONSCIENTIOUS conviction oil
the truth really is. If you believe this evidence
Notwithstanding objections TO it, and notwhsand
ing SEINE deductions which to be made-If you be-
eve thatit does after ALL present to you amount Of
evidence which is sufficient call up the prisoner TO an
swer her you take into consideration tie defence
opened benre YOU And it is undenabe that IN looking
this Of evidence there much that appears ques
onabe, and much Of it remains that Is not powerfully at
tackled, ard that does bear very hard the question OF
the prsomrs guilt But passing from this you are then
To look the prisoners side because It the right OF eve
nv man PIT on trial here to present his Witnesses have
them examined, and if he succeeded in establishing de-
fence, TO lave the full benefit OF IT.
That dderce gentlemen is what is called alb. 1t
is i'm othr words that he had part lot no sort OF
participation in this enterprise and this after the dispos
nj of the rst question already based upon, Is the only
ground Of defence that lists And my Judgment no
degree Of suspicion should attach 10 It an original deence
because il is Just SAID the only defence that remains
for the prisoner the bar If ne were IN truth upon mat
expedition tken he guilty and you must pronounce
him. But gentlemen If he that time i've or SIX
or seven miles distant if he had participation IN That
enterprise then the great principles OF justice re-
quire that you should pronounce him innocent.
The evidence sustaining this defence consists oil 'he Ne
positions of individuals avowedly participating IN The ek
petition and secondly of the oral testimony oil several
individuals showing. or tending To show. that Mcleod
was during the execution of this enterprise a. distant
spot-in another spot.
First then with regard to the evidence of the commits
sions The prisoners counsel right IN telling you that
evidence taken in this way, and should be- less salts
factory, than that given personally before YOU But so
far the dispositions themselves 10 cescrbe the hd-
vduuis stif, Ing. may dosire information re-
spccng the standing and character Of those Individuals
Some of them lawyers-sOme of them marlners-and
officers in her Majestys service and 10y their de-
scptons they should all be men Of character and respon-
sibity.
1t has been said that this commission growing
commission" - that witnesses examined whose
had been returned But there IN the pr-
it of beraly and by consent, stipulation made that
witnesses than those named might be examined 1t
limited that suspicion should attach TO these
dispositions from the which they had been made
up The learned Judge here described the manner IN
which the commissions executed, and showed mat
no suspicion could probably rest upon them. lie then
proceeded The Attorney General has noticed the tes-
tmonv Of these Opponents with great mnuteness, and
equally great ability. He has pointed out where the wit
nesses have contradcted each other or tire truth
For instance some saying that resistance was made on
board the boat whereas has been shown that there was
resistance If the witness 50 knowing that they
swearing falsely, that will Of course deiractiOm their
crediblity But Wells testified himself that he heard the
sounds of fighting and that in the darkness OF the night
and confusion of the melee the attacking party had mIsta
ken each other Tor the occupants of the boat and that they
fought together II that then would not FOL
low that in testifying to resistance encountered on
board the boat they fese the corrupt
of the term.
Passing from this, there is this other consideration,
which must strike you IN the outset If. when Alexander
Mcleod sued this commission and directed the COM
missoners examine persons who had been IN each OF
the boats and if truth he had been present there HIM
self. he be a bold man indeed. Because he must
have supposed that the commissioners would either have
taken only those who could not in the dark whether
he there not that the would have been so
corrupt as falsely TO extrcae him from the pun
shment of his crime But this is no further evidence
than it portion of the history OF the Transaction,
and with these views YOU TO take up the testimony
and ascertain, solemn enquiry how much credit you
should give these witnesses.
1t is undoubtedly trie, gentlemen that Fears cannot
saw with degree of certainty that Mcleod was not
board the expedition 1t is equally that Men alb
saw although he supernended the embakaton OF
the persons engaged in the enterprise None but the ALI
seeing could penetrate the darkness that shrouded
those there associated But, them there or two
gentlemen from among inmates of each particular boat.
who have been examined. Some Of them knew Mcleod
well before that ne-Others became acquainted with him
afterwards talked and recognized all their asso
GATES and they all testified that Mcleod not amongst
them that night.
Now, gentlemen it is proper that you apply the rule
Distinguishing between positive and negative testimony
1t is that where swears he did see another al
particular spot and period II is more satisfactory man
when he can only say that the other not there. Bu
Won will take into consideration the reasons which would
lead YOU believe that the of each OF the boats
must have well known each other, and form correct
opinion their credbihy when they say positively
that Mcleod was amongs, them. With this remark
leave in your hands this portion Of the prisoner defence
We now the proof of an abb, which II sustain
ed leave doubt of the prisoners innocence, unless
you believe him gifted with ubIqulty
The first witness prove this Is William fress I've
that he conveyed the prisoner and another person &C
Niagara the day OF tie destruction of the caroline
that he knows be that day from the fact OF having
made entry of that transaction in his cash book unde
that date-hat he conveyed the prisoner IN the evening
far Stanford the way back Chlppewathat there
prisoner alghted from the wagon and went 10 the house
of Capt John Morrison.
Wilton Stocking was called and corroborated the Ell
dence OF Press and hoh may add cOoboated the state
ment of Hamilton respecting Rsyncocks having lett 10
Europe before the commencement OF the troubles II
Canada.
+ The family Of Capt Morrison and himself swear posi-
lively McIeods being there the night Of the 2o
of December Captain Morrison states that he Is endhe
TO fix the day. from the that MS TREND Co
Cameron called his gate early morning, and IN