”
“I have done, sir,” said Mr. Lippet, probably relying on the charge of
the Judge, as he again seated himself, with the air of a main who felt
that his success was certain.
When Mr. Van der School arose to address the jury, he commenced by
saying:
“Gentlemen of the jury, I should have interrupted the leading
questions put by the prisoner’s counsel (by leading questions I mean
telling him what to say), did I not feel confident that the law of the
land was superior to any ad vantages (I mean legal advantages) which
he might obtain by his art. The counsel for the prisoner, gentlemen,
has endeavored to persuade you, in opposition to your own good sense,
to believe that pointing a rifle at a constable (elected or deputed)
is a very innocent affair; and that society (I mean the commonwealth,
gentlemen) shall not be endangered thereby. But let me claim your
attention, while we look over the particulars of this heinous
offence.” Here Mr. Vain der School favored the jury with an abridgment
of the testimony, recounted in such a manner as utterly to confuse the
faculties of his worthy listeners. After this exhibition he closed as
follows: “And now, gentlemen, having thus made plain to your senses
the crime of which this unfortunate man has been guilty (unfortunate
both on account of his ignorance and his guilt), I shall leave you to
your own consciences; not in the least doubting that you will see the
importance (notwithstanding the prisoner’s counsel [doubtless relying
on your former verdict] wishes to appear so confident of success) of
punishing the offender, and asserting the dignity of the laws.
Pages:
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623