Newspaper of The New York Herald, June 14, 1842, Page 1

Newspaper of The New York Herald dated June 14, 1842 Page 1
Text content (automatically generated)

TH V?L VIII.? !! . l(U.?Wholt No. 3014. Co art of Oyer and Terminer. Before Judge Kent and Aldermen Bali* and Hatfield. SlVTU DiV Jctn* IS.?The arrangement* made thin morning for the admission of the reporters and others who had business at the Court, were admirable. The room was as crowded as ever, but the arrangements being better than heretofore, there was much lew confusion. Among the audience were a Urge number of ladies who had come out of curiosity to see this Beau Hummel of a Forger. The Judge and Aldermen entered about a quarter after ten, but the Court was detained until eleven o'clock, awaiting the arrival of one of the Jurors. The Court having been opened and the Jurors having all answered to their numss, Mr. Whiting resumed his address: By remarking that after a day of rest they were again called to the consideration of the evidence in this most important cause, to which nearly one week's deliberation had been given by them. Gentlemen, (said he) I have during the past day endeavored to discharge the evidence entirely from my mind, and 1 approach this subjeot as free from deliberation as any of you, and as you were much fatigued as well as myself, 1 trust you will bear with me if 1 occupy more of your time. To return to the consideration of this cause. You will remember that the learned counsel acknowledged that if it was proved that Edwards was in Baltimore on the Slst August, and in Richmond on the 2nd September, then there was no doubt as to his guilt. And if it was not sustained h?t 1.- *U _i :.i -e .l ;iv ?iu> uin in uivmc |qu;c9 vr nuicr ui mem m. the time mentioned, then he must be found guilt/ of the charges against him. Mr. Whiting then commented on the statements which hud been made that Monroe Edwards could not have him in those places, showing that he might have been there ana received possession of the letter from Alexandria by means of nn agent. .They have slated that this is disproved, by what they say is the fact that he was not in Baltimore at all on that day. but was in New York at the Waverley House, ana for this they rely on the register of that house, and the letter dated on that day from that house to Charles F. Johnson. The whole course of testimony shows that Johnson is a false, base, and perjured person, and the letter bears internal evidence of its falsity upon its face. Mr. Whiting then commented upon the apparent discrepancy between the signature on the registers, tee., ana the disagreement between his usual method of writing his names in the registers, and that in which it is written at the Northern Hotel, in conjunction with that of Belcher, which is written in a different hand-writing. There is no evidence that he either supped, or stayed, or slept at the Northern Hotel. Where did he sleep 1 Could he not lay his finger on a sinele'soul out of the 900,000 existing in this city! You nave nothing presented here to you but the semblance of truth, which you are asked to receive as evidence, and allow it to weigh with you. We have been asked why we did not make Edwards a confederate instead of a principal 1 Why, we have shown you all the evidence we have, and do they point out any other person as having been the perpetrator of these crimes 1 This is the only person on whom we have found evidence, which shows he is the person who committed them. What man does our testimony point the linger at other than Monroe Edwards'? in his possession is found an amount of money nearly corresponding to that stolen. He had a similar amount of notes, and a similar amount of gold. Even if we could have proved that another person had received the letter at the postofiice. and had handed that letter to Monroe Edwards, that would be no proof that he was an accessory, or that ha had any knowledge of the ffililtv naps tn urkinh tkut latt*v ?a ha r?.i? U? might have employed an innocent person to have done this, as it has happened in ilngl&nd that one pereon intending to poison another, luinded the poison to a boy who knew nothing of its being poison, and by whom it was handea to another than the party for whom it was intended, and in that case it was a serious argument whether the party who had sent the poison was guilty of murder, as another person had been killed Inan -.the one intended. Mr. Ellis sees that it is not the handwriting of Edwards in the hook at the Waverly House. But **ufre Mr. JBelcherl He was his friend and acquaintance. .neicner, oouonra, no an honest man?for he was careful enough to pay his bill. If this Belcher is the same man thac Miss Phillips speaks of. was not his testimony as important and more so than the evidence of Lncle Chariest We couldn't issue a commission to examine him or any . one. But the prisoner could examine any one where?in the Desert of Zahara?or in Kamschatka by a commission, if he pleased. Again, this Johnson would not tell the name of the vessel he arrived at Havana in. Why t Because by that name we could have traced him, and seen under what name he went out, and all about him. As to the money recovered, it is 97000 lew than we lost. But Edwards had time to dispose of some of these funds for future emergencies. And his appearance here from day to day dressed as no honest man who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow would dare to appear?snows to you that he has still plenty of money at Wis command. Why did he say when he was arrested, " Am I arrested for the Texas forgery." Show me another honest Kentuckian who wonld have done that. I mean to mv nothing against Kentucky. We have men in New York as | bad as men well can be. We have thieves and , murderers at large who ought to be in the States' Prison, and who ought to be hung?and who are not j in the States' Prison, and who are not hung?and I presume it's the same in the State of Kentucky. Look at Mr. Elder's testimony. He is a minister of ( the Gospel, and knows little oi the world ; and the , education of ministers of the Gospel is so bad, that , they are not taught to know any thing of a world ( they are sent to reform. They do'not go to political , meetings, and that's the very place where they ought to go, where sin most abounds. Elder says ne saw ( him at Baltimore the morning of August 31?that he j had come from Washington that morning, and was : going back to Washington that nignt. Well, . here are the way-bills from Washington to : Baltimore that morning, and on it is the name fiVfonroe Edward*." And on .the way-biD to- , ing back that night, is the name " Caldwell." Now where was he from the evening of the 30th of August to the 6th ol September, when he retained to Miss Phillips. He was to be married to her, and : yet was absent that time from her without writing i to her. On the book at Richmond, on the 1st of September, is the name or Caldwell, La., Room . No. 17. The next day he ai*!ied about the banks, ] and on the morning of the 3d sf Sept. he left that hotel, and that landlord (Clendening)&nvears that Edwards is the man. But again, on the book of the hotel at Frederick, Maryland, on the 3d of Sept. is the name M. Edwards. La. Well, if he was J there that night, he coald not have been at Richmond that morning. But the keeper of the hotel E at Frederick sava he don't know how that name [! came on his book, and that no such man ever staid . at his house. This, then, was put there to prove an ,i alibi. This defence has been got tip with such consummate art and skill as can only be paralleled by l the nature of the forgery