Viewing page 191 of 243

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

6

cause; to prove, for example, where the corn sent to Mill was obtained, or if it had been in the house prior to the larceny, or eventually, whether the accused had any knowledge, whatever about the affair; but it is not at all unlikely that had the lawyer referred to above been presented, he knew of some available testimony which would have been material in the Defense. I am all the more inclined to this belief from the fact that since the acquittal of the two first named parties the wife has made several attempts to recover the meal, which had been seized, the corn from which it was made she persists in saying, having been honestly hers &c She was however told she would have to wait until her husband was tried.

Throughout the whole of this trial, it failed utterly to be proved that the corn in question had ever entered Defendants house, or, even presuming that sent to Mill to have been the same, that he had knowledge whatever of the affair, in any manner; and it has been shown that the latter did not ever reach the house as meal, on its way from the mill. No corn was traced to, or found about his house. No one of the family has ever been heard to breathe a word that would lead to the slightest suspicion, in that way, against any of them. His wife & Daughter have been previously tried and acquitted on a charge of stealing this very Corn. No attempt was made in this last trial to prove nor was it (I take it for granted) [[strikethrough]]been[[/strikethrough]] proved, even then, that they actually did steal it; and still, on the mere assumption (for it cannot be otherwise) in the face of an acquittal, that it was stolen as alleged, by them & the inordinate presumption that, [[strikethrough]]the accused[[/strikethrough]] as head of the family, the accused must certainly