Report of the proceedings under a brieve of idiotry, Peter Duncan against David Yoolow, tried at Coupar-Angus, 28-30 Jan., 1837 : with an appendix of relative documents, and an introduction / by Ludovic Colquhoun.

  • Duncan, Peter, active 1837.
Date:
1837
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of the proceedings under a brieve of idiotry, Peter Duncan against David Yoolow, tried at Coupar-Angus, 28-30 Jan., 1837 : with an appendix of relative documents, and an introduction / by Ludovic Colquhoun. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    22/190
    deuce of two unexceptionable witnesses is sufficient to establish the truth of any fact, however important, if two or more such witnesses swear positively to a particular fact, the jury must look upon that fact as proved. But, suppose that as many other witnesses, equally unexceptionable, swear as positively to the very reverse,—and that there are no extrinsic circumstances, from which the actual state of the matter mav be inferred,—it fol- lows, either that the Jury must decide between the conflicting sets of witnesses without a ratio decidendi,—which would be ab¬ surd,—or they must hold that the evidence of the one neutra¬ lizes that of the other, and can, therefore, come to no decision at all. It may be said, no doubt, that the case put is an extreme one, and that it can but rarely happen that the evidence should be thus nicely balanced, or the fact to which it refers so isolated as to be incapable of receiving from the evidence applicable to other facts, at least some reflected light, by which the Jury may be guided. But granting this, it is obvious that any conviction thus attained must always be short of completefor as, in the case supposed, the testimony on each side, considered apart and in itself, amounts to what the law holds a sufficient proof, al¬ though circumstances may cause one of them, in the estimation of a Jury, to preponderate over the other, still that testimony to for upwards of three weeks, on a miserable pittance of bread and water. Some contradictions, however, in the evidence of the girl, excited the suspicions of Sir Crisp Gascoyne, the then Lord Mayor of London ; and through his influence a respite, and ultimately a free pardon, were ob¬ tained for Squires. Upon this Canning was arraigned at the bar of the Old Bailey, on a charge of perjury. At the trial, a number of witnesses swore, that they had seen and conversed with Squires at or in the im¬ mediate neighbourhood of Enfield Wash, at the time when the alleged robbery was said to have been committed ; while a still greater number swore that, at that very time, she had been seen and conversed with by them, at a place distant from Enfield Wash upwards of 130 miles. The witnesses on both sides spoke positively, and were apparently free from any grounds of suspicion. The contradictory nature, therefore, of their testimony is striking, particularly when it is considered that Squires was in person deformed, and in point of countenance “ presented an assem- “ blage of features uncommon, and diabolically hideous,” constituting an ensemble so unique as to justify, in the opinion of every one present,her emphatic appeal to Canning herself, when first accused by her—“ Do you “ say /robbed you ?” she exclaimed—“ look at me. You cannot mistake “ me. God Almighty never made my likeness !”—State Trials, Fol. Ed. Vol. X. p. 205.