itself. The magnitude of this should m ike you trebly cautious. Ifthe com- |( inanity see that jurors cease to be influenced by the c weight of evidenoe, they will strike the trial by jury from the statute book. No doubt Monroe Edwards once did honor to Kentucky?to the house where |( he was born. But his being born in Ken- ,| tucky doesn't make him a Kentuckian?he's no e mare a Kentuckian than any Jof us are. Mr. J: Whiting then read Edwards' two letters to Harry 9 Wilde and commented on them vary severely. He also commented on the fact of Edwards not bringing lorward any proof of his good character, and ,1 read the law on thin rabiect from " Roscoe on Crim- ' inal Evidence," and also on the subject of personal H identity. Hs said?I submit this case. I am ear nest that you shall come to a correct conclusion? l! not only on account of this case but of others. It is ? not a question whether Edwards is to be punished or not?it is not a question of 940,000. It has ceased ? to be a question of gneat moment to him. It is a ? question of life or death to ten men?it is a question , whether they are to be charged with penury or not. J It is whether these men are to return to the bosoms u of their lovely and virtuous families and say we've t( been to New York and swore honestly to the truth, p and twelve men wouldn't believe us. Do agTee in js this eausc?either one way or the other?do agree, above all thing', and let this cause be terminated. ,| Either for weal or woe. Convict him if the evidence ^ is sufficient, and if not, acquit. Come to some con- n elusion?let me of you not to disagree; bat | n, bmtto mr mp otneni oi me judiciary?tor tne credit h of the country. _ Evxvnro Session. ,1 Th* excitement was not so great this afternoon ; \ but there was a great crowd of beautiful women in tendance. Precisely at seven minutes past four ? .! i ige Kk>t rose and delivered the following:? r Judge Kent's Charge, (, Otvn.K.incv of tux Jury?My remarks will neces- < sarily be somewhat extended. I shall endeavor to g tnake them brief. I hope that none of you will re- ^ main standing longer than yon find it convenient.? i, The prisoner at the bar, gentlemen of the jury, c stands indicted for forging an instrument, and also ? ' for uttering that instrument when forged, knowing t| E NE" T X it to be so. There are three counts in this indict- i i ment. The first charges the forging this instrument, I I the letter of the 10th of August, li&tl to Maunsell, i White Co. to have been done in the city of New 1 i Orleans?the second count charges the forging to i have been dope in the city of New York, and the ] third count charges the uttering of this iustru- ( ment,- knowing it to be forged, to have been done in the city of New York. Now there | is a bare possibility that it may have been forged iu the city of New Orleans, but no evi- l dence on that point has been laid before you, and i therefore you may dismiss the consideration of the first count entirely from your minds. The points then which you must consider are the forging of the instrument in the city of New York, and the utter- t ing of it when forged in the city of New York. If there is evidence of the prisoner being guilty on either of these counts you will find accordingly. The great stress is laid on the utterance < of this instrument. Now a very few words will suffice as to the law of this case; tor as to that there I can be little difference of opinion. In the year 1H30 ' a principle of law, until thut time novel in our juris- i prudence, that, namely, of dividing rrimes into de i greeax was introduced; forgery, which received the 1 especial attention of the revisers, was divided into | kiciii urgicci, k/|i-hi;ii *'I wniriiwn? nuixeu a (111ferent degree of punishment. To the first degree was awarded a period of not less than ten years t imprisonment in the State Prison?to the second, a period ?t? not leas than live years, and to the third, a period not exceeding five ycara. It is under die third degree that the present indictment is brought. New, of course,without distracting your attention bv any ri-ference|to the two first degrees of forgsry.I will i read from the statute book the provision respecting the third. It is as follows:?"Any person who, with intent to injure or defraud, shall fulsely make, i niter, forge, or counterfeit any instrument or writing being, or purporting to be, the act of another, by which any pecuniary demand or obligation shall be, or purpevt to be, created, increased, discharged, or i negotiated, or by which any right or pro|>crty shall be, or purport to be, ?Vc., the punishment ol which is not within the degrees before prescribed, shall be guilty'ot- forgery hi the third degree." Now it ia conceded that thisiletter was such an instrument as is pointed out in the statute. It was an instrument by which a pecuniary demand to a very large amount ($25,000 1 believe) was created. The forging of such an instrument then was forgery in the third degree. Then in a subsequent paragraph of the statute we find that every person who shall be convicted of uttering such an instniment shall suffer the same punishment us if guilty of forging said instrument. Therefore you see that whether you find that lie i forged this instrument or uttered it, the punishment is the same, the offence being essentially the same. < Now, perha|?s, it may be proper to explain the technical term "utter, and then with one other remark my duty as to the law of the case will be j discharged. lie is charged with having uttered this i instrument. Now this " uttering" is thus explained i by the Supreme Court:?"Uttering," says Judge i Cowan, giving the opinion of the Court, anil quoting an English writer, ! is any distnisal or negotiation I of a Forged instrument to another person." He quotes other authorities on this point, among them the definition of the term in Johnson's Dictionury, " to vend, pubjish, sell," Sec. Thinking Tomlinson's explanation of the term too large, .fudge Cowan comes finally to the conclusion that the instrument must be "negotiated" frith a J'rutuMent intent, i Then there is another, and other, principle of law to which I must advert. You observe that i both these counts of the indictment charge the act to have been committed in the city of New York. Now, tofiiid the prisoner guilty of this act, you must i believe that the prisoner forged it herein the city of New York. But, as I observed before, the chief i offence is the "uttering" the " negotiating" of the | instrument to another oerson, and though that hud i been done abroad, yet he may be guilty under the I statute. The case to which f have recently called your attention was a very celebrated one, in our ju- I risprudence, and one of recent occurrence?it was that of Benjamin Rathbone?a name almost < historic from the magnitude of his offences. The proof in his case was that he put the forged I instrument into the post office of the city of New I fork, and the court then came to this principle, that i the crime of uttering or publishing is not complete 1 -?.;i .u- p-M-v, ;Q transferred or comes to the hands I of some other person tnan tnc lelon, ana till it i reaches the person to whom sent. Now, 1 trust you i understand all the law ou this point. If this note i was forged by Monroe Edwards in the city of New York, ne is guilty?if " negotiated," that is I given to Brown, Brothers Ac Co., then he is guilty i of uttering it. If it was nut into the post office at i New Orleans and reached Brown, Brothers Ac Co., i then he is guilty. Or if it was put into the post I office at Alexandria, or at any of the intermediate I places, and reached Brown, Brothers Ac Co., then i he is also guilty of uttering it in the city of New i York. The principle comes down to this, that if he i by any means whatever put this note in a course of I transmission to Brown, Brothers Co. ut New Or- t leans, Alexandria, or any of the intermediate places i between those cities and the city of New York, or t by an innocent agent, then he isguilty of the offence t under the statute. The luw lies in a narrow com- 1 pass. I have now very briefly, and I trust sufficiently f explained it to you. There is nodifficulty, I believe, ( about the law: of that you are the judges. 