before the court and jury, be said he had accused those Indians falsely. Indeed some of the accused Indians, particularly one named James Akompanet, a very understanding fellow, pleaded in behalf of himself and the rest, that what David said against them, was, 1st, to save his own life when he was bound to the tree, 2dly, to revenge himself of them because they had seized upon his brother Andrew, and his son, and delivered them to the English, one whereof was put to death, and the other sent out of the country, a slave.[1] There were several things alleged against the prisoners. The most material were, that they were tracked from Lancaster to Marlborough about the time the murder was committed. That one of them had a pair of bandoleers belonging to one of the persons slain. That another had on a bloody shirt. But when the poor Indians had answered for themselves, and by good evidence cleared matters, all those pleas were figments : for the Indians proved by many witnesses, that they were all at Marlborough the whole Sabbath day, at the worship of God in their fort, and at the very time the murder was committed at Lancaster, ten miles distant; that the bandoleers, that one of them had, he came honestly by; and that they were delivered at Mount Hope, by one of the commissioners, unto James Rumny Marsh, an Indian soldier there, and delivered to him to bring home for him. The commissioner, Mr. Morse, owned in court that he had delivered a pair of bandoleers to James, and he, being in court, witnessed that he sent them home by the Indian accused. That the shirt became bloody by venison newly killed by those Indians, whereof this man carried a part upon his back; for it was made evident that those eleven Indians, with others, were abroad hunting, the Saturday before, towards Lancaster, and had killed three deer which they divided among them, (as their manner is,) and returned to their fort in Marlborough same Saturday evening. And others of them had bloody shirts upon the same occasion, besides the person accused. So that upon the trial were acquitted, except one man, who was found guilty of being accessary to the murder; but this man, named Joseph Spoonant, was tried by another jury, not the same that tried the others. Upon what ground the jury went, I know not; but the man was sold for a slave, and sent out of the coun-
- ↑ They were both shot, as would seem by the authority cited in the last note.
