Mrs. Lisle—My lord, I did not know Nelthorp, I declare it, before he was taken.
Lord Chief-Justice—You are not indicted for Nelthorp, but we are not to enter into dialogues now, the jury must consider of it.
Jury-man—Pray my lord, some of us desire to know of your lordship in point of law, whether it be the same thing, and equally treason, in receiving him before he was convicted of treason, as if it had been after.
Lord Chief-Justice—It is all the same, of that certainly can be no doubt; for if in case this Hicks had been wounded in the rebels' army, and had come to her house and there been entertained but had died there of his wounds, and so could never have been convicted, she had been nevertheless a traitor.[62]
Then the jury withdrew, and staying out a while the Lord Jeffreys expressed a great deal of impatience, and said that he wondered in so plain a case they would go from the bar, and would have sent for them with an intimation, that if they did not come quickly, he would adjourn, and let them lie by it all night; but about after half-an-hour's stay, the Jury returned, and the foreman addressed himself to the Court thus:
Foreman—My lord, we have one thing to beg of your lordship some directions in, before we can give our verdict in this case; We have some doubt upon us whether there be sufficient proof that she knew Hicks to have been in the army.
Lord Chief-Justice—There is as full proof as proof can be; but you are judges of the proof, for my part I thought there was no difficulty in it.
Foreman—My lord, we are in some doubt of it.
Lord Chief-Justice—I cannot help your doubts, was there not proved a discourse of the battle and of the army at supper time?
Foreman—But my lord, we are not satisfied that she had notice that Hicks was in the army.