1 Here I would gladly leave the case, which has r been prepared with great industry, and argued with i surprising talent. But although not so absolutely ? my duty to sum up the evidence as it is to pro- 1 (... t?. l~i?: > - >.<?ave uiv ian( iicici UIC1C0K II IS Illy (1UIV SO 10 OO. [ I am aware that you are much exhausted ; and as i for myself, I must confess that I address you under 1 circumstances of great physical and mental fatigue, \ after this protracted trial, coming as it has, at the * close of the term. Still I will endeavour to dis- g charge my duty in nil points. The prisoner, gentle r men of the jury, was arrested on the 2d ol Oct., e 1 <11, and taken before Recorder Vaux, of the City i tit Philadelphia, on the charge of having defrauded r Brown Brothers and Co. of 825,000 and upwards;hav- t mr received that amount of money in Baltimore,Ma- r viand, and Richmond, Virginia. The first enquiry c n a criminal case is, has there been crime com- r milted 1 That the instrument is forged of course r we have the moBt conclusive evidence on earth?the n rvidence of Shaw, a member of the house of Maun- n ell, White and Co., who pronounces it a forgery ; it ind also of his own particular signature?that mode a n which the address of the house was put by > limself. But there are certain other circum- tl nances which attended this crime to which si rour uttention ought to be called, because fc 'rota the crime itself certain inferences may be h Irawn, directing your attention to the criminal. I w vould remark here, that this is a case e sentially ol gi rircuinstuntial evidence. There is very little direct w iroof. S*ome indeed there is to which 1 will in due L touree direct your attention; but still there is no w lositive proof?that is, there is no person brought bi orward who saw Munroe Edwards forge the paper, c< f he did forge it?no one who saw htm utter it? tli hat is, if he aid uttar it. You are here to arrive at hi hat conclusion, by carefully considering the cir- w umstances of the case; and the question will then in e, whether these circumstances are so clear in b? heir inferences, so fertile in their deductions, as to A ?ave a jury without anv rational doubt as to the v< riminal. 1 emphasize that word "rational," he- V ause it is no wavering donbt?no transitory cloud w oesing over a juror's mind which must influence ?.i in decision; it muit be a rational doubt firmly net- tl< ins itself in his mind. Turn, then, your attention, di ntlemen, for a few moments to this crime itself, w ndsre what inference it affords. Here, then, on the T th of July, 1811, a letter is put into the Poet office, ct t Philadelphia, directed to Maunsell, White Ac Co. w f New Orleans, and on that day according to w he testimony of witnesses not to be disputed, the ht risonerjwas at Jones' Hotel. This letter says te hat the writer, calling himself " Hugh M. Hill" e* i with a brother, I think, who is proprietor of w large cottan estate in Philips Co. Arkansas?that lie ie has been recommended by his friend, Mr. Gray w f Richmond. Va., to this house?that it is ncceasa- cii f for bim to nave the usual supplies given by mer- fo nantiuo planters? that he fc now at the north get- dn ing engines?asks if any at the members of the vc rm will be on at the north, and if not, wishes to lb now the name of their correspondent in New York sp ? whom he could remit. This letter is receiv- su d by Maunsell, White A* Co. and an answer Hi i transmitted giving the great end of the plan pe i this case?the name of Maunsell, Whiti Ac Co ? th ie signature?and what was also, llie fri arnf of their correspondent in New-York. The or ext is the celebrated letter in question?a Utter th urporting to be from Maunsell, White Ac Co. to th irown. Brothers Ac Co., written on the 10th of Au- w ust, 1841. It introduces one John P.Caldwell to rj leir favorable notice as being then on a visit to th 'irginia, speaks of him as one of the " fttr" I eni- m hsair.e that, f r you recollect the Rpelling of the ti< ,-ord?who amongst the wreck and ruin ofplanting ge redit remains firm?speaks of him as having 1011 or ales of cotton weighing 465,060 pounds?being m .,.,.,1 ......... ? - ?....i J ' - .. .... , .. .. viiii' ii-iin, aim wurin ai least gtj rfiO.OOfl?reouests the Browns t* assist their friend, ap fr. Caldwell, and if they can do no better, author- U? <ing Caldwell to draw on them for n sum not ex- di ceding #30,000, at not less than thirty days ? rii tbaerve the minute accuracy of ihcse de- w] uk, and the intimate acquaintance this per- w W YO VEW YORK. TUESDAY J son, whoever he wns, displays of transact ions, both at the north and south. He addresses Maunsell, White A: Co., in language which completely deceives them, and leads them to supimse hiin a person well acquainted with planting?sjieaks of his presence in Virginia, calls their attention to Mr. Uray, of Virginia?-doubtless well-known in New Orleans; speaks of the implements he intends to [jet; showing that he is well acquainted with Louisiana, Arkansas, and with ull the business of cotton planting?acquainted, in short, with the circumstances, mode, and manner of a planting life, and all the peculiarities of the Bouthern section of our country. Turning to Brown Brothers ik Co , find this same person exhibiting n remarkable acquaintance wiili mercantile transactions at the north. He writes to Brown Brothers and Co. as a New Orleans merchant would write to a New York merchant. He mentions the number of bules of cotton, the number of pounds (465,060) no doubt that corresponds with the average weight of cotton bales. The quality is spoken of in technical terms. The request of bills of exchange to be drawn on.Maunsell. White A' Co., incuse Brown Brothers it Co. should incline to give this man the accommodation he asked, is given in the usual technical terms. I ficjcs* v/it jrwm uiciuury uic mum wmuii uniiitanfu this plot. The letter is successful. Brown, Brothers Co., whose transactions ure over the world, ure equally deceived with Muunsell, White Co., und a letter is received from their confidential clerk accepting the proposal of Muunsell, White A* Co. Then we will find Caldwell writing them the letter which was the immediate introduction to the fraud. He sends them on t wo hills of $13<XJ0 each, and requests the in to he discounted, and the funds remitted to him, and sending them an order on the cotton, which he says if they wish could be transmitted to their correspondent in Liverpool, showing here an acquaintance with the agents of the house abroad. The funds were then transmitted, and this man, whoever he is, receives them, and pockets the proceeds. Still the plot is not complete, and to other portions of it your attention must be directed, as pointing out the individual who consummated the fraud. He has received the money, and now his persona! qualities are called into requisition. lie has got the dangerous gift of checks payable by hanks to the order of John P. Caldwell, and he has got to encounter the Argus eyes ot hankers, whose attention is of course especially directed to persons drawing large sums of money. But all these difficulties this person surmounted by a dexterity and address equal to thai ingenuity and skill by which the first part of the plot was concocted. A stranger 'presents himself one morning at the hank in Baltimore ; lie is challenged, and is told that the checks which he offers cannot he paid; he presents himself at another bank, and the same objection is made ; he will not be (>aid, because he is not known. These objections he met with the ready address of the most consummate artist. He was not offended?he was not loud nor overbearing?he showed no uneasiness at objections with which all men of business are familiar; he received the objections with strict propriety?expresses his regret that he is not known, and proposes to bring the best evidence. He goes to Mr. (icorge Brown, and he satisfies the bankers. He talks to them about gold as he easily leans over ine counter; ne carries it otlttiroughout with an ele- i pant nonchalance which entirety deceives them: he ] pjays the same finished part with the banks in Vir- i ginia; he receives the money,and the plotiscomplete. t Now, who was the person who done all this? Cir- i cumstances point to an individual, and certainly it i would be surprising if one in whom all these tnet i were not found guilty. The criminal in this case i must have been well acquainted with the south and | New York?he must have been a person of ready iddress?of striking personal a|>|>earance?of great i presence of mind?and of most imperturbable com- 1 >osure. And if you find all these things, then, at least, some advance is made in this investigation < which we are endeavoring to conduct. Before I leave this matter. I would remnrk however, that when 1 said this plot was completed when John P. ' Caldwell received this money, I was in error. A 1 rery material point yet remained to be done. He taa got notes from the banks in Virginia and Balti- | more?they might have what lawyara call a " ear- i nark." (iold could not be identified?the notes I might. This Caldwell, whoever he was, had i taken large bills in Virginia and also in Baltim'ore. Those hills, tr?m peculiar circum- i stances, or circumstances applicable to all Araeri- i can banking institutions, could not be negotiated abroad. Could I suppose a person like him to have forgot anything, I would say he made an error in getting so large hills. He should have got smaller ones, which could have been more easily transferred. This person then had another part yet to per- { Form. He had got the money?he had so far per- i rected his plot, with a dexterity that excites admira- ] ion amid all our condemnation?still he had not i lone all. He had to change these bills into funds < which would not attract notice, and could not be < raced. A retired country place could not afford the ? equisite facilities?in Baltimore there were too i many eyes on him, and therefore the natural rc- < lources were Philadelphia or New York. Gentle- l lemen, how far does the proof go in this case ! I Positive testimony as to the committal of the 1 orgery I said we could not expect. Forgery is a < rime which naturally and of course seeks secresy. < Nevertheless handwriting presents testimony whicn | icarly approaches positive proof. Before proceedng to that point let me re in a "k, that to mv mind it 1 ipears that there was in all the plot one presiding spirit 1 3ut I see nothing incompatible with that idea that the & erson may have had the assistance of subordinate*. * Vnd another thins I inuy say is, that the person who c lad the consummate ability to etfect these plans? t vho had a countenance not a muscle of whicn mov- t *d, and nerves equal to the emergency of any occa- c iion?he would be wanting to himself if, when ur- r ested and brought before anv tribunal he would not t xhibit a well-constituted defence. That dexterity r s not gone?that memory which took such accurate c lote of time?which knew the arrival of the post and t he departure of the mails, and when a letter should e each its destination, anil when an answer would s ome back?which arranged any detail with, as I a night sav in! the words of the counsel, the dexte- s ity of a Napoleon?all these are still active, and you v eed not be surprised that that person, whoever he n nay be, is capable of making a defence correspond- si ig to the ingenuity and talent which char- c cterired the crime for which he is tried. t< iow, as to the handwriting, Lewis Tappan says ^ lat he thinks the letter to Maunsell, While fc Co., tl ignod H. S. Hill, is in the handwriting of Monroe A idwards. Recorder Vaux, in his evidence, says he si as no doubt that it is Monroe Edwards' hand- si 'riling. Now, what are the opportunities these I "ntlcmen had of knowing his Ifcndwriting, nnd ri hether it resembled those given in evidence, li ewis Tappan had received notes but he said he si as not sure whether he had ever seen him write, ir ut he thought he had. At all events, he had re- b ived severaj notes which he knew to be his from ai ic fact of their being received by his boy Henry, as ci s was called. Recorder Vaux had seen him ol rite often and had good opportunities of form- ai If his judgment, and he had no doubt of its rt >tng his. Vaux is confident it is written by him. sc gain, gentlemen, there are others who say, nnd w *rv justly, too, that the letters signed Maunsell, iu fhiie & Co..and those signed John P.Caldwell,are re rittenina disguised hand, which can hardly be ir tid to belong to one person or another. Rut, gen- $ rmen, it is nevertheless a fact, that there may be tc acoveredina disguised handwriting peculiarities re hich will enable you to diatinquisn the writer, th here may be an idiosvncracy of the writer?a pe- ui mar personal cnaracier ?iven to n woraorto some se orda which may lead to the detection of the et riter. Again, on the other hand, gentlemen, you a ive the testimony ofSamuel Lilts, a witneaa whose ei stimony is entitled to every respect, and on whose It idence the defence have relied to prove his hand- m riting in important instances, and he does not he- th sve it to be the handwriting of Monroe Kd- V ards. Then, gentlemen, there is another slight hi rcuinstance to which I will direct your attention ; w r although it is a slight circumstance, still it is my h? ity to direct your attention to it, as it may assist th >u in arriving at or discovering the author of these so rged letters. This is the nlleged peculiarity in the vn riling of the word " few." In the forged letter bi cn?-d Maunsell, White <fc Co., to Messrs. Brown to others ir Co., this word is siielt /Vn*. The same of culiarity is found in the four letters, or rather the I rec letters written by Monroe Kdwards to his so ends. Two of these are to his friend Wild, and Tl ie to Winfrcd. No, I nuke an error, tine of ar em is to his friend Wild, one to Winfrcd, and wi e other to Smith, in London. These letters Ik ill be handed to you, gentlemen, and you will ia :amine them and ree lor yourselves. I have stated w! is circumstance to you, because, although some or iirnf think it one wlii-h Hid nnt Hc?enf? tli? I"1 in of the jury, yet it is one which may assist you th ntlcmen, in arriving at a pist conclusion, and it is so ip which ought to have due weight. Had spelling re ight not to convict a man, as thp learned counsel \V itedwith a mixture of argument and humor which th parently highly amused all who heard him. Hut 11 ore is this great distinction between tbespelling of m fferent persons. Two persons who qwll words Ai thtlv refer to the dictionary as the standard by wi hieh they regulate their ideas of the manner in hi hich words ought to b? spelt. Two persons, how- sig KK ti MORNING, JUNE 14, 184

