to have given shuffling and evasive answers.
The presiding justice then issued a warrant to
search the prisoner's house for the former
clothes, as described by the witness, and after a
rigid search of two hours and upwards they
were found concealed in a straw bed, and on
being produced were covered with blood.
Another witness deposed that he had heard
expressions menacing the deceased fall from the
prisoner; but in order to rebut the proof of
malice prepense, the prisoner proposed certain
questions tending to show that the deceased
had first threatened him. The same evidence
was given in detail on the trial: the case would
seem to have been a very conclusive one; and
the prisoner having been called on for his
defence, told the following story. He rented a
farm adjoining that of the deceased, and they
were constantly quarrelling in respect of their
bounds, but on the morning in question, as he
was proceeding to his work, he found the
deceased lying as the first witness had described.
On going up to him he perceived the two deep
wounds in his chest, and in order to relieve
him, raised, and with great difficulty set him
up and supported him in his lap.

Apprehensive that a murder had been
attempted, he implored the wounded man to state
all the circumstances, who, still sensible, was
apparently desirous to speak, but was prevented
by the agony he suffered and his increasing
debility. Being suddenly seized with a rattling
in his throat, after a hard struggle, he uttered a
deep groan and threw up a quantity of blood,
some of which fell on the clothes of the prisoner,
in whose arms he expired. He acknowledged
that he felt so frightened and shocked,
particularly remembering the bad terms on which
they had been, that he suddenly quitted the
body, and in the confusion brought away the
fork of the deceased instead of his own. He
further admitted that, being obliged to go to his
work, he thought it prudent to change his
clothes, and to conceal those on which the blood
had fallen where they were found. He was
conscious that appearances were against him, and
while solemnly declaring his innocence, he
concluded with the emphatic expression, "I have
no witness but God and my own conscience!"

The judge, after pathetically enlarging on the
heinousness and premeditated nature of the
crime, and the conclusive character of the
evidence, expressed his opinion that the jury could
not hesitate a moment in a verdict of guilty.
The foreman rose, and begged his lordship, as
it was a case of life and death, to permit them
to withdraw, and although the trial commenced
first in the morning, nine o'clock at night saw
them, after several hours' deliberation, still
locked up. The Chief Justice, having caused an
intimation to be conveyed to the jury that he
could not remain longer, some of them returned
an answer that eleven of them had made up their
minds before they had left the court, but that it
was their misfortune to have a foreman who was
inveterately obstinate, and unalterably fixed in a
different opinion. They were then informed
that they must prepare to remain all night locked
up. Being alarmed at the thought, and in
despair of bringing round their dissenting
brother, they agreed to concur with him, and
returning into court, by their foreman delivered
a verdict of acquittal. The judge expressed
astonishment and indignation, and, after a
severe admonition, refused to record their verdict,
and sent them back to their room, where
they remained in darkness and misery all night.
The scene may be conceived. They passed that
sad night loading their foreman with reproaches,
and bewailing their unhappy fate in being
associated with so hardened and inflexible a wretch;
while he, on the other hand, declared that he
would die rather than depart from the resolution
he had formed. The next morning they
appeared, in a sad plight, again in court, with
their former verdict, which they pronounced
unalterable. The judge dismissed them with
disgrace, declaring that the blood of the murdered
man lay at their door. The prisoner fell on his
knees, and addressing the Chief Justice,
exclaimed, "You see, my lord! that God and a
clear conscience are the best of witnesses!"

The scene made a deep impression on the
mind of Dyer, who inquired from the high
sheriff the character of the foreman, and learned
that he was a man of property and repute,
universally esteemed in the county. The minister
of his parish also gave a similar account of his
parishioner, and added, that he was a constant
churchman and a devout communicant.
Perplexed still more by the information, his lordship
—although, according to Whetstone,

    He did not prie into his neighbour's state,
    Unless it were to sustaine his right--

determined to have a private conference with
the foreman, and requested the sheriff without
delay to procure the desired interview. They
met and retired into a private closet, where the
judge, after expressing his uneasiness and
explaining his reasons, conjured his visitor frankly
to disclose the cause of having in so clear a
case insisted on so perverse a verdict. The
foreman answered that he had conclusive
grounds to justify him—that he was neither
ashamed nor afraid to reveal the facts, but as
they were entirely within his own breast, and
he was under no compulsion to disclose them,
he expected that his lordship would pledge his
honour to keep the circumstances he was about
to unfold as secret as he had kept them himself
—a pledge which was immediately and solemnly
given. The explanation cleared up this singular
mystery. The deceased had been the
tything-man of the parish, and was very early
that morning amongst the foreman's corn, where
he acted most arbitrarily, taking more than was
his due. On being quietly remonstrated with,
he became scurrilous in his language, as well
as outrageous in his conduct, and several times
struck at the foreman with his fork, who, seeing
that the other was bent on mischief, and being
without a weapon to resist, in self-defence to
preserve his own life, closed with the aggressor,