SOME NOTED TRIALS IN COLONIAL DAYS
Offenses and the Method of Conducting Cases in the Early Period
Part 2 (Originally posted 1/20/2023 at http://dtimeshistory.blogspot.com/)
SANDELAND’S DOUBLE HOUSE – In the early part of the eighteenth century on the west side of Edgmont Avenue below Third Street, in the city of Chester, could be seen the foundations of an old building which is the period associated with Penn, was known as James Sandeland’s double house. It was the most imposing building in Upland and therein Penn convened the first General Assembly that ever sat in the province of Pennsylvania. The house had been built with mortar made of oyster shell lime, which proved so utterly worthless, notably because of defective burning that in the course of twenty odd years the structure showed such signs of decay that it became untestable, full late ruins and gradually the materials made in its construction were received. Shortly after 1800, even the foundations were buried in the accumulation of evil that has taken place during a century. In time its very existence was forgotten, hence tradition for many gave credit to the Friends’ old House, which stood on the adjoining lot, as the place where the first Assembly met.
In August 1892, while excavations were being made for the row of commission stores, the foundations of Sandeland’s double house were unearthed. An accurate survey of them was made by Walter Wood, assistant City Engineer, giving the precise order of the old structure and the distance from the intersection of Third and Edgmont Streets. William B. Broomall, Esq., had Mr. Nyemetz take a photograph of the unearthed walls for which act he will receive the thanks of coming generations.
In the double house in its pristine glory James Sandelands kept tavern, for the pretentious word, hotel, had not then found its way in the English language. Early in 1675, Sandelands, in ejecting a drunken Indian from his premises, had used such violence that the savage died shortly after, and it was asserted his death was caused by the injuries he had received on that occasion. The incident it appears, aroused such feeling among the Indians that there were fears of an outbreak on their part, hence, Captain Cantwel, the Deputy Governor on the Delaware, wrote to Governor Andross at New York, respecting the case and in answer was instructed to take such action that Sandelands, if guilty, should be punished for the deed.
THE INDIAN CASE – The preliminary proceedings were followed by a special court which convened at New Castle on May 13, 1685, at which Governor Sir Edmund Andross presided in person, assisted by three commissioners especially appointed to hear the case. The bench, the old record relates, was “called over and placed on the Governor’s left hand; Governor Philip Carteret of New Jersey, on the right with Mr. Daniel Edsall, Mrs. James Wandall, Mr. Joseph Smith, Mr. John Jackson, Mr. William Osborne.” Distinguished visitors, it would seem in those days, were accorded seats on the judge’s platform as was done within recent years in England during the Baccarat trial While the Duke of York’s laws were not then applicable to the Delaware settlements, for it was not until September 25, 1676, that Governor Andross, extended the operation of that code to this territory, the jury, in Sandeland’s case consisted of seven freemen in accordance with the Duke’s laws in criminal trials.
The court being in session, James Sandelands was “brought to answer a presentment by the sheriff for suspicion of being the cause of the death of an Indian.” After the presentment was read the prisoner entered a plea of not guilty. Sandelands, the accused, was the first witness called to the stand and he related “the whole story of the Indian being at his house and him putting him out of doors.” The aboriginal witnesses who were then called did not agree in their testimony. One stated that the man died five days after his fall, while others made the interval of life after the ejection from the tavern six and eight weeks. A peculiar fact which appears on record is that while the Indians were giving their testimony, Sandelands, by leave of the court, went “and had a talk with them.” The jury, after being charged by the court, withdrew and finally returned a verdict that appears on record, thus: “They found the prisoner not to be guilty. He is ordered to be cleared by proclamation.”
IN THE PENN REGIME – I will allude only to one case that was tried after William Penn had acquired actual possession of the province. The proceedings were to recover damage on a suit for defamation and the trial took place at Chester on the 7th day of the second month, which would be May 1, 1685. The space that is accorded to this trial I the old docket at West Chester, indicates the intense public interest which the details excited among the people of this section of that day.
Henry Reynolds who settled at Marcus Hook in 1680, where he kept a tavern in which he sold liquor with license when he secured the approval of the court and without when the justices withheld their approbation, brought suit against Justa Anderson for an alleged slander. Reynolds was a man of quick temper and in the heat of his anger was swift to strike those who had offended him. From the meagre records preserved to us it appears that towards the end of the preceding year, 1684, he had bound servant girls in his household, whom, in his rage, he would whip severely. After one of these beatings the girl died.
The defendant, Anderson, spoke openly of the occurrence and public opinion was unusually excited that James Kennelly, the first Coroner in the history of Chester County disinterred the body and held an inquest thereon. When the suit, instituted by Reynolds, was tried, the plaintiff showed by James Sandelands, James Brown and William Hawkes, that Anderson had stated in their hearing “that he (the plaintiff) beat and kicked his maid and that he (the defendant) saw her alive no more.” In justification of his words, Anderson called Thomas Pearson to the stand, called Thomas Pearson to the stand, who testified that he was at Reynold’s house when the latter picked up the tongs and threatened to strike the girl “for not eating such things as were provided for her.”
SOME OF THE TESTIMONY – Wooley Rosen, who then lived just below Naaman’s creek in Delaware, stated that he was at Reynold’s Inn and the maid had asked her master for some milk, whereupon in a rage he struck her “one blow with a broom staff, asking her whether there was not victuals enough in the house.” William Connell, who was also witness to the act said he saw Reynolds “beat his maid with a broom staff and afterwards kicked her as she was by the fire.”
William Moulder appears to have seen the girl subsequent to Connell for he testified that “he saw the maid sleeping by the fireside and afterwards she went to bed, after which a revelation came to him that the maid would die that night.” She did die, but like the modern prophets, Moulder told no one of his prophetic vision until after the happening of the event he seemed to have foretold. The plaintiff, in rebuttal produced his mother-in-law, Prudence Clayton, who had been sent for to lay out the corpse and she testified that she “did not remember that she did see any manner of hurt about her.”
The jury, however, found in favor of the defendant. The matter did not end immediately. Coroner Kennelly had before the trial on the third day of first month, obtained an order of court directing that “execution be granted against Henry Reynolds for the Coroner’s fees, charges of inquest and taking up the said Reynold’s maid, with all other charges whatsoever thereunto belonging.” The sheriff on this execution had levied on an ox, and Reynolds at the next court had to pay 4, 10 shillings when “the court ordered him his ox again.”
I have merely touched hastily the rich mine of interesting local facts that lies within the covers of the old court dockets of Chester County, before the setting off of our district from the mother municipality so far as the name is concerned. This remark applies only to the last case cited, for the others I have spoken of antedate Penn’s ownership of the province.