ever, wht m>ell incorrectly have, no standard to which both refer. They have nothing which they take as a guide to a.-wist tneni.or by which they spell, and consequently their manner qi spelling, is vague, and mere personal |>eculiarity, without any standard whatever, and prculiarto the one individual. When, therefore, the formation of one word has a peculiarity. and you find that peculiarity in that word in other letters written by the same individual, 1 must call your attention, and direct you to the unlikelihood ot that extraordinary manner ol spelling being made use of by any other individual, for it will be seen that an individual whospells incorrectly, refers to a standard in his own mind, und which is not one that unother individual has access to. I remark, however, that there is one case in this book which I hot,l ..t il,.. c?... u;...i ...i.:_i. j:.i - ?i - l ?.?, ... .... ........ ixiuu, niMiuuiu iicrui, iuu wnerr a person was transported by proof afforded by bad spelling. I shall read it to you in order to show you how other Courts in similar circumstances, in other countries, have acted. It is an English book on circumstantial evidence, and contains a collection of all the most extraordinary cases on record. You, ger.tlemen, will pay attention to this case, for it is as interesting to you ns to lawyers, and I read it to you, as 1 think we should, in some measure, take such books for our guides, regarding them as Ido in the light of the collected wisdom of other countries and other ages. This is a case where a man 1 was indicted for feloniously writing a threatening letter to another |? (son, and which was said to be 1 in his handwriting Tin' counsel in this case for the defendant produced the prisoner's son on the ] stand us a witness, who confessed that the latter was in his own handwriting. In order to prove this, the o;>posing lawyers required htm to write from memory a copy of the letter on which the indictment was found. This he I did, and when it was examined it left no dount but that he was the writer of the original letter. It will be observed, that he did not write it verbatim front memory, but he wrote the substance of it; there was, however, in the copy the same bad spelling, and in the saint- manner as in the original letter. It was on the ground of the bad spelling being repeated 1 in the copy that the father was acquitted of the 1 charge, and the boy, being afterwards tried, was J convicted and transported on the charge, and in consequence of the bud spelling. You will observe 1 that the bad spelling here acquitted the father, and the bad spelling convicted the son, and the sjielling, you will nerceive, was th<- stiir in both instances, because tlte boy referred tosamo erroneous standard in his own mind. Gentlemen of the Jury?it is sufficient tor me to state this circumstance to you; whether yon will pay that attention to it which the counsel for the prosecution has laid upon it, or whether you will consider it a circumstance so slicht as to he undeserving thoi ...... e?.. tie men of the jury, are exclusively to sny. The next 1 circumstance to which 1 would call your attention 1 is this; on the 2d October, 1841, Munroe Edwards 1 isurrestcdin Philadelphia,and brought before Recorder Vaux. In his possession is found a trunk, 1 and in this trunk is discovered a large sum of 1 money amounting to $43,600. He had had this according to the scheme of the prosecution, in his 1 possession for exactly one month. Having by 1 the second of September received all this 1 money, and on the second of October being 1 arrested. We have, then, gentlemen, traced to the 1 possession of Caldwell $50,000 on the 2d September, 1 and we find in the trunk of Monroe Edwards $13,- ! S00 on the 2nd October, 1841. With respect to the 1 notes which were found in his possession, no ut- 1 tempt has been made at identification. It is to be regretted that Hanking arrangements here are not conducted with such minute regulations as of that ! great Hanking establishment, the Hank of England, 1 where the number and description ot each note paid I are minutely noted and entered. Such exactness j here would be much to be preferred, and would add ' to the difficulties {of acchieving fraud. In this case no attempt has been made at identification, and ! indeed Mr. Jamieson expressly stated that 110 num- ' here were taken, and therefore he could not identify 1 them, although the amounts of the notes were sinn- 1 lar. There are, however, certain indications of a j kind which the possessor of this money would he ' likely to adopt, and which may he of use as afford- ! ing us some indication of the course which he would . Follow. Of the money obtained, there was $8000 in notes of the Hank of Haltiinore, $25,000 on the j Bank of America, $4000 on the Bank of Virginia, i and $8000 <?n lb- Norfolk Hank. Now if our infe- i rences are just us to the character of the person who 1 received this money, the disposition of that person, with his experience too in these matters, would lead the possessor ofthe money to change the character of it as Boon and as much as possible; and if J no. P. Caldwell is the same with Monroe Edwards, die change which we should expect has occurred. For injthe character of the money in Edwards' trunk there is such a change, though there i is of the same kind remaining nevertheless sufli- I lient to characterize it. Now in the I i ibtained were notes of the Union Bunk, tlie Bunk 1 if Baltimore, Bank of Maryland, Bank of Virginia, J ind froni) Corrte was received 25,600 on the Bank , if America, by this same John P. Caldwell. Now, he money received at Baltimore and Richmond i tas undergone the same change which we should j ie led to expect by the wish of the possessor to se- ' :nre it from identification. The notes of the Hank 1 if America have diminished from y&'i.tiuO to .S8,(XK), ' hose of the Bnnk of Baltimore from 10,()U0 to 3.000. 8 fhe quantity of gold has increased, and notes of the 'hoenix Bank and National Bank of this city have teen substituted lor those of the others. You must t ilso renumber that these_ notes of this city were * qual to specie, so that if he could succeed in ' changing the character of the notes, if he ' ranslorined them into notes on this city they were * lie same to him as American gold. The amount r >f American gold found had increased, and differed [ Materially from that paid to .Fno. P. Caldwell by ' he boy Hanson, and a large number of British sove- ' eigns had been discovered, which were not ac- 8 ounted for otherwise than that lie had changed F hese notes for them. There is, however, that g n- 1 rul corespondence which would be expected, wiih " omc variation, which would likewise be ex lected, 8 nd it is for the jury to decide whether the circum- J tance of the |?ossession of this money is to be ' reighed against him. Now gentlemen, if this ino- ? ey is not accounted for, is it not a strong circum- s tance against the* prisoner! Not strong enough to ? onvict nim, hut certainly strong as corroborative 11 jslitnony to strengthen the case against him.? 1 Vith respect to circumstantial evidence, any thing s lat tends to strengthen the evidence is of weight. ? lS the Counsel hhlit with ??? ....? I trow is not sufficient, nor will twenty straws he J1 ufficient of themselves to convict the prisoner. '' do say however, that according to the strictest a lies of logic and reasoning, circumstances essen- P ally strengthen others, and where various