Alexandria Gazette & Daily Advertiser

Westchester, (Penn.) Nov. 21.

The trial of John Read, for the murder of Peter Shipley, came on at the late sessions of the court of Oyer and Terminer, in this County. The case, from the particular circumstances attending it, had excited an unusual degree of interest. The prisoner had been tried in May last for the murder of Samuel G. Griffith, and acquitted.

On Monday, the fifth instant, the trial commenced before his Honor Judge Darlington, President and Judges Ralston & Davis, Associates. Council for the Commonwealth, Dick, (in the place of Dillingham, prosecuting Attorney, who, having been Read's Counsel in the former trial, was, of course, excluded from taking part against him in this,) assisted by Barnard and Duer.
For the prisoner Bell and Tilghman.

The following is a brief, and we believe, a fair statement of the case.

Read the Prisoner, a Black man, two or three years ago, came into Pennsylvania, from Maryland, said he was free. although an attempt was made to hold him in slavery—frequently declared himself afraid of Kidnappers—often went armed. He married in Pennsylvania and had one child—hired a house in Kennett