Henry More Smith: The Mysterious Stranger

by Walter Bates

The third day we found that he had been at the stone wall, his face bruised and bloody. I renewed my attempts to elicit something from him by telling him that the next day he would be brought before the Court for his trial; but all was in vain. He gave me the most decided indications of confirmed insanity; patted his hands, hallooed, sang without articulating, and continued to sing and beat the floor with his chains the most of the night.

The 4th of May, the day appointed for his trial, being now come, the Court began to assemble early in the morning, and numerous spectators crowded from every part of the county. About 11 o’clock his Honor Judge Saunders, and the Attorney General arrived from Fredericton. About 1 o’clock the whole Court moved in procession to the Court House, which was unusually crowded with spectators. After the opening of the Court in the usual form, the prisoner was called to the bar. The gaoler and four constables brought him and placed him in the criminal’s box. He made no resistance, nor took any notice of the Court, and, as usual, acted the fool or the madman, snapping his fingers and patting his hands; he hem’d and ha’d, took off his shoes and socks, tore his shirt. Every eye was fixed on him with wonder and astonishment. After the Attorney General had read his indictment, the Judge asked him how he pleaded to that indictment, guilty or not guilty. He stood heedless and silent, without regarding what was said to him. The Judge then remonstrated with him, and warned him that if he stood mute out of obstinacy, his trial would go on, and he would be deprived of the opportunity of putting himself on his country for defence; and that sentence would be given against him; he therefore advised him to plead not guilty. He still continued mute, and acting the fool without betraying the slightest emotion. The Judge then directed the Sheriff to empannel a jury of twelve men, to enquire whether the prisoner at the bar stood mute wilfully and obstinately, or by the visitation of God. From the evidence brought before the jury on this enquiry, it appeared that he had been in the same state for three months preceding, during which time he could not be surprised into the utterance of one word. The jury consequently returned their verdict that the prisoner stood mute by the visitation of God.

The Judge then directed the Attorney General to enter the plea of not guilty; and Counsel for the prisoner was admitted. The Court then adjourned till ten o’clock the next morning. The next morning, Friday, the Court assembled accordingly, and the prisoner was again brought to the bar, and placed in the criminal’s box as before. He sat down quietly, maintained his usual silence and inattention. The most profound silence reigned in the Court, which was still crowded with spectators, and every eye was fixed on the prisoner with the most eager attention. The Judge then arose, and observed that the prisoner appeared more calm this morning, and directed the Attorney General to proceed with the trial.

After the jury had been empannelled and had taken their seats, and the witnesses brought before the Court, the prisoner was ordered to stand up for his defence; hold up his hand, and hear the evidence; but he still maintained the same disregard and indifference, giving no attention to anything that was said to him. The constables were then directed to hold up his hand, but to this he offered the most determined resistance, and fought and struggled so furiously, that they were unable to manage him. They then procured a cord and pinioned his arms; but this was of no avail; he would flounce and clear himself from them all, as though he had the strength of some furious animal.

They then procured a rope and lashed his arms back to the railings of the box; but he still continued his struggling, and reaching the railings before him would break them like a pipe-stem. They then procured another rope and bound his hands together, and secured them to the railing in the opposite direction. Finding himself overpowered in his hands, he immediately availed himself of his feet, with which he kicked most lustily, and soon demolished all the railing in front of the box, notwithstanding all the efforts of the constables to prevent him. Another rope was then procured, and his feet bound each way from the posts of the box, so that he was rendered incapable of further mischief. After securing him in this manner, all the constables being in readiness for his movements, while he himself sat as unconcerned as though nothing had happened, the Attorney General proceeded to read his indictment, in which the prisoner stood charged with having feloniously stolen a certain bay horse, the property of Frederick Willis Knox, Esquire, of the value of thirty-five pounds. Mr. Knox having been sworn, stated the manner of his pursuit after the prisoner, with all the circumstances, until he came to Truro, as has already been detailed. At Truro he engaged Mr. Pearson, Deputy Sheriff, to pursue on to Pictou, whither he was informed the prisoner had gone to sell the horse.

Mr. Peters, counsel for the prisoner, on the cross-examination of Mr. Knox, asked him how he wrote his Christian name—“Willis” or “Wills.” He answered, “I am christened and named after my god-father, Lord North, the Earl of Willsborough, and I never write my name Willis.” Mr. Peters then produced authorities to show where one letter omitted or inserted in a man’s name had quashed an indictment, and moved that the prisoner be discharged from this indictment. This move was overruled by the judge, but was reserved for a question in the Court above.

The witness Pearson having been sworn, deposed and said, that he pursued after the prisoner the whole night, and early the next morning was shown the prisoner, and arrested him on suspicion of having stolen the horse, and told him that the owner of the horse would soon be present. He seemed but little surprised, and only replied that he came honestly by the horse. The witness further stated that he then asked the prisoner where the horse was, who unhesitatingly pointed to the house where he soon after found him. Witness went on to state that he took the prisoner before a Justice for examination, and thence to the jail at Pictou. That he then went to the house which the prisoner had pointed out to him, and there found the horse; that he returned homewards with the horse about ten miles, and met Mr. Knox, who immediately knew the horse, and called his name “Britain.” That they then returned to Pictou, where the prisoner remained in jail, and on examination was found to have in his possession a watch, and about fifteen guineas in money, with a number of watch seals and other articles, some of which it appeared he had stolen on his way as he escaped with the horse. That he was committed to the charge of a constable and Mr. Knox, to be conveyed by a warrant from Nova Scotia to the jail at King’s County, in New Brunswick. That before he was taken from the jail at Pictou he had cut the bolt of his handcuffs nearly through, and had artfully concealed it, which was fortunately discovered, and new handcuffs provided, otherwise he must certainly have escaped from his keepers before he arrived at Kingston.

The circumstances against the prisoner were, that he gave contradictory statements as to the way in which he came by the horse; at one time asserting that he bought him from a pedlar; at another from a Frenchman; again, that he swapped for him; and at Amherst produced a receipt for money paid in exchange.

The Counsel for the prisoner, in cross-examining, asked Mr. Knox, did you ever see the prisoner in possession of the horse! “No; but he acknowledged it.” “Did you ever hear him acknowledge that he was in possession of the horse in any other way than by saying he came honestly by him?” “No.” Mr. Pearson was cross-examined in the same manner, and answered to the same effect.

Mr. Peters, in defence of the prisoner produced authorities to show that by the evidence the prisoner was not taken in the manner as stated in the declaration, and that it was sufficient for him to prove, in a general way, how he came in possession of the horse, which he was able to do by a receipt he produced for the money paid in exchange, the best general evidence that can be given, as such is the common way in dealing in horses. He acknowledged that if the prisoner had been taken on the back of the horse, he would then have been taken in the manner as stated by the Attorney General, and consequently bound to prove how he came in possession; but in the present case, he himself, or any one present, might have been in this unfortunate prisoner’s situation; dragged to the prison, to court and to the gallows, because he could not produce the person who actually sold him the horse. The prosecutor had not produced any evidence of the horse ever having been in the possession of the prisoner, any other way than by his own confession; and he trusted that the jury would not hesitate to find that the prisoner was not taken in the manner as stated in the declaration, but would pronounce him, by their verdict, “Not Guilty.”