circum- tancesarecollected andpluced togetherin a mass,the * iferences which it would argue are. the irnposM- ^ illtv thnt tlMM masses should OO-MMt, and point ?' II of them to the same person and the sumc train of [' trcuinstances. In France, indeed, where matters * f this sort are submitted to an arithmetical test, P1 nd the probabilities and improbabilities are accu- f itely calculated, it is reduced to a sort of problem, ? that you can ascertain the degree of probability ? hich each bears. Every inference which can be " stly drown, indeed vastly strengthens the infe- " mces against the prisoner. If, then, you find this C| inn at Philadelphia, wlwre he is arrested, with " 43,600 in his possession, portions of which answer * i the description of the money obtained, the infe- '* noes to be drawn from this transaction are, that hi le suspicions are increased only. Well, then, let i see now he has attempted to account for the jhw ssion of this money. On this we have only the ni ridence of Charles F. Johnson and Miss Phillips ; nd it is only with respect to this point that their ridence is important. Now, w hat is his account 1 V is this: That he was on the 2d of August at Haiti- >? ore ; and there appear* to be no reason to doubt " at he was at Baltimore on or about this time. fhile he is there, one Charles F. Johnson and he 01 ivc entered into some sort of a s|>eculation, a hereby he introduces some land, which he states longs to him, in Texas, and to the extent, as I ?< ink, of ten leagues ; and on the other part, John- TP n is to invest $50,000 in cash, and 250 negroes. P:l lined at #200 each ? the scheme being that of ivingslaves in Martinique, and transporting them Texas to cultivate cotton on the Texa? plantations Edwards. <>n looking over the putters m thiscase, " am impreyed with the idea that fh^re wn* V[ me speculation intended by Monroe Edwarda. he counsel who opened the rase for the defence id stated what the defence intended to brine for?rd as evidence, stated that the opinion of Mf. w' srryer, an eminent French Barrister, whose fame ?d not confined to France, but is spread over the jjP hole world, had Riven an opinion on the feasibility Jw practicability of importing slaves from the French ' ? ilonies and taking them to Texas. I think then "P at this was probable, and that there mitjht be loi me such scheme on foot. I believe in the corspondence with his friend Wild he speaks of the ?n rest Indies, and that he had a speculation afloat by ere which watfto five him mnfniheent results; and ha kinlc this is an altrmot likelv for thr Imld uaninns no in which he hn* provedliimaclt to be to enter upon. ?>< id I think thattnia 850.000 which he obtained, Jto m hut to be used an a fulcrum toward* enabling tal m to accomplish his ulterior and magnificent de- dif ;ns. The'ineation for your consideration is Una: Cfc [ERA 2 W as this the speculation which he entered into at Baltimore with Charles F. Johnson, anil was he a veritable partner, or un accomplice, who has in order to aid him and to support him by Ins evidence goue to Cuba to give this evideuee. but 1 think., gentlemen, the whole transaction bear.-- intrinsic as well as extrinsic evidence of its falsity in the very urticle purporting lo have been signed "at Baltimore, and w hich I think the jury will discover by their own discernment. The first question is that this instrument purports to have been executed on the 2d August, and n counterpart having that date is produced. Inordinary circumstances, in courts of justice, dates are taken to be correct und aa evidence of themselves. This is, however, but a weak inference, and it is a maxim of law that parties may be allowed to prove a date to un instrument or the day on which it was executed, und nothing is easier than for a witness to swear to a dute. This instrument, however, hears date the second of August. A respectable innkeeper at Baltimore, the keeper of the Eutaw House, swears, however, that he saw this instrument executed. When, however, he is aeked as to the time, he cannot tell, nut thinks it was either the conclusion of summer or the beginning of the fall. Edw ards, it was proved, was at Baltimore mi the 2d August, and also on the tth September, that was the time when he wenttofetch his nephew Hurd, und when Johnson and himself with that nephew to ihe Waverly House. 1 infer a* he w is at Fredericksburg on the 3d in the evening that he came to Baltimore oil the 4th Hnd went for his nephew, and cuine on with him to the Waverly II oase. The name of the nephew, it appears, is f);miel Alorenii Hurd. N'nui un ilu? Jib it was material for John P. Caldwell, whoever In* was, to account for the money which lie hud in hit possession Therefore, the scheme in the Weal Indies, would do extremely well, and may probably have suggested the idea that he came possessed ot the money on this plan. I hav always remarked that there is some admixture o| truth in false testiniony. It is rarely seen without some truth. A bold,' naked lie fis a [monster. which -Leeks at once and is rarely seen. Tin i? gen* rally mme mixture of truth, and ou tin* i*>itn n ! ' >>'!? faltrliood it piled iky high I IwIh \> . ' I ? l-u. , there was some ground for t'i >" W , tion, but it is for you to decidi ? ... In ? > ? t. Now gentlemen, our pro< l is the l?'i? ? -e1 however, mention that oueol i. m philosophers that ever turned u? . consideration of evidence . to- ? others as well as by lawy'ts. Vol. ? has remarked that letters are tin in sistants to evidence. Tltey are the guide* r i, and the landmarks which point out tiie land vln n nothing else can he seen. It is not e ntiul that these letters should be true, they may he lubricated for the purine of the evidence, but imprc *ed upon them is the character of the parties, and they tell ol that character at the time, and by them we meujure the statements which they may afterwards make, and the subsequent circumstances, we are enabled to judge of For this purpose, I this letter written by him which 1 shall read to you, und ay which we will compare these subsequent occurrences nnd statements. It is one which is apparently written in the openness of his heart and the fulness of his friendship to this Winnifrcd, and we shall find this a specimen of this kind of evidence. On the 2d August the prisoner says he received a.*),000 at Bahimore front Charles F. Johnson, and this he is put in possession of as the means of currying on this great speculation. Now, on the 2htli July, we find him writing from Philadelphia that he was that night going south, without huving at that time any expectation that in four days he wasto enter into Ihis great speculation which was to put him in ossession of #50,000, and without liis having any iniount in his possession ; more than that, we find liitn in January in London in a state of the most ibject degradation, us his letter to his friend Smith testifies, which contains something about bargaining for his watch. Here in Philadelphia, und 1 shall reau you me leuor, lie does not entertain any idea }f entering into this great (speculation, ami in fact is thinking of an entirely differentecheme from what ic now suya. f will, however, read it to you to show you now it is. Philadelphia, 28th July, 1841. Ob. Wixiexed,? Your letter of 24th has just come to h ind, enclosing one rom Prentiss. The husim-ss upon which I wrote you for he benefit of Miss , ha* been managed by herself, hereforo need not give you any further trouble. I have teen very unexpectedly detained here by tbe sickness of my nephew, hut shall leave hereto-r.iglit. 