Kline was the principal witness on this trial, and his testimony was practically a repetition of what he had sworn to in the Hanway case. The trial judge fell ill during the progress of the case and it was continued the third time and resumed on February 2, argued to the jury on February 3, and, on February 4, a verdict of “not guilty” was rendered. This closes the record of all judicial proceedings arising out of the Christiana Riot. CHAPTER XII. PARKER’S OWN STORY. The Leader of the Defenders Tells his Story of what Occurred at “the Riot”--The Author Gives Reasons why He takes the Narrative with Some Allowance--A Valuable Historical Contribution. I deem it entirely fair and proper at this stage of the narrative to republish entire William Parker’s own account of what took place at his house during “the Riot.” It is reproduced in the assurance that each reader may--as he, and especially she, will--give it such credibility as the circumstances may command for it. It is fit that it be presented with certain qualifications to the general reader and to the increasing number who may peruse this history in the spirit in which it is written, viz., one of purely historic inquiry. The _Atlantic Monthly_ (Boston), for February, 1866, published the first part of what is entitled “The Freedman’s Story,” introduced by one who signed himself “E. K.,” and said he was asked to revise it for publication “or weave its facts into a story which would show the fitness of the Southern black for the right of suffrage.” The editor evades the natural inquiry whether the text is wholly Parker’s or partially his own; but it is printed as that of a freedman or ex-slave and as evidence “of the manhood of his race to that impartial grand-jury, the American people.” Of course it cannot be unreservedly accepted for the purpose for which it was offered, that is: to prove the fitness of the Southern freedman for suffrage; for it is not the narrative of a man who was suddenly freed and enfranchised by the circumstances of war, but of one who became a fugitive slave many years earlier and had the advantage of Northern life and Canadian experience in the intervening period. But it is of very decided value to this attempted impartial and impersonal history, because it purports to tell the story of the Riot as the man most responsible for it and most conspicuous in it saw and heard its incidents; and, because he never had an opportunity to tell it under the restraints of a judicial examination or the obligations of an oath. It must be taken as his voluntary testimony, when he had no hopes of reward or fear of punishment to incite or restrain him.