Shortly after the opening of the Court, Mr. Ashmead rose and commenced to sum up for the defence. He opened by pointing out the responsibilities of the Jury, stating that should they find a verdict in favor of the prosecution, it would establish a precedent which would strike a serious blow at the liberty of the citizen. He characterized the prosecution as one of the most extraordinary character. In commenting on the experience of the opposing counsel, he said he remembered a comment by a most eminent divine, on the words of Solomon, “I have never seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging their bread,” namely, that what Solomon had not seen he had. He spoke strongly against the fact that the prosecution had originated with the Grand Jury, instead of taking the action before a committing magistrate, having a preliminary examination. Here was a citizen, humble if they pleased, on one side, while on the other was the Mayor of the greatest city in the New World, and these officers of the Grand Jury, forgetting that in this republic all should be treated alike, encroached upon the liberty of this citizen by stepping out of their usual course. Should the jury adopt the precedent of convicting a man under such circumstances, then God help the liberty of the citizen; but the consequences would rest upon the heads of them and their children. [Mr. Ashmead here read extracts from the opinions of eminent Judges, showing that a prisoner had a right to a preliminary examination before the case could go before the Grand Jury.] But this unfortunate man was not so served; he knew nothing of the accusation, nor was he brought face to face with his powerful accusers. Were this man immaculate, he stood, under these circumstances, subject to all the lightning elequence of the opposite side, and was not able to do as was his right, namely, bring an action for damages against his accusers, because the responsibility rested with the public prosecutor.