1 write to Mr. Prentiss by this mail, and have written to him where he can see me, and satisfied him that 1 have nth been hid aliout New York,a* he suppose*. As to Powell, I cannot supi>o*c that he can have any friendly regard for me after the unkind munner that he spoke of me behind my bark. I do not wish him any harm, but I have no desire to see him. I can do without him, and I have no doubt he will get on without any aid from me. Write me to New Orleans, cure of Win. H. B. Wills, or f you have anything of interest to write about between low and Friday next, write to me to this place. Hurd *111 be here until Saturday morning, and no will over, ake me in Prince William County, Va., where I shall stop or aJiev> days. Iflcan lie of any terrace to you. only let me know how; 1 1 had funds to any extent I would send you some, hut in iroviding for Mis* Kitty, and with Hurd's expenses ami nine, I find I shall have to call on my relations in the Old Jominion lor a couple of hundred, in order to get homo, j f you do not write before, write to Now Orleans as ibove. I am your friend, M. EDWARDS. I ^ow, gentlemen, this letter speakt of his feelings j icing entirely different from those of a person about ntering on such a speculation as he would have you irlieve. In this letter he states that he is going to Prince William County, and that he will have to vrite to his friends in the Old Dominion for a cou>!e of hundreds to enahle him to get home. Now his shows a great absence of expectation, thai lie las no idea whatever of this speculation, which is oput him in jiossession of .>;>),(*)(). About this abencc of expectation the same ihing is to be renarked in writing to his friend Wild. He speaks ? lilu lulfn. l? .fL..,:.. I.~ ? C..I I- -II .. ?v?ci *.*? nun v?? u.iviim urni puutvwiui m mi lis ojierations, and mnkcs use of what I suppose is i cant Southern phrase "that he hps his pocket full ?f rocks." Me snenks of this great VVestltidiu sp< caution, which I think Hoes exist, hut it is not in cvilence, and nothing that pointed to that as Icing the ource from whence he had this .> "*?,000, whie!i is ai'd to have been paid him on the lid August. Wh it s the condition of Charles F. Johnson tn relation o this matter? Ho says that he is the owner of 250 laves, which he values at #200each in Martinique Jow let us for a few moments consider what Msrinique is It is a small French Island, almost the nly,oneof her colonies in the West Indies which ii*ft to France, and is about thirty miles in length nd ten or fifteen broud. and contains hardly any laces but the two small towns of St. Pierre nnd t. Thomas. It is a small Island, shut out hy tlcra from connecton with any great extent of land, o small that any tierson possessing property to the xfent which this Johnson must if he is possessed of te 250 negroes mentioned fin net of necessity be nown; and yet he is found upon enquiry for the urpose of taking his examination before the comlission either in St. Pierre or St. Thomas, two very nail towns, to he perfectly unknown. It inny be lat he had contracted for the negroes which he iformod the person whom he intrusted with the loney that he had in his possesion; but, in that >se. lie might have brought evidence in support of This is a circumstance for the pirv to consider, hether this person who jwid #5*),(lfi0 to Monroe (I wards,was to deliver to him 260 negroes,must not ivr been well known on an island not so large as on* Island from his property and plantations in that nail island. His credibility is in some degree dnla^ed when a peno* of So much property cannot lotmd on this small island. Then* is anoth' r lina; to which your attention should he called, fhen this man is examined at Havana, in the land of Calm?we will put out of the consideraon of the case the informal document which has sen commented on? inasmuch as it is not under uh ; we will therefore put that entirely out of this me?when examined, lie shows this contract, by hich he delivered $00,000, and hound himself to liver two hundred slaves, and he also exhibits n ceipt fpr this money, which he says he has iid Monroe Edwards. When, however, he i* krd how he got and where he received this money, e witness refuses to fell, and says I trill not antirrr ilt/uetiion, yon hare noriffht to nrkthit /puttion, it not your hutinett, ami to on ; anti to '/went ton after rttifm he re/ntrt to antirer hi referenre to thi? part thi examination / ran only toy that if rwh rcplitt dbten given on thit tianil he irovlil turettarilu have >n tent to pritim, for lie gives the informal!! n lich is required on the one nide and refuaea to the ler what they want; and had the counsel made plication the whole of this commission would ve been excluded from the case. Thev however ve not done so, and it is hero for you to judge on. This question, however, is not important, had Charles F. Johnson been desirous of fhr ? - 1 ? light upon this suhieet he would have honestly ' ewered these questions, nnd had he been present: j our system of jurisprudence, the Court would ve comiwlled him to reply to those questions, nod tto withhold from the counsel on one side iniorition while he gave all he could to the other. J) u believe thin evidence as to the contract, you will te it into consideration, il not, the contract is imisaed from the evidence and you will dWniss laflea F. John.son from your minds. Another I ^ T JL J J . Price Two Crnti. i circumstunce which I must point cut to you is in relation to the _ gii! Phillips. All the counsel have united in Baying that there is nothing agaimrt her or her character. 1 know nothing about her ; but at all eventH her testimony stands ummpeached, and that evidence must be held by the jury us being entitled to credit. Against her character there is nothing, and gentlemen heve united in praising her up. 1 know nothing respecting her, and the counsel for the prosecution say they know nothing of her. Caroline Phillips lias, however, mentioned one fact of some importance. She say*that Monroe Edwards offered his hand in matrimony, and that day he ottered to settle on her $>2<),0tNf. She fixes that day by paying that it was the day after Mr. Lurose left, and as Mr- Lares* left on the seventeenth or eighteenth of August, that would bring it down to the nineteenth August. If she :[id see $20,1)00 on that duy, it would go a great wuV to aceoutit for the powvssion of the money which he says he received from Johnson.? J believe, however, that when you have considered all the circumstances, you will find great singularity tliroiieli the w hole nt thin ipuni?ph?n 1? 