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
Now, Gentlemen, we come to the confirmation of this extraordinary story,
particularly by Mr. Patrick. It is quite clear that Mr. Patrick has
conceived some great anger against Mr. Church, on account of supposed
slander of the character of his wife. Mr. Patrick himself is quite
satisfied that his wife is not guilty, any more than the maid servant.
But Mr. Patrick is angry, because he says, that Mr. Church has slandered
the character of his wife. Why then, Mr. Patrick goes to Mr. Church, and
he has some conversation with him. He tells him that he has seen some
letter, but he does not mention what letter—he has seen some letter in
which he, Mr. Church, has said that he could deny _three points_ in the
boy’s story: and he puts questions to him, and he states to you, that Mr.
Church having distinctly denied the indecent attack upon the boy, yet
that he nevertheless admitted that he was in the room. Now, Gentlemen,
upon that subject I must necessarily give you some evidence, as well as
upon another part of this case; for I understand that Mr. Patrick
distinctly stated to Mr. Thomas, who accompanied him as far as the house
of Mr. Church, and whom he joined directly after he came out, that Mr.
Church was not at all implicated; for on that occasion Mr. Thomas said to
him, “Well, is there any thing against Mr. Church?” Upon which Mr.
Patrick answered “No: Mr. Church is not all implicated.” Mr. Patrick has
denied it. I am told that Mr. Thomas will positively state that to have
occurred. I am told so. Then, Gentlemen, if Mr. Patrick be contradicted
in that most material circumstance—if you discredit him upon that part of
the case, how can you give him credit in that part upon which my leaded
friend fastened, as the confirmation of the story of the boy—“that he
admitted to Mr. Patrick, that he had been in the boy’s room.” But the
contradiction will not end there, Gentlemen. You have already one very
important contradiction in the case; for the boy went directly to the
Pottery, and he made a communication to West; and I asked him distinctly,
and more than once, whether he stated to Mr. West that the person who
attacked him in the manner he had described, had his hand upon his
private parts? and he said that he had distinctly told Mr. West, that Mr.
Church had laid his hand on his private parts: but, when West came to be
examined, he told us that the boy did tell him that Mr. Church had
behaved in a very indecent manner to him: but that he never, before the
search was made, nor in the course of the night, nor from first to last,
said a word to him about that circumstance.
Now, Gentlemen, that is a very strong contradiction of the story told you
to-day by this man; and if that induces you to disbelieve him, or to
doubt respecting his evidence, it will be impossible for you to find the
Defendant guilty of this charge.
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