The Sun. — 1824-01-07 (London, England)

PARK— I do not wish to interrupt you,l bu state facts to would he useless in me to I,t you the Jury which I must contradict in summing; up .. Itt sti it ce the evidence ; the man did not swear that the colour of the gig was yellow. Thurtell—lt will not rest, my Lord, on my statement alone. He then continued, animadverting on the horrible evidence, and observed, why was not this witness brought before the Coroner or before the Magistrates, if he knew the facts to which he bus sworn. Another circumstance, which in itself was sufficient to disprove Probert's evidence, was the improbability of his leaving Hunt one mile and half distance from his (Probert's house) on a dark night, without having some motive, or without knowing the reason why.  Thurtell continued for some time to review  the evidence of the other witnesses, but nothing important came out. He went on to say, that he should advise them most seriously to consider before they gave any opinion of this case, as the British Law, in cases of this kind, recognized the proof of murder by circumstantial evidence, and the evidence, he thought, instead of being against him, operated rather in his favour to show he had not committed  this crime. Circumstantial evidence was at all times of a kind most fearful, and he would show, by a variety of cases, the necessity of most particularly attending to it, as in modern times, we had many lamentable instances of the immolation of innocent persons, through the hasty decisions of Juries, therefore he believed, as he hoped they would, that besides many points which were much in his favour, there were more points that did not by any means shew he had any participation in this crime, and as such evidence, by producing a fatal result, was so fearful in its effects, he would sincerely advise them to consider well before they decided. In order to show how often such fatal results had arisen from the undue consideration of cases, he cited several, from the works of Coke, Blackstone, and particularly those of Chapman, Bradshaw, and several others who had beers execmed for murder on very strong presumptive evidence, yet in some time after it had been ascertained that they were innocent, and the real murderers n ere discovered. Voltaire,in his works, had emphatically censured the hasty decisions ofJu ries. When they had deeply considered every thing, he hoped, which he had said and gone through, they would pursue such a course as would jus- I tify them in acquitting him. lie had plainly advanced these facts for their consideration, feeling himself authorised so to do, and lie should now, as he was drawing to a close of his address, tell them that the only course they could safely adopt, would be to return him to his country, i mf his liberty, and Isis family. This he thought they should well consider, as hereafter they would have the blessed consideration that a calumniated and innocent man had been acquitted by them. There were many points of evidence doubtful, and they were bound to give him the benefit of them ; the law said, no man shall be convicted of murder, but by clear proof, and if any doubts remained, the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of them. He again repeated his innocence of the murder. He would beg them, nay, implore them to find him not guilty. They well knew that no horie i was left, if they found him guilty ; and not fo but for his family, for the name of a 3 longl selline of honourable ancestors, whose characters had passsed down unsullied, and with.