ed be first proved. I submit it to the court if it be not contrary to the established law of evidence, to admit collateral testimony until the main facts charged be first proved. Mr. Isham replied, that the main witnesses to the crimes charged, were, by the accused, got out of the jurisdiction of the court, and their testimony could not be had, that in such a case, it was admissible to prove what they had testified at the binding over, and cited one or two authorities to prove it: and moved that testimony to that amount be then admitted. Mr. Gurley objected, first, that the law had provided means whereby witnesses might be put under a recognizance to. remain in the state and testify their knowledge in a case which was pending, and if the counsel had neglected that duty, the maxim in law would apply, viz. that no man shall take advantage of his own wrongs; secondly, he said that it was not yet proved that the witnesses were got out of the jurisdiction of the court by his client, and that was an offence which was not before the court, and he objected to any testimony to prove it. The question now before the court, and which I wish to have decided is, shall collateral testimony be admitted until the main facts charged be first proved? The court replied, it is manifestly contrary to the law of evidence to admit testimony to prove the circumstances of a crime until it be first proved that there has been a crime; in this case there is no evidence that a crime has been committed by any one; and until these facts be first proved it is inadmissible to prove any circumstances: the testimony cannot be admitted. Mr. Isham asked permission to introduce testimony to prove that the principal witnesses were got out of the state by the instrumentality of the accused. Mr. Gurley objected that, that was an offence which was not complained of in the information, and was not before the court, and he did object to any testimony on that subject; and the court adjudged and decided that it could not be admitted. Mr. Isham then moved to have the case continued. Mr. Gurley objected that the case was now before the jury, and that they were sworn to give a verdict: that the case had been continued on the part of the state once before: that the constitution had provided that every person who was accused should be entitled to a speedy trial; and

H

that no person should be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence; that if they were not ready for trial, why did they open the case, and that it was wrong to keep any one under bonds from month to month, from term to term, and from year to year; that he did object to the continuance of the case, and if it were taken from the jury it was without his consent. The court observed that the admission of hearsay testimony in certain cases was novel in this country, that he felt a delicacy in deciding it without the opinion and advice of the other Judges: be therefore should continue the case.

My bail was bound with me, in a bond of $750, that I should appear and answer to the charges against me, before the superior court in New-London county, in September, 1819. This I did. The case was then continued to January, 1820, but no further bail was required; I, however, appeared, answered, put myself out of the hands of my bail, on my country for trial, and had a trial; the case was taken from the jury, and continued again until the next September, but no farther bail was required; and for that reason, and for the objections made by Mr. Gurley, I did suppose that the question to be tried was merely a question of law, and that I could not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence; and especially as it was well known that the witnesses, on whose testimony I was bound over, had retracted, and under oath confessed my innocence, and exposed the circumstances which induced them to accuse me falsely.

Some days before the trial, in September, 1820, Asenath returned to Connecticut, and wrote the following letter, viz. To Calvin Goddard, Esq Norwich, Connecticut.

Hebron, September 24th, 1820. SIR-I take this opportunity of informing you, as counsel for Mr. Rogers, that provided I can with safety appear be fore the superior court, I am willing to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, which will be to clear Mr. Rogers of the charges brought against him concerning me. I now expressly state to you, and I shall state the same before the court, that Mr. Rogers never did have carnal knowledge of me, that I never was like to have a child by kim, that he never did present or use with me, any instrument of any kind, for the purpose of procuring an abortion nor

did he ever produce in me an abortion, or use with me any drugs or medicine, or other means for that purpose. ASENATH CAROLINE SMITH. The foregoing was written, signed, and declared to be her free act, i. presence of us,

SETH COLLINS, SHIPMAN HAUGHTON, JOHN TOWNSEND. The foregoing letter was delivered to me by Seth Collins, Esq. on the day after its date, and was on the same day by me delivered to Mr. Goddard, when I informed him that I expected Maria would be at court and testify as she did at the binding over. I asked and received his advice, and understood him to say that the charges against me could never be proved, unless Asenath herself would swear that they were true; that she was their witness and she could not be compelled to testify against herself; if I brought her forward as a witness they might impeach her testimony by proving what she testified at the binding over; and I could not impeach my own witness, nor have the constitutional right of confronting the principal witness against me, the witness who alone could be supposed to know and testify whether the charges against me were true or not; the principal witness, on whose oath I was bound over for trial, and on whose oath I ought to be condem ed or acquitted; and if they brought her forward as a witness, (and without they did, the charges could never be proved against me, and I must be acquitted with honor,) she could then tell the whole story, how Col. Halsey and Doct. Downer went there and staid all night,what they said and did; how one dictated and the other wrote the testimony which she and her sister gave at the binding over; and how Mr. Lanman went there, and was shut up alone with her in their east chamber, and what she said and did, and they could not impeach their own witness. His advice was for me not to offer her as witness, but let her be at court, and they must bring her forward as a witness or dismiss the suit. With this advice I went with confidence to the court Here Mr. Lauman, with all the violence of an infuriate persecutor, caused me and a friend of mine to be arrested and brought before the court for carrying off the witnesses.He proposed excessive bonds; the court lowered them one

half; I offered bail, he objected. I proved that the bail was bundantly good, and it was accepted by the court. I pray. ed that my trial might be put off until the next Thursday, and it was granted. Mr. Gurley wished to be excused from acting as counsel for me any further, on account of an expectation which he had of being state's attorney; this he did not say, but I understood it; and he was appointed. I requested Mr. Cleaveland to take his place, and I used all diligence to collect my witnesses. I went to Massachusetts after Samuel Johnson, Esq.; Asenath came to New-London with Mr. Shipman Haughton, Seth Collins, Esq. and Capt. John Townsend, from Hebron, and put up at Dodge's tavern. She did not wish to have it knows that she was there until the trial came on, that she might avoid being threatened or tampered with by Lanman and his party. Messrs. Enoch Baker and Peleg Fry attended from Griswold. Perry Clark and his wife were gone into the state of New-York, and could not be obtained; Ebenezer Latham was in the state of Ohio; but Capt. Miller's deposition was admitted at the binding over, and was in the hands of the justice; James Cook, Esq. from Preston. attended; Mr. Peleg Rose was detained by distressing and dangerous sickness, and did not attend; Samuel Johnson, Esq. was there. My witnesses and I put up at Dodge's taveru. The witnesses on the other part and Col. Halsey ́put up at I'rink's tavern.

THE TRIAL.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT Superior Court, New-London Coun

VS.

AMMI ROGERS.

Present the lion. ASA CHAPMAN. Judge. [alone.]

ty, October 5th, 1820.

James Lanman, Esq. State's

Attorney,

Jeremiah Halsey, Esq.

Counsel for the
State.

Jarah Isham, Esq.

Calvin Goddard, Esq.

William P. Cleaveland, Esq.

Jacob B. Gurley, Esq.

George Hill, Esq.

Counsel for the Accused; the first two were active, the last advisory.

I, Ammi Rogers, was called, and answered to this case, in September, 1819; then plead not guilty, either in whole or in

any part. The case was then, on motion of Mr. Lanman, continued to January term in 1820. I appeared and answered again, and plead not guilty, as before; put myself on my country for trial; the jury were empannelled and sworn; about forty witnesses on the part of the state were sworn. Elisha Geer testified; and it was inquired if any one present knew the truth of the facts charged upon me; they did not. Two important questions were then decided by the court: first, that it was contrary to the law of evidence to admit col· lateral testimony until the main facts charged be first proved; secondly, that hearsay testimony could not be admitted in a criminal prosecution. The counsel for the state again moved to have the case continued; my counsel objected; the court overruled, and the case was taken from the jury without my consent: and they could not render that verdict which they had just sworn in the presence of the ever living God that they would do. On the 5th day of October, 1820, in New-London, in the county of New-London, the same case was again called, and I again appeared, and answered: and the fourth time plead not guilty, either in whole or in any part, viz. before the justice at the binding over, before the Superior Court in Norwich, September, 1819, before the same court in January, 1820, and now again in New-London, October, 1820. The following Jury were impannelled and sworn, viz. John P. Trott, Charles Butler, Charles W. Wait, El Beardslee, George Raymond, Comstock Dart, James Mitchell, David Patten, Thomas Palmer, Simeon Chesebrough, Griswold Avery, Jr. Caleb Lyon.

The clerk then read the following INFORMATION.

To the Honorable Superior Court, &c. in New-London County. James Lanman, Esq. attorney for said State, within and for said county,information gives, that in the town of Griswold in said county,on the first day of July A. D. 1817,Ammi Rogers of the town aforesaid, a transient preacher, pretendedly of the Christian religion, did, &c. assault make on the body of Asenath C. Smith, of said Griswold, a sole, single and unmarried young female, &c. and then and there, &c. did unlawfully, &c. with a bastard child-[The words of Mr. Lanman in the information, are so very abusive, malicious, indecent, ob