Mr. Wood is the last witness, and he says, “I was present at the examination of Church before the magistrate, I am a hatter near the Elephant and Castle. I did not take down the testimony of the witness in writing. Freemantle’s boy said that he went into the Pottery and told the Potter that there were thieves in the house; and the Potter and he came to search the house. He was asked by Mr. Sellon whether or no he searched the room where Mr. Church slept, and he said no, he did not search that room. Mr. Sellon said “why not search the room?” and the answer he gave was “that the Potter wished to break the door open.” Mr. Sellon said “did you try the door to see whether it was open before you talked of breaking it open?” he said “no, he did not wish to disturb his Mistress.” I cannot charge my memory whether, whilst the Potter was examined, he said any thing about what the alarm was, that the boy Foreman gave him.” Now, gentlemen, this is the whole of the evidence on both sides, if you don’t find any material inroad in the examination of either the boy or Mr. Patrick, you will have to say whether the Defendant be or be not guilty, upon their evidence you will have to say whether you believe the boy’s statement, which is in substance this,—that when he was asleep he was awakened by the indecent application to his person and his private parts, of some person’s hand, who said, in a feigned female voice, “Adam don’t you know me, I am your Mistress.” The boy swears most positively that the voice was that of the defendant, and he also swears to his person,—taking this along with you, that there was no other male in the house. The point for your consideration is, supposing this attack to be made upon his person, was it made with the abominable intention charged in this Indictment? If you are of opinion that the person who made this attempt made it with an intention to commit the crime alledged, then the next question for your consideration is,—was it made by the defendant Mr. Church? The prosecutor says, that he had an opportunity of observing the person who entered the room: he was a man of the defendant’s size; it was not the person of Mrs. Patrick nor of the maid, and there was no other man in the house. The other material evidence is, that of Mr. Patrick, who states the communication which he had with the defendant—he says, the defendant contradicted three particulars of the boy’s statement: but, the contradiction does not go to the fact of his having been in the room. He admits that he was in the room. Then if he was in the room for what purpose was he there? What excuse is there to be found for his being in the room? If he was in that room, for what other object could he be there than that which this boy states?—Can you suppose that the boy’s story is the mere invention of his own brain, or the creature of his own imagination? If you find the fact admitted on all hands, that the