DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.70303#0110
92
WONDERFUL DISCOVERY OF A MURDER
blood from it on the grass. Hyde (Nicholas), Chief Jus-?
tice, seeming to doubt the evidence, asked the witness,
“ Who saw this besides you ?”■—1st Witness—I cannot
swear what others saw, but, my Lord, I believe the whole
company saw it; and if it had been thought doubtful,
proof would have been made of it, and many would have
contested with me.” Then the witness observing' some
admiration in the auditors, spoke thus :—<£ My Lord, I am
Minister of the parish, long knew all the parties, but never
had any occasion of displeasure against any of them, nor
had to do with them, nor they with me; but as I was Mi-
nister, the thing was wonderful to me; but I have no in-
terest in the matter, but as called upon to testify the truth,
which I have done.”1
The witness was a reverend person, as T guess about 70
years of age ; his testimony w as delivered gravely and
temperately, but to the great admiration of the auditory.
Whereupon applying himself to t e Chief Justice, he said,
“ My Lord, my brother here, is Minister of the next
parish adjacent; and I am sure saw all done that I have
affirmed.”. Whereupon that person was sworn to give
evidence, and did depose in every point; viz. the sweat-
ing of the brow, the changing of the colour, opening of
the eyes, and the thrice motions of the finger, and drawing
it in again ; only the first witness added, that he dipped
his finger in the blood that came from the dead body, and
swore, he believed it was really blood. I conferred after-
wards with Sir Vowell, Barrister at Law, and others, who
all concurred in this observation ; and for myself, if I were
upon oath, can depose, that these depositions (especially
the first witness) are truly reported in substance.
The other evidence was given against the prisoner, viz.
against the grandmother of the Plaintiff, and against Oak-
ham and his wife, that they confessed they lay in the next
room to the dead person that night, and that none came into
the
WONDERFUL DISCOVERY OF A MURDER
blood from it on the grass. Hyde (Nicholas), Chief Jus-?
tice, seeming to doubt the evidence, asked the witness,
“ Who saw this besides you ?”■—1st Witness—I cannot
swear what others saw, but, my Lord, I believe the whole
company saw it; and if it had been thought doubtful,
proof would have been made of it, and many would have
contested with me.” Then the witness observing' some
admiration in the auditors, spoke thus :—<£ My Lord, I am
Minister of the parish, long knew all the parties, but never
had any occasion of displeasure against any of them, nor
had to do with them, nor they with me; but as I was Mi-
nister, the thing was wonderful to me; but I have no in-
terest in the matter, but as called upon to testify the truth,
which I have done.”1
The witness was a reverend person, as T guess about 70
years of age ; his testimony w as delivered gravely and
temperately, but to the great admiration of the auditory.
Whereupon applying himself to t e Chief Justice, he said,
“ My Lord, my brother here, is Minister of the next
parish adjacent; and I am sure saw all done that I have
affirmed.”. Whereupon that person was sworn to give
evidence, and did depose in every point; viz. the sweat-
ing of the brow, the changing of the colour, opening of
the eyes, and the thrice motions of the finger, and drawing
it in again ; only the first witness added, that he dipped
his finger in the blood that came from the dead body, and
swore, he believed it was really blood. I conferred after-
wards with Sir Vowell, Barrister at Law, and others, who
all concurred in this observation ; and for myself, if I were
upon oath, can depose, that these depositions (especially
the first witness) are truly reported in substance.
The other evidence was given against the prisoner, viz.
against the grandmother of the Plaintiff, and against Oak-
ham and his wife, that they confessed they lay in the next
room to the dead person that night, and that none came into
the