1. the least of it, very unceremonious courtship, that he should offer his hand to a young and lovely girl, not 18 yearn of age,after a month's acquaintance,ana offer to settle twenty thousand dollars on her, and though it may be the custom in Louisiunna, it docs not prevail to any great extent in either Philadelphia or New York. Now it seems that between the 19th and 30th, she was absent from home on a visit to Bordcntown at least a week, and he also was absent from the 24th to the 28th. so that it would seem, in all, their acquaintance had heen three weeks old. In that short m uce of time he had courted this young lady, and had ottered *20,(100 to be settled on her. I pass from Johnson's testimony entirely in considering this, and dismiss it entirely from my mind. I look upon this young lady's testimony entirely apart from his. Now when they speak of dates, they do so by memoranda nindi' bv Miw Lucy Philips, for she says when lie It ft on ike 31st Jul v. and returned, she entered it in die lamk. When Miss Phillips swears by the day book, she undoubtedly swore to the truth, and theretore the counsel ure right_ in saying that the utmost confidence must be given to her statement*? a. to the times of his going and coining, becauaa 1 lb it she determines by antes. But when she swears n> ilie nfler of marriage, there is less confidence In- placed in what she says, because ii that she has no date to rider to. She swears "Mtively to the day the gloves were given?that -lie knows to have been ihe 30th of August. But the counsel, in order to fix the day of the otter, reler to another fact ; the day that Mr. Larose left; she swears it was the day before he left: andontreferring to the hook they find that he left on the 18th of August. In all this 1 urn referring to the testimony of Miss Caroline Philli|*>, and she is testifying, remember, under the strongest and deepest feelings that can possibly agitate tfie human breaRt. If sbe did not accept this man for her future husband, she certainly did not rriect him, and she bore towards him certainly no small portion of regard and affection. She sneaks then under f<plinrn die that any person can speak under in lavor of the prisoner at the bar. I mean, to say nothing, remember, igainst her; I would not insinuate for a moment that she does not speak the truth, for I know nothing of her, but at the same time 1 would point out that the deep feelings by which she must have been agitated, the favor with which she evidently rogurded this man, the sytnputhy which is always ready to rise up in the breast of a woman, especially for one to whom she is attached, may have caused her to he somewhat mistaken in this matter; at all events, she spoke under some bias, and not to a certainty, when she spoke of the oner, and this circumstance, therefore, does not account for the money. 1 have as yet, gentlemen, disposed of but two circumstances; 1st, the handwriting, and 2d, the finding of the money in the trunks, for the testimony of Miss Phillips and Johnson only go to explain the possession of the money. And now to the direct proof that the prosecution has brought forward. First, Munroe Edwards is shown to be in Baltimore on the 31st of August, and P icktnond on the 2d of September. And if you believe these facts to have been made out, then the distinguished counsel who last addressed you on the other side says that he'll give up the" case. Mr. Iveichofier nays that he spnt these drafts and checks from New York on the 28th August to Alexandria by mail. The prisoner's counsel contend ihat even .in accomplice could not have got those drafts out of the office at Alexandria, so as to have taken them to Baltimore in time to have given them to Monroe Edwards on the morning of the 31st. Now, gentlemen, it is a matter ot mathematical demonstration that they did go to Alexandria, and that they did get buck to Baltimore on the 31st ; and therefore somebody must have brought them?if not Edwards, then perhaps an accomplice. He then reasons?but he touched that ground very slightly? 'hat no accomplice could have brought them to Baltimore in tliHt time, nnd then he takes the ground boldly that Monroe Edwards could not have been at Baltimore on the 31st of Augus-t. He relies for proof of this on the testimony of the Misses Philli|>s ; and one says she speaks from her sister's dates. But there is one lact that makes in opposition to her testimony. It is that on the way hillsfrom Washington to Baltimore on the morning of the 81st of August, we find the name of Edwards; and on the way bills going from Baltimore to Washington back in tne evening, we find the name of CaldwellN'ow, if Miss l'hilli|is iscorreol in her dates then this could not have been Monroe HrKvards, but another Edwards who came from Washington to Baltimore that morning. Yet this is one circumstance out of many, ami is to be received for what it is worth; ud if you believe her then this could not have been tin- prisoner. .Now we come to the greatnoaitive proof in the case, the personal identity. Ten persons swear to seeing him in Baltimore on the 31st of August, and at Richmond on the 2d of Septenv her. Nine, swear positively; and one, Mr. Elder, swears he saw hint in Bnliimore either on the 81st of August or the 1st of September?he can't be positive which. Now the gentlemen on the side of the defence contend, that with regard to personal identity, about which so much has been said, that small reliance is to be placed upon it. That it is almost I impossible to identify human features, and espoially after a lapse ot months. Now on the other side there is a remarkable minuteness and corrrs,>ondence with which various circumstances and resemblance of countenance and person have been remembered. And if there is one thing mora worthy of our serious attention than another it is iho great similarity, and at the same time, dissimilarity, if 1 may so speak, which pervades everything in nature. That mysterious nnd wonderful law impressed unon matter, which produces a similarity in everything of, the same species, nnd yet which at ihe same time ktepa evrrv species distinct: no two animals of tho same species exactly resemble each other?no two blades of grass are alike, and yet they are never mistaken one tor the ofherns a general rule?no two stars rei /??/ !> (illtrr nnil nna* Liar another nfar in glory?no two individuals are exactly dike; and the fame principle pervades ull the works of man. Yet nil the productions from the hands of my one mag henr the name general mark and features, which readily enable us 1o distinguish them from the prod actions of any one else. Tnen, again, we have the lact that all the vast transaction* o? the commercial world are regulated and distinguished and depend upon a similar rule or law?the mere signature of an individual to a paper. This in known, here hy the inllexion of a line?there by the peculiarity of a dot; and so on. And 00 it is of the human countenance. The features of no two tut u resemble each other precisely, though there in the -ante grcut outlinen in the feature* of all. Yet there i? the peculiar general expression in each face? that tnvatcriou* something which pervades each individual's countenance renders it so striking that it cannot readily he mismken for another. Wtno doubt there are several remarkable canes of resemblance that have often occurred, and that will often occur again. There was the remarkable cats; of Hong, who wantrir.d in this city (or bigamy, where a woman claimed to be the own wite of a man, -wore positively to him, when he wns not her husbnnd Then there was the remarkable ease of Mnrtin (lucrre, in Germany.* which puzzled the courts and the,lawyers there for a long time. And there ;<re ninny other canes which have become matter of hi -tory. Hut these ar- only exceptions to ? striking general rule. And vou may. any of von, turn your yen over this audience, and yen may be able readily to pick out and identity every man, each from tlit other, bv sotnc striking general impression ?bich fnaiena "itself "n 'h'1 wind, bui which cannot be described. So when yoti walk the streets, you can r-adtly see some one whom you cm insinhtly rrrognic- at a glance from the myriad* who throng 'he thoroughfares of the city. And it would he to .irike h blowat all human credibility, and virtually . losing the doors of our tribunals, to say that wc lannot identify those wham we have seen for an lourat a tune, and conversed with under peculiar ircumstancea?so striking as to fasten our attr-nionfor the time fully upon the individual. But here is another case which I will read to you,froin he same work I have already qootad, " Wills an hrcnmstantial Evidence":? 'The learn*! Judge should have said in t'raucc.