1824. The People V. Moore and others. NEW-YORK, rights of the people-like pirates, enemies to all mankind. Let them celebrate the anniversary as they may, it is disloyal and odious; they disgrace George IV. by calling on him. On this fatal day they cried for war: they showed their colours. I have heard, gentlemen,. that when Robespierre lay dead, to such a degree had the fears and apprehensions of the people been excited by his bloody acts, that as they approached him, they thought they saw his limbs move-they thought the unnatural monster was reanimated, and recoiled back in horror. Where these blood-hounds move, is horror and death-the innocent tremble with fear, and are faint with horror. The distracted mother clasps her infant to her breast, and in the agonies of her heart, as she runs, exclaims, the blood-hounds have come again-they have tracked us out! It would appear, Mr. Sampson said, that the prosecutor in the morning heard a gun fired; that soon after he saw a yellow flag displayed-signals of death and destruction. He well knew their meaning-he knew what they had been in Ireland he knew what they would be here he knew they would begin in riot, and end in murder. He went to the police in company with some others, and there told his story, but the officers of justice did not know the danger that was impending; they were not familiar with scenes such as were about to be acted. They replied to the entreaties of the prosecutor, come and tell us when they do any mischief. The peaceable catholics returned to the village-they were not disposed to violence-they struck no person, they gave no insults while the Orange flag was flying-while it was raised to provoke and insult them into violence, they 1824. The People V. others. meditated no mischief, and did none; they were not NEW-YORK, armed. It would appear, said the counsel, that the prosecutor and one Cassidy went up to the Orange party and entreated them to take down the bloody signal. They were knocked down with clubs and billets of wood, and with brickbats, and some of them almost murdered-they beat to insensibility a pregnant woman. Their object, gentlemen, was blood, and their motive, extermination. I could, gentlemen, if sworn as a witness, detail to you such scenes. I could tell you of crimes that would draw tears from the hardest heart, but it is not agreeable that counsel should be witnesses. I do not wish to rely upon myself. I will read to you the words of an English lawyer—an extract from Plowden's History of Ireland. Graham. I object to reading history. It is not evidence in a case of assault and battery. Sampson. History is evidence-the highest evidence of the facts therein stated. This point has been decided in the British Parliament. I propose to read a resolution of thirty-six protestant magistrates. Graham. The indictment against the defendants is for an assault and battery. History can have no relation to the point in issue. Plowden is a partizan-he is under a prejudice, and it is not considered a fair history. His work has been reviewed, and is not considered authority. Emmet. Plowden was employed by the English ministry, and wrote his history. He was an Englishman," and went over to Ireland to collect facts for his work with a mind unprejudiced. He was selected to be their historiographer, and what he states is not his own opi NEW-YORK, nion. He examined the facts, and from the impressions 1824. V. Moore and others derived from them, he threw up his commission, and The People wrote an independent history. But it is said that this is a case of assault and battery, and that history is not evidence. There is no magic in assault and battery that should take it out of the common rule. When the subject matter of the charge arises from history, then history is the best evidence. For ancient facts, history has been uniformly received. How can they be authenticated but by history. You cannot come at them by living witnesses-you can only learn them from the records of history. Transactions from a foreign country can only be learned from it. Plowden's History gives a detail of the facts that took place within its period; it speaks of the body to which this sect belonged, and is the best means of proving their conduct. Plowden has been arraigned before the English reviewers, who do not know the facts he states; they are anxious to shake off the odium that was thrown upon their country by the details of truth. The history of Ireland was never known by them. The Edinburgh Review has much of good and bad in it. It is a weathercock test. We wish to read a public document from Plowden's History--it is inserted there, in confirmation of the facts stated by him. Van Wyck. I rise to protect the court as well as the counsel. If we are to begin with Plowden and the Edinburgh Review, we shall not get through this case in a month. This is a case of assault and battery. What has history to do with it? In this stage of the case, I apprehend they have no right to travel through Plowden's or.. any other history-no ground has yet been laid for such a course of proceeding. 