Mr. Peters, in defence of the prisoner produced authorities to show that by the evidence the prisoner was not taken in the manner as stated in the declaration, and that it was sufficient for him to prove, in a general way, how he came in possession of the horse, which he was able to do by a receipt he produced for the money paid in exchange, the best general evidence that can be given, as such is the common way in dealing in horses. He acknowledged that if the prisoner had been taken on the back of the horse, he would then have been taken in the manner as stated by the Attorney General, and consequently bound to prove how he came in possession; but in the present case, he himself, or any one present, might have been in this unfortunate prisoner’s situation; dragged to the prison, to court and to the gallows, because he could not produce the person who actually sold him the horse. The prosecutor had not produced any evidence of the horse ever having been in the possession of the prisoner, any other way than by his own confession; and he trusted that the jury would not hesitate to find that the prisoner was not taken in the manner as stated in the declaration, but would pronounce him, by their verdict, “Not Guilty.” The Judge, in his charge to the jury, overruled the plea, by stating to the jury that his having been taken in the manner, was proved by the various accounts he gave of his getting possession of the horse, thus rendering himself liable to prove how he came by him, or to stand guilty of having feloniously taken him, as stated in the indictment. That they had heard the witnesses and if, from the evidence and circumstances before them, they would find him guilty; but if they had any doubts, that leaning to mercy, they would find him not guilty. While the jury was out, the sheriff invited the Court and other gentlemen to visit gaol, where they were shown the irons and chains, and the situation in which the prisoner had been placed. The jury, after an absence of about two hours, returned with a verdict of “Guilty.” The judge then proceeded to pass upon him the awful sentence of the law, “Death, without the benefit of Clergy;” but the criminal remained unmoved and unaffected, and continued shouting and hallooing. The court asked the counsel for the prisoner whether he had anything to offer in arrest of judgment, or why the sentence of death should not be executed upon him. Mr. Peters then arose and produced authorities to show that the present law that took away “the benefit of Clergy” for _horse-stealing_, was not in force in this colony, and that it could not be construed to be in force, and must be a question to be decided in the higher court, where he hoped to have the honor of discussing it. The judge admitted the plea; but gave his opinion against him. CHAPTER VII.