SOME NOTED TRIALS IN COLONIAL DAYS
Offenses and the Method of Conducting Cases in the Early Period
Part 2
SANDELAND’S DOUBLE HOUSE – In the early part of the
eighteenth century on the west side of Edgmont Avenue below Third Street, in
the city of Chester, could be seen the foundations of an old building which is
the period associated with Penn, was known as James Sandeland’s double
house. It was the most imposing building
in Upland and therein Penn convened the first General Assembly that ever sat in
the province of Pennsylvania. The house
had been built with mortar made of oyster shell line, which proved so utterly
worthless, notably because of defective burning that in the course of twenty
odd years the structure showed such signs of decay that it became untestable,
full late ruins and gradually the materials made in its construction were
received. Shortly after 1800, even the
foundations were buried in the accumulation of evil that has taken place during
a century. In time its very existence
was forgotten, hence tradition for many gave credit to the Friends’ old House,
which stood on the adjoining lot, as the place where the first Assembly met.
In
August 1892, while excavations were being made for the row of commission
stores, the foundations of Sandeland’s double house were unearthed. An accurate survey of them was made by Walter
Wood, assistant City Engineer, giving the precise order of the old structure
and the distance from the intersection of Third and Edgmont Streets. William B. Broomall, Esq., had Mr. Nyemetz take
a photograph of the unearthed walls for which act he will receive the thanks of
coming generations.
In the
double house in its pristine glory James Sandelands kept tavern, for the
pretentious word, hotel, had not then found its way in the English language. Early in 1675, Sandelands, in ejecting a
drunken Indian from his premises, had used such violence that the savage died
shortly after, and it was asserted his death was caused by the injuries he had
received on that occasion. The incident
it appears, aroused such feeling among the Indians that there were fears of an
outbreak on their part, hence, Captain Cantwel, the Deputy Governor on the
Delaware, wrote to Governor Andross at New York, respecting the case and in
answer was instructed to take such action that Sandelands, if guilty, should be
punished for the deed.
THE
INDIAN CASE – The preliminary proceedings were followed by a special court
which convened at New Castle on May 13, 1685, at which Governor Sir Edmund
Andross presided in person, assisted by three commissioners especially
appointed to hear the case. The bench,
the old record relates, was “called over and placed on the Governor’s left
hand; Governor Philip Carteret of New Jersey, on the right with Mr. Daniel
Edsall, Mrs. James Wandall, Mr. Joseph Smith, Mr. John Jackson, Mr. William
Osborne.” Distinguished visitors, it
would seem in those days, were accorded seats on the judge’s platform as was
done within recent years in England during the Baccarat trial While the Duke of
York’s laws were not then applicable to the Delaware settlements, for it was
not until September 25, 1676, that Governor Andross, extended the operation of
that code to this territory, the jury, in Sandeland’s case consisted of seven
freemen in accordance with the Duke’s laws in criminal trials.
The court
being in session, James Sandelands was “brought to answer a presentment by the
sheriff for suspicion of being the cause of the death of an Indian.” After the presentment was read the prisoner
entered a plea of not guilty.
Sandelands, the accused, was the first witness called to the stand and
he related “the whole story of the Indian being at his house and him putting
him out of doors.” The aboriginal
witnesses who were then called did not agree in their testimony. One stated that the man died five days after
his fall, while others made the interval of life after the ejection from the
tavern six and eight weeks. A peculiar
fact which appears on record is that while the Indians were giving their
testimony, Sandelands, by leave of the court, went “and had a talk with
them.” The jury, after being charged by
the court, withdrew and finally returned a verdict that appears on record,
thus: “They found the prisoner not to be
guilty. He is ordered to be cleared by
proclamation.”
IN THE
PENN REGIME – I will allude only to one case that was tried after William Penn
had acquired actual possession of the province.
The proceedings were to recover damage on a suit for defamation and the
trial took place at Chester on the 7th day of the second month,
which would be May 1, 1685. The space
that is accorded to this trial I the old docket at West Chester, indicates the
intense public interest which the details excited among the people of this
section of that day.
Henry
Reynolds who settled at Marcus Hook in 1680, where he kept a tavern in which he
sold liquor with license when he secured the approval of the court and without
when the justices withheld their approbation, brought suit against Justa
Anderson for an alleged slander. Reynolds was a man of quick temper and in the
heat of his anger was swift to strike those who had offended him. From the meagre records preserved to us it
appears that towards the end of the preceding year, 1684, he had bound servant
girls in his household, whom, in his rage, he would whip severely. After one of these beatings the girl died.
The
defendant, Anderson, spoke openly of the occurrence and public opinion was
unusually excited that James Kenneelly, the first Coroner in the history of
Chester County disinterred the body and held an inquest thereon. When the suit, instituted by Reynolds, was
tried, the plaintiff showed by James Sandelands, James Brown and William
Hawkes, that Anderson had stated in their hearing “that he (the plaintiff) beat
and kicked his maid and that he (the defendant) saw her alive no more.” In justification of his words, Anderson
called Thomas Pearson to the stand, called Thomas Pearson to the stand, who
testified that he was at Reynold’s house when the latter picked up the tongs
and threatened to strike the girl “for not eating such things as were provided
for her.”
SOME OF
THE TESTIMONY – Wooley Rosen, who then lived just below Naaman’s creek in
Delaware, stated that he was at Reynold’s Inn and the maid had asked her master
for some milk, whereupon in a rage he struck her “one blow with a broom staff,
asking her whether there was not victuals enough in the house.” William Connell, who was also witness to the
act said he saw Reynolds “beat his maid with a broom staff and afterwards
kicked her as she was by the fire.”
William
Moulder appears to have seen the girl subsequent to Connell for he testified
that “he saw the mail sleeping by the fireside and afterwards she went to bed,
after which a revelation came to him that the maid would die that night.” She did die, but like the modern prophets,
Moulder told no one of his prophetic vision until after the happening of the
event he seemed to have foretold. The
plaintiff, in rebuttal produced his mother-in-law, Prudence Clayton, who had
been sent for to lay out the corpse and she testified that she “did not
remember that she did see any manner of hurt about her.”
The
jury, however, found in favor of the defendant.
The matter did not end immediately.
Coroner Kennelly had before the trial on the third day of first month,
obtained an order of court directing that “execution be granted against Henry
Reynolds for the Cronnor’s fees, charges of inquest and taking up the said
Reynold’s maid, with all other charges whatsoever thereunto belonging.” The sheriff on this execution had levied on
an ox, and Reynolds at the next court had to pay 4, 10 shillings when “the
court ordered him his ox again.”
I have
merely touched hastily the rich mine of interesting local facts that lies within
the covers of the old court dockets of Chester County, before the setting off
of our district from the mother municipality so far as the name is
concerned. This remark applies only to
the last case cited, for the others I have spoken of antedate Penn’s ownership
of the province.
DCHPN Monthly
E-Newsletter
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment