thing, that prisoner was the same person he knew in Haverstraw, that about two years ago he met the prisoner in the Bowery, at the time of the Harlem races; prisoner spoke to witness, and said, Am I not a relation of yours?" Witness replied, "I don't know." Prisoner said, "I am; I married Katy Secor." Upon cross-examination witness admitted that he and prisoner had had a quarrel respecting witness calling prisoner Thomas Hoag; that the above conversation was after the trial in the justice's court, and witness when asked if he was at the trial, said he was not, though when interrogated particularly whether he was not in the court room admitted that he was.

Samuel Smith was called, merely as to the character of one of the witnesses on the part of the prosecution, a Mr. Knapp, and testified that he bore an unexceptionable character.

Abraham Wendell testified, that he knew one Thomas Hoag in the latter end of the year 1800; he was then in Haverstraw; that he had been very intimate with him, and knew him as well as he knew any man; that he had worked with him, had breakfasted, dined, and supped with him, and many a time had been at frolics with him, and that the prisoner at the bar was the same man; that he had no doubt whatever about it. That about a year ago, witness being in this city, was told by some persons that Hoag had beat the Haverstraw folks in an action wherein his identity had come in question; that witness told them he could know him with certainty; that they said they would send him down to him that day; that witness was aboard his sloop, saw prisoner at a distance of a hundred yards, coming down the street, and instantly knew him; prisoner came up to him and said immediately, "Mr. Wendell, I am told you will say you know me"; to which witness replied, "So I do;

you are Thomas Hoag"; that witness was as confident prisoner is the person, as he was of his own existence.

Sarah Conklin testified, that she lives in Haverstraw; that in September, 1800, a person calling himself Thomas Hoag was at witness's house, was very intimate there, used to call her aunt; is sure prisoner is the same person; never can believe two persons could look so much alike; would know Hoag from among a hundred people by his voice; prisoner must be Thomas. Hoag; had not seen prisoner since he left Haverstraw till the present day.

Gabriel Conklin testified, that he lived in Haverstraw; that he knew Thomas Hoag; that he was at witness's house in September, 1800, and often afterwards; prisoner is the same person, unless there can be two persons so much alike as not to be distinguished from each other; prisoner must be Thomas Hoag; Thomas Hoag had a scar on his forehead and a small scar just above his lip, and prisoner had also these marks.

Further testimony was now produced on behalf of the prisoner, as follows:

James Juquar testified that he had known Joseph Parker, the prisoner at the bar, for seven years past; that he had been intimate with him all that time; that they had both worked together as riggers until Parker became a cartman; knew Parker when he lived in Capt. Pelor's house; never knew him absent from the city during that time, for a day, except when he was working on board one of the United States frigates, about a week at Staten Island. In the year 1799, prisoner hurt himself on board the Adams frigate, and then went to his father's in Westchester county, and was absent near a month; he was very ill when he left town; witness went with him, and brought him back again, before he was quite

man, and Mrs. Hoag vowed that she had lost her husband, and she would have him; but during this strife, a justice of the peace from the place where the prisoner was apprehended entered the Court, and turned the scale in his favor.

His worship swore him to be Thomas Parker; that he had known, and occasionally employed him, from his infancy; whereupon Mrs. Parker embraced and carried off her husband in triumph, by the verdict of the jury.

Jane Bolland deposed that she resided with her brother in Solomonterrace, St. George's-in-the-East.

On the 30th of September she went to live as barmaid at the Windsorcastle, public house, Holborn, kept by the prisoner. She slept in one of the attics, and the prisoner and his wife slept in the room underneath. The prisoner called her on the morning of Thursday, the 3d of October; when she came down to the bar the prisoner patted her on the cheek with something; he laid his hand upon her breast, and insisted upon kissing her. She threatened to inform Mrs. Cant of his conduct, and he said, "What the eye did not see the heart would not believe." He then wished her to leave the door of her room open that he might come in when he came to call her in the morning; but she told him that she was not the sort of person he imagined her to be, and left the parlor. In the course of the day her brother and a person named Balfour called upon her, and she communicated to them what the prisoner had said and done to her. Mr. Balfour said, that after what had passed he did not think the prisoner would again attempt to use indecent liberties with her, and her brother,

at the suggestion of Mr. Balfour, advised her not to leave her situation. Subsequently on that day she became unwell, and about eight o'clock in the evening she was conveyed upstairs to bed, but she was then so ill that she could not recollect who went up to her room with her. She was insensible when she reached her bed, but during the night she partially recovered, and then she found the prisoner at the bedside. He placed one of his hands upon her mouth to prevent her calling out, and a struggle took place and she fainted. There was a candle on the table in the room. About six o'clock in the morning she recovered her senses, and found her clothes, which had not been taken off, in disorder, and the bone of her stays broken. The offense charged in the indictment had been committed when she was in a state of insensibility. The prisoner was then standing at the door of her room, and she cried out to him, "You villain, you shall not come in." He answered, that she was a drunkard and should not again enter his bar. She went downstairs to inform Mrs. Cant of what the prisoner had done; but when she told that person that her husband had used indecent liberties with her, Mrs. Cant said, "I will not hear you, you drunken hussy." She immediately left the house, and went to her brother's, where she told what had happened to her. On the Saturday following she was examined by a medical gentleman.

On her cross-examination by Mr. C. Phillips, who appeared for the

prisoner, she stated that a young man named Joseph Edwards had slept at her master's house on the night of the 3d of October, and that he accompanied her home on the next day. He was a friend of Mr. Cant's, and she had observed him in attendance at the Court. She was subject to a swimming in the head, and was suffering from this complaint when she went to bed on the evening in question. She was not intoxicated, and had taken nothing during the whole day, with the exception of one glass of half-and-half.

