Difference between revisions of ".MzYwMjc.MTI2ODY2"
m (Protected ".MzYwMjc.MTI2ODY2" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
Latest revision as of 16:27, 20 April 2022
and such representations were made to one of the Judges of the Genl Court as induced him to issue a warrant for the apprehension of your orator a called Court was held and after a most lengthy and elaborate investigation your orator was acquitted nothing becoming the semblance of guilt appearing against him - on this trial (for it is human nature to make the worst of appearances) the said William McClintock swore that when the body was raised one of her ears or a considerable part thereof was off - that a part of her back was as white as snow or chalk, that one of her breasts had a wound or cut of [blank] length across & turning up wards. The testimony of the said McClintock drew some strictures from your orator verging on a charge of perjury for which charges said McClintock brought suit in the Superior Court of Law for Bath County. Your orator altho advised by counsel of the danger of his plea yet answers that that said McClintock had given evidence of facts which did not exist [perjuring?] a love of truth to [illegible] & all pecuniary considerations plead justification but for greater certainty your orator refers to the record of said Court & Jury, there attested upon thereof which shall be produced may be taken as parts of this bill, your orator trusts that on the trial of the cause he previously proved by [blank] witnesses of the finest respectability that said McClintock had referred to the particulars as facts as stated in the declaration issued & that those facts were not true & those witnesses were men all or most of them whose duty it was to be acquainted with the true facts of the case being of the inquest were it as the plaintiff or law who produced testimony even of a perhaps more of such as would not be impeached who thought differently: but none of those as is now he [alluded?] were of the inquest and their