Virginia Argus

From the Daily Advertiser.

COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS.

For the city of New-York, April 9, 1805.

People of the State vs. Baker.

This was an indictment against the defendant for an assault and battery, committed on the body of a certain Mrs. Hatfield; and the only witness called in support of the prosecution was the lady herself, who was the subject of this assault. She stated that her husband is a person who takes in meat to smoke; and that on a certain day, the defendant called at her house when her husband was from home, and after informing her that he had left two hams there to be smoked, begged to have them if they were sufficiently cured--she replied, that she really did not know them from many others, but lighted a candle & went with the defendant to the smoke house, that he might point them out--He could not and agreed to call for them again, when her husband should be at home. On their return to the house, she begged the defendant to sit down, which he did. After a short conversation he rose up & said he must go. She rose also, with her knitting in her hand. He told her he would call again for the hams, but as he had already called three times on this business, he thought he ought to have three kisses; Upon which he put one hand around her neck, and the other in her bosom; that a struggle ensued, in which he threw her on a bed which was in the room; but in consequence of the resistance she made he let her go. He then begged that she would not tell her husband of what had passed; that she told him "he was a good for nothing fellow: and asked him if he was not the same Baker who had taken some girls a sleighing last winter, and treated them so rudely." To which he made no reply, but left the house immediately. On this she went up stairs to a family that occupied the second story of the house, and made some enquiry of them respecting the defendant. Being cross examined, she said she made no outcry when Baker kissed her; that she said nothing of the matter to the women upstairs, but informed her husband of the circumstance as soon as he returned home in the evening.

The Counsel for the defendant enquired whether her husband had offered to compromise this matter, and hush it up if the defendant would pay him 150 dollars; but if this proposition was rejected, that he would prosecute him for the assault, &c. The court having overruled the question as improper, the counsel, for the defendant, contended that his client ought not to be convicted on this indictment, since it was evident that the whole was a mere piece of badinage, & not intended as an insult on the prosecutrix--That it was clear from her asking him to sit down, and after he had kissed her "whether he was not the same Baker who treated some girls rudely last winter" From her not saying a word to the women up stairs the moment after the affair had happened--From her making no outcry when the defendant kissed her--In short from her whole demeanor there was nothing that bespoke an insulted woman. and the husband offering to make the matter up on the payment of a round sum of money, shows that he did not feel the insult very deeply, but meant to make a neat job of it. The Counsel declared, that with so pretty a face and with such a fine pair of coral lips as the witness possessed, he did not wonder if any man should wish to kiss her; and really if a lady with such charms were to give a man encouragement, and he did not endeavor to obtain a kiss, he deserved for that offence himself to be indicted; but if every young fellow in town were to be brought to the bar for kissing the girls, he thought every sleighing season would make plenty of business for the gentlemen of the bar. Upon the whole, under the circumstances of the present case he trusted the jury would acquit his client.

The Attorney General was of a different opinion. He thought the defendant guilty of a very rude attack on his neighbor's wife; that it was an incident calculated to rouse the most vindictive passions of the human heart; that the husband, had he come in at the moment of the assault, would have been justified in giving the defendant the most severe chastisement---that Mr. Hatfield's offering to settle the matter was a proof of his moderation, and was a measure which the law authorised. As to the fact, however, of the assault and battery, that was clear; and the jury were bound to convict the defendant.

The court charged the jury to the same effect; who after a few minutes consultation, returned a verdict of guilty.