THE COURTS OF LAW. 217 hear the evidence both for and against him, and determine whether the crime exhibited be or be not made out/' To hear evidence is one thing, and to weigh it is another; and weigWojf unless the evidence taken before the Judge- Advocate's ®^* ^^^ Court was carefully weighed in every instance according to law, how could he be satisfied that the crime was made out in any case f But the weighing of evidence is a branch of mental analysis for which the usual training of soldiers and sailors furnishes no qualifications. The danger, to which Courts- 2mlatog». martial are peculiarly liable, of arriving at wrong conclu- sions at the trial of criminal charges, was painfully illustrated in a case mentioned by Sir Samuel Bomilly. A sailor was tried by Court-martial in October, 1806, on a charge of mutiny, alleged to have been committed by him nine years previously, when he was a boy of sixteen. There was only one witness for the prosecution, who swore positively that he had seen the prisoner taking an active part in the mutiny; but at the same time he admitted that he had not seen the accused since that time. The latter read a written state- ment in defence, in which he begged for mercy on account of his youth. He was sentenced to be hanged, and was SSKl^^ executed accordingly ten days after the trial. The case sub- sequently came before the Attorney-General and Romilly/ then Solicitor-General; and from inquiries which they instituted, it was clearly proved that the man was innocent. '^He had applied to another man to write a defence for him ; and he had read it, thinking it calculated to excite compassion, and more likely to save him than a mere denial of the fact.'**
- Memoirs of Sir Samuel Romilly, vol. ii, p. 182.
Digitized by Google
