It is true, indeed, that in one of these letters he says that he had no
accession to any of their depredations except the last, which is laid
hold of as a direct acknowledgment of the crime. But, gentlemen,
supposing the word depredation could not be otherwise explained, where
is the evidence that the crime in question was the last of which these
abandoned ruffians were guilty? and if there were such, it would not be
conclusive. The word depredation is generic, and may as well apply to
the depredations of the gaming-table as to acts of theft or
house-breaking; and as there is but too much reason from the evidence,
particularly the process at the instance of Hamilton for defrauding him
by false dice, to believe that this unhappy man was not altogether free
from accession to depredations that may at the gaming table have been
committed by those persons against such as were unfortunate enough to
fall into their hands, why should you, gentlemen, to reach the life of a
fellow-citizen, construe so equivocal an acknowledgment, couched in so
general terms, as applicable to a particular act of guilt; for the proof
of which, against this prisoner, you have nothing but the most
exceptionable of all human testimony, contradicted by the most direct
proof of _alibi_.
But this is not all. The terms of this acknowledgment, as repeated in
the last of these two scrolls, exclude even the possibility that the
prisoner could refer, or mean to refer, to the breaking of the Excise
Office as the depredation to which he had an accession; for he expressly
says that he lost ten pounds by it; but how, in the nature of things, is
it possible that if he had been concerned in that affair he could have
thereby lost ten pounds, or any sum whatever, seeing Brown and Ainslie
have both sworn that the money was fairly divided, and that each of the
parties concerned received four pounds and some old shillings for his
share? To what other act of depredation, and whether to any committed at
the gaming table, these words refer, it is not for me to suggest nor are
you, gentlemen, bound to inquire; though it would seem that depredations
at the gaming table are the only attacks upon the property of our
neighbour that can be attended with patrimonial loss.
It is enough to exclude these scrolls, and also the letters, from
operating as evidence of the prisoner’s accession to the crime with
which he is charged, that the only accession they acknowledge is
inconsistent with the possibility of his guilt; and if he has been so
far misguided as to have been concerned with those infamous persons in
anything beyond that gambling connection, which he has all along
admitted, it must have been some other offence not yet discovered, or
not hitherto made the subject of prosecution; which, not being charged
in the present indictment, could not have affected the prisoner, though
a proof of it had come out in the course of his trial.
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