1824. By the Court. There is no doubt history may be read NEW YORK in certain cases. Graham. The counsel proposes to read Lord Gos- The People ford's address to the grand jury. It is not history. The counsel can only do it on the ground that he can prove it to be true, by legal evidence. This however is an extract. Sampson (cited Philips' Ev. p. 338.) I have a right to read and print my speech too, and have not I a right to take part of it from Plowden's history, or any other history I think proper? By the Court. We think it improper, at this stage of the case, to read history. It may be, and often is, read in evidence (the court gave an example.) If a quarrel ensued in the East Indies, between Englishmen and Americans, on the 4th of July, occasioned by the celebration of that day, it would be no doubt the right of Americans to read the declaration of American Independence upon the trial, to show the object of the fes tival. Sampson. I do not wonder that they should oppose reading history; but truth is mighty and will prevail. I shall trouble the jury no further-I shall call the witnesses-they will state to the facts. you TESTIMONY ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION. James Murney-Resides in Greenwich, and is a weaver-bas resided at that place since November last. Was assaulted on the 12th of July by the defendants. Question by Sampson. Did you see an Orange procession that day? This question was objected to by Graham and Van Wyck, as it would be improper to go into the occurrences of the whole day, and as they should be confined to the assault and battery. The court said they had better go on and confine themselves as much as possible to the assault and battery. (Witness proceeds.) Went with Cassidy to the Orange party, who were carrying a flag-(they were John Moore Henry Bush, Mullen, and Lowry)-Asked Moore if that was the Orange colours he was carrying-Moore VOL. Ill 12 Moore and others. 1824. The People V. Moore and others. NEW-YORK, took hold of the pole with both his hands, and struck him. Witness was struck by the four defendants-felt the blows for several days was in danger of his life-the pole was from eight to twelve feet long, and from three to four inches square. Witness had no weapon-he had a debate—that is, he defended himself. The Orangemen were armed-one of them had a carpenter's hammer. Witness made no attempt to strike until he was struck. There were between twelve and twenty Orangemen. Their head quarters were at Green's, M'Donald's, McKeever's and Burges'. Witness was very much astonished and frightened at seeing the Orange flag. They marched along and cried out, "come forward you damned croppies"-they meant republicans. Witness told them they had better go to the British consul, and he would send them home. Witness had been forced to leave his country on account of Orangemen. Went to the police when he saw it-he could not make them understand it. They called out for croppies and papists. Croppy is a person not belonging to the Orange party-one who does not join in their society. They paraded in the morning about five o'clock, and he heard guns. When they knocked witness down, he saved his life by saying, "don't strike me, I am one of your side"-he said so to make his escape. It was about six o'clock in the afternoon when he was struck. All the defendants took part in the aggression. Witness is a catholic. They called him papist, and he said they did not know what he professed. Witness does think they were in earnest. Cautioned them to leave off, and they appeared to be angry. Graham. A prosecutor cannot give in evidence the motives of the defendants, unless it is to show the assault and battery; they cannot come in aggravation, unless we go into mitigatory circumstances. We are not prepared to reply to these extraneous matters. Emmet. The trial is the time for showing the intent of the party; it ought not to be left until after the trial to be shown by affidavits. By the Court. When the party pleads guilty, the motive then comes up by affidavit, but where there is a trial, that is the proper time to show the intent of the parties. (Examination continued.) After witness had returned from the police, the Orangemen hauled up their colours as in defiance-they seemed to be more bold when they saw we could get no law. They called out for M'Evoy's men, and said they would massacre them; defendants were part of them, but there were many others participating; witness worked for M'Evoy. M'Evoy is a weaver, and keeps a manufacturing shop, and employs men. Was (Cross examined by Van Wyck.) Was in bed at M'Evoy's and was awakened by the guns, between four and six o'clock. very much frightened, and was afraid of being murdered. Would not have been frightened had it not been on the 12th of July. If Orangemen are not stopped in America, America will have cause to dread the consequences. He told others he was afraid of his life. Cannot tell the precise time he went to work. Thinks it was between six and eight o'clock. None in the shop but were aware of the guns. When he went to the police he thought the law would protect him, but it was not there, he had justice; but he could not make the law understand it. M'Evoy's men ha looms where they |