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
On the part of the Defendant, Gentlemen, it is observed as matter of
surprise that the Prosecutor’s Counsel have not called the female servant
as a witness. It is very true she was not called, but it was open to the
Defendant to have called her, and undoubtedly if his Counsel thought that
any examination of hers would have been beneficial to him, we must
presume that she would have been called. The Bed-room door of the
servants, it is observed, was ajar; and it is contended that one of the
servants might have been the person who went down stairs to the young
man’s room: and it is further contended that there was such a deficiency
of light that it was impossible for the Prosecutor to identify with
certainty the person who entered his apartment. Now whether there is any
thing in the observation as to the deficiency of the light, it for you to
judge; but this remark fairly arises from the circumstance of the maid’s
Bed-room door being a-jar. It is most likely that if either of them came
out of the room for any improper purpose, she would have shut the door
after her: and it is to be recollected that one of the servants was the
Boy’s own Sister. It is observed likewise as matter of surprise, that
Mrs. Patrick is not called. Gentlemen, it would be very disrespectful to
Mrs. Patrick to put such a question to her, as whether she offered these
indecencies to the Boy; but if the Defendant’s Counsel thought that she
could not have stood that examination, as I have repeatedly told you,
they might have called her.
On the part of the defendant, they called Mr. Thomas, and he says, “I
live in Prospect Place, West Square, St. George’s Fields. I am by
business, an appraiser and undertaker. I know the defendant Mr. Church.
I was one of his hearers. I was acquainted with Mr. Patrick, but not
until the report was made respecting Mr. Church. I can’t say that I have
ever seen him attending Mr. Church, as one of the congregation. I went
with Mr. Patrick the day he went to Mr. Church’s house. It was the 9th
of October, a few days after the report. I did not go into the house
with him. I stood outside the door. I learned from Mr. Patrick, that he
was going to Mr. Church upon the subject of this business. He told me he
had a letter of Mr. Church’s, and was going to him to make inquiries. He
called upon me at my house too with him, and he told me he was going upon
the business of this inquiry. Indeed, it was at my request that he
should.”
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