Couns. for the Pris. Pray, Sir, do you know any thing of a person who calls himself officiating clergyman to the Prisoner at the bar?
M. Review. I remember one Robert Houlton, who gave himself that title.
Couns. for the Pris. Is he an author?
M. Review. Yes; he lately published a sermon, with an appendix concerning inoculation.
Couns. for the Pris. And what is his character?
M. Review. I am sorry to say, this reverend son of the church descends to the level of a mere nostrum-puffer.
Couns. for the Pris. I beg, gentlemen of the jury, you will take notice; a mere nostrum-puffer. And pray, Mr. Review, is this nostrum-puffer forgetful of the usual, the proper gravity of his profession?
M. Review. From the low wit, and familiarity with which he presumes to treat the most respectable characters, he might easily be mistaken for the Merry-Andrew of some wonder-working professor of the stage-itinerant.
Couns. for the Pris. Merry-Andrew of some wonder-working professor of the stage-itinerant! I beg, gentlemen of the jury, you will remember, that this nostrum-puffer, this Merry-Andrew, is their principal evidence, their corner stone upon which the first and most material part of the indictment depends; namely, that part which accuses the Prisoner of preserving, in an especial manner, the lives of his Majesty’s liege subjects. I say, in an especial manner; for tho’ it be not thus expressed in the indictment, it is certainly implied.
Couns. for the Crown. This is too much. I beg, Mr. President, the counsel for the Prisoner may not be suffered to mislead the jury by implications in the indictment. The fate of the Prisoner at the bar must depend solely on the letter of the indictment. We admit of no implications. My Lord Cook——