The brother of the prosecutrix and Mr. Balfour, a wine merchant's clerk, corroborated that part of the evidence of the witness, which referred to her conversation with them; and Bolland further deposed, that his sister had some years previously suffered from a severe attack of erysipelas in her head, from the effects of which she had been for some time insane. She was still occasionally subject to determination of blood to the head.

The wife of Bolland, and the medical man referred to, both gave eviIdence which left no doubt that the offense which was complained of by the prosecutrix had been committed upon her person; and Mrs. Bolland declared that her sister-inlaw, when she saw her on the Friday, exhibited all the agitation which might be supposed to be incident to such an occurrence.

The prisoner was proved to have been taken into custody by a constable named Wells, when he said that he had "only kissed the girl"; and this closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Phillips then addressed the jury for the prisoner, and disclosed a most extraordinary defense on his behalf. He disclaimed all intention of impeaching the young woman's character, and was happy that he had no reason for making even an insinuation against her in regard to her conduct previous to this occasion. That she was deeply

to be commiserated he owned; and that she had come here to tell what she believed to be the truth, he had not the least doubt. The giddiness in the head had induced those who had only been acquainted with the girl for four or five days to believe that she was intoxicated; and it was most natural, for the swimming in the head would produce all the appearances of intoxication. She was taken upstairs by a servant of the prisoner, who would describe her appearance at the time, and she would also state, that the young man Edwards came to the door with her. That she had been violated, there was not the least doubt, but that the prisoner had committed the offense was by no means clear; and it would be his duty to call the young man, Edwards who, if he (Mr. Phillips) was rightly informed, would state that he was the guilty party. . . . After Mr. Cant had been committed, Edwards had called at the office of Mr. Williams, the solicitor for the prisoner, and made a disclosure which left no doubt of the innocence of the man at the bar. He did not mean for an instant to justify the conduct of Edwards, and it was a pity that he did not make all the amends in his power to the young woman. He was a young unmarried man, and might have done so. It was unlikely the prisoner committed the offense, for, if he had been guilty, it was not probable that he would have conducted himself towards the young woman as she had stated he had done in the morning after she had recovered from her illness. . . . The liberty he had used in the morning had induced the girl to suppose that he had committed the capital offense upon her during the night. . . .

Jane Hollier was then called, and on being sworn stated, that she was at the Windsor Castle public house, when this transaction was stated to have occurred; and at about eight o'clock she assisted the prosecutrix to bed. Witness thought

she was in a state of intoxication at the time. About twelve o'clock witness again went up to the bedroom of the prosecutrix, accompanied by Joseph Edwards. Edwards remained at the door while she went in. She asked him to come up with her, as there was only one candle. The poor girl was lying on the bed, with her clothes on, asleep; witness covered her with blankets. Witness was in the room about five minutes, and the door was closed during that time. When she came out she found Edwards at the door, and she gave him the light, and he went towards his bedroom. She neither saw the prosecutrix nor Edwards again that night.

Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus: The prosecutrix was not able to speak on her way upstairs. She heard the prosecutrix say to the prisoner, "You took liberties with me, you villain."

Mr. George Williams, the attorney for the prisoner, stated that he knew Joseph Edwards; that person came to his office after Cant was committed, and made a communication to him. The communication was made after the prisoner had been admitted to bail.

Thomas Shipton, potboy at the Windsor Castle, stated that the prosecutrix appeared to be intoxicated on the day in question. He saw her before she went upstairs, and she then presented the appearance of a person who had taken liquor.

Mrs. Sarah Goodchild, a washerwoman, stated that she was employed by Mr. Cant. She went up to the bedroom of the prosecutrix about nine o'clock on the night in question, accompanied by the prisoner and his wife. The girl was then lying across the bed, and witness, assisted by Mr. Cant, placed her straight upon the bed. They all left the room together. No light was left in the room.

Joseph Edwards was called and examined by Mr. Phillips: He was a bootmaker, and formerly slept at

He now

the house of the prisoner. resided at No. 2, Fenton's-buildings. He was in the habit of visiting the prisoner's family occasionally, and he slept there on the 3d of October, when the girl Bolland was there. She went upstairs, he believed, between nine and ten o'clock. She appeared then to be intoxicated. He saw her the next morning about half past six o'clock, and went to her brother's house with her. They went down Chancery-lane, along Fleet-street, and over Blackfriars Bridge. He told her that was the way to the Commercial-road, believing she lived near the Commercialroad, Lambeth; but it appeared that it was Commercial-road East, she wished to go to. After the prisoner was committed, he called at the office of Mr. Williams, and made a communication to that gentleman, which was true. He made a similar communication to a friend of the name of Murphy. He went into prosecutor's room about eleven o'clock on the night of the 3d of October. He had no light with him. She was in bed. Edwards proceeded to state that he had criminal intercourse with the girl, and he felt it his duty, when the prisoner was committed, to inform Mr. Williams of what he had done.

Cross-examined by Mr. Adolphus : Witness was out of employment at the time of this transaction. He knew Mr. Cant, and the first time he slept at the Windsor Castle was on the 3d of October. He had known Cant for four or five years. He had lodgings at Bartholomewclose on the 3d of October. When he staid at the Windsor Castle late, he was asked to sleep there. The girl did not appear at all unwilling to submit to the intercourse; but on the contrary, appeared quite willing. He had not gone to bed before. was not covered with blankets. He heard all that had been stated that day, when the prisoner was examined before the justices, but he did not then mention a word of what he had

She