The conduct of Judge Montagu, on the trial of Lewis, was represented as
harsh and captious; but was explained by subsequent disclosures. A
clever barrister, who secretly advised the accused and framed his
defence, went into the judge's room, before the sitting of the court,
and in conversing with Montagu intimated the very improper course Lewis
intended to take. Montagu replied, he would certainly fine him. It was
under these suspicions, that he began the trial: he was thrown off his
guard, and the prosecution involved in an irreparable mistake. When the
court sat to sentence the accused, the lawyer was there to urge the
illegality of the conviction.
Lewis complained to the secretary of state, who referred his case to the
law officers of the crown, who asserted "that it is an unwarrantable
proceeding, on the part of a judge, to fine an accused party for saying
anything which he may consider essential to his defence, provided it
shall be consistent with public decorum." The secretary of state
directed compensation: this, a board estimated at L1,700. The governor
was, however, desirous of depriving Lewis of the indemnity, and the
legislative council resolved, seven to four, that the observations of
Mr. Lewis were not within that qualification; and requested that, if the
secretary of state persevered in his determination, he should pay the
complainant from the land fund. Such resistance was obviously official,
and without moral weight, and the money was eventually paid.
Several months after the departure of Mr. William Bryan for Great
Britain, his nephew, Mr. Robert Bryan, and another, were charged with
cattle-stealing. The constables who professed to watch the prisoners,
alleged that they saw the animal in question driven homeward by the
accused, and on the second day following discovered the skin thrown into
the scrub. Witnesses contradicted the constables, who were all prisoners
of the crown, in some material points. The young man was sentenced to
death. The capital penalty was not inflicted; but it was the popular
notion that he was the victim of a conspiracy.
The young man, Robert Bryan, was tried on two separate indictments, and
such was the evidence, that many unprejudiced persons concurred in the
verdict: yet the witnesses against him were open to suspicion. It was
commonly asserted that he was sacrificed; if not by the contrivance,
with the concurrence of the government.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account