1778.
dence could be given of a man’s ſentiments; but that the intention expreſſed by any words offered in evidence, muſt relate immediately to the overt act laid and proved on the indictment; that although an adherence to the Britiſh troops was treaſon, yet, an adherence to American troops, even under a ſuppoſition that they were Britiſh, did not amount to that crime; and that the opinion, that words joined with actions made treaſon, however ingeniouſly ſupported, failed in point of Law. See 3 Cro. 332.
The Attorney General, on the other hand, admitted that words alone do not amount to treaſon; but, he inſiſted, that they were proper evidence to explain the Defendant’s actions on a trial for that crime. 1 Hawk. 39. Foſt. 202. For, though barely being within the enemy’s camp might be innocent; yet if it could be ſhewn, that the intention of going thither was to join and adhere to them, the evidence ought to be received.
By the Court:—No evidence of words relative to the miſtake of the American troops, can be admitted; for any adherence to them, though contrary to the deſign of the party, cannot poſſibly come within the idea of treaſon.
But, as it appears, that the priſoner was actually with the enemy at another time, words indicating his intention to join them, are proper teſtimony to explain the motives, upon which the intention was afterwards carried into effect.
The Attorney General then called a witneſs to prove that the Defendant was ſeen parading with the enemy’s light horſe in the city of Philadelphia.
But to this, alſo, his counſel objected: For, they urged, that every criminal act muſt be tried in the county in which it is committed. Cro. C. 247. 4 Bl. C. 301. 3 Inſt. 48. 49. 80. And that the circumſtance of merely joining the enemy’s army, being neither treaſon, nor miſpriſion of treaſon, unleſs done with a traiterous intention, no overt act had been proved in Cheſter, which was a prerequiſite to any evidence being heard of an overt act committed in any other county. To evince that this was, likewiſe, the ſenſe of the Legiſlative, the Defendant’s counſel read the act of Aſſembly giving the Supreme Court a ſpecial power to try offenders in Lancaſter, for crimes committed in the counties of Cheſter and Philadelphia.
The Attorney General anſwered, that when an overt act is proved in the county where the trial is held, corroborative evidence may be given of overt acts committed in any other county. Foſt. 9. 2 Hawk. 436. And that having eſtabliſhed the priſoner’s preſence with the Britiſh army, nothing, but the proof of actual force, and its continuance, could excuſe him from the charge of adhering to the enemies of the Commonwealth. Foſt. 11. For, joining the army of as enemy has always been held prima facie evidence of an overt act.
