The Trial and Conviction of John Church: The Preacher of the Surrey Tabernacle, Borough Road, at the Surrey Assizes, at Croydon, on Saturday, the 16th of August, 1817, for an Assault With Intent to Commit an Unnatural Crime. — John Shaqi
The Trial and Conviction of John Church: The Preacher of the Surrey Tabernacle, Borough Road, at the Surrey Assizes, at Croydon, on Saturday, the 16th of August, 1817, for an Assault With Intent to Commit an Unnatural Crime.Anonymous
Religion
The Trial and Conviction of John Church: The Preacher of the Surrey Tabernacle, Borough Road, at the Surrey Assizes, at Croydon, on Saturday, the 16th of August, 1817, for an Assault With Intent to Commit an Unnatural Crime.
Anonymous
Church, J. (John), approximately 1780-approximately 1825 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Sodomy) -- England
By Mr. BOLLAND.—What did you say to him, or he to you, upon your going to
him?—He took it extremely kind of me in calling upon him. I told him he
might take it as he pleased; that I did not come willingly, but that some
of his Congregation thought that I ought to see him on the business.
By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did he appear to be apprized of the subject before
you began?—I cannot say that, my Lord, exactly. But I believe he was
apprized from what afterwards occurred.
By Mr. BOLLAND.—What passed on that occasion between you and him?—I told
him I waited upon him, having seen a letter wherein he denied three
particular points of the boy’s statement; and I wished to know what those
points were.
You told him you had seen a letter that he had written upon the
subject?—Yes.
By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You told him you had seen a letter upon the
subject, in which he denied three particular points of the boy’s
statement?—Yes.
By Mr. BOLLAND.—What did he say to that?—He said that he denied having
hold of the boy, or the boy having hold of him; or he, Church, saying,
that he was the boy’s mistress.
He denied the boy having hold of him, or that he, Church, having said
that he was the boy’s mistress?—Yes.
Did he say whether or not he was in the room?—He admitted that fact.
But denied the laying hold of the boy’s private parts?—Yes. He denied
the laying hold.
Did he state any reason for being in the room?—Not at all.
By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—When you say that he admitted being in the room,
will you, as far as you can, state the words: state what he said?—He said
that he denied three particular points, two of which I have already
named. The other was something that did not occur to me to be important,
and which I did not take any notice of, and consequently I do not
remember it. I told him that of these two points, that I have mentioned,
the boy was positive, and I had no reason to doubt any thing that the boy
had said, as I had never known him to tell a lie. He said that he was
sorry for it, because that confirmed _ancient reports_. I told him it
did so; and of course I told him that now I should believe all that I had
heard heretofore; and I wished him a good morning.
Now did you see him at any time afterwards?—Not to speak to him.
By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—You have seen him, but not spoken to him since?—I
have not spoken to him since, my Lord.
By Mr. BOLLAND.—What letter was it that you had seen which you spoke to
him about?—A letter dated the 6th of October, addressed to a Mrs. Hunter,
I took an exact copy of it. Mr. Harmer has it.
Is that the copy? (_A paper put into the witness’s hand_.)
Mr. GURNEY.—I cannot see how this can be evidence, until they prove the
original to be destroyed.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—This is only _a provisional_ question.
By Mr. BOLLAND.—Is that the copy?—Yes, it is an exact copy.
By Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Did you read that copy of the letter to him?—No, my
Lord, I had not the copy at that time.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account