Mr. Ashmead replied that it had been so ruled in this Court in the case of Coleman vs. Magoon, in 1818. The Counsell then pointed out the fact that Mayor Tiemann had testified that he had been spoken to on this subject nearly a year ago, and wanted to know why he had not then pursued the originator of these stories. This showed clearly that Branch did not originate the alleged libel, and that therefore there was no malice on his part.—He complained that the testimony for the defence had been entirely shut out by objections, and asked why the Mayor did not come in manfully and clear his skirts of these charges, without shielding himself under technicalities. He, however, did not pursue the originator of this story, but when this poor man who considered himself a sentinel upon the watch-tower of this great city, exposed what he considered to be corruption in high places, then the Mayor pounced upon him. Why did not the Mayor go into the civil court, as he could have done, and then this poor man could stand on an equal footing with him, and tell his own story? In God’s name if they wanted a victim let them take him, but they should not condemn him without show of a trial. If a sacrifice was required Mr. Branch was ready to be immolated; but here was an extraordinary fact. Why did not Mayor Tieman bring forward the matron? He had seen her before witnesses. If this thing was done, no one knew it but his Excellency the Mayor, and this lady. No eye but that of the Omniscient One above, saw the act if it had occurred? Why, then, did he not bring this lady here, and then if she swore that it did not occur, there was an end of the matter. But they might ask, why did not he (Counsel) bring the lady? For a very sensible and legal reason, because, if he had brought her into Court, she would become his own witness, and he could not bring evidence to contradict her, whereas, if Mayor Tiemann had put her on the stand, and she had told her statement, then they could have cross-examined her and brought Evans and other witnesses to contradict her. If, therefore, the prosecution had examined her, and other evidence would have been admitted which had been shut out, but by the course the prosecution had pursued half the defence was made non-effective. He admitted that what was acknowledged by the Mayor did not amount to proof, yet it was very extraordinary. The Mayor admitted that there was a friend who visited the lady whom he ordered should not be allowed on the island.—There was no impropriety shown in these visits; he came every Sunday, he behaved himself, and yet he was interdicted. Now there was other matrons there; they had friends, no doubt, and yet this lady was the only one selected for deprivation of her friend’s society. This to say the least of it was very extraordinary. Another thing, the Mayor had lent this lady money, but he lent money to no other matron. Now this was curious, if he was simply