And therefore you declined going in and taking the boy with you?—I saw no necessity of so doing, as he did not acknowledge himself guilty of any thing bad.
By Lord Ellenborough. But the boy being there, had you not the curiosity to examine the boy?—I did not, it being delicate subject.
Did you not think it important to come at the truth upon the subject, as the boy was there and you might have examined him yourself?—If Mr. Church had confessed any thing, I should have thought it my duty to take the boy and have them face to face.
But I should have thought that the circumstance of his not confessing would be the reason why you would take them face to face; or else why should you take the boy at all. But Mr. Church not having confessed any thing, you therefore would not examine the boy.—Was that your reason for not examining the boy?—Yes, my Lord.
By Mr. Bolland.—But if he confessed any thing, you would have taken the boy to have them face to face?—Yes.
Your object was to take the boy and have them face to face, if Mr. Church acknowledged the crime?—Yes.
But surely when you found that Mr. Church had acknowledged his fault, then there would be no reason for taking the boy to have them face to face?—I should have thought it proper to take the boy in, if Mr. Church acknowledged his crime. I wished the boy in fact to come in with us; but when Mr. Patrick came out and said that Mr. Church did not acknowledge any thing of it, I did not think it necessary to have them face to face.
Then you did not think it right to have the boy in?—I never spoke to the boy.
You never asked the boy about this transaction?—No.
Mr. Patrick never gave any opinion whether Mr. Church was implicated in the transaction; but in answer to a particular part of the transaction, he said that Mr. Church asserted that it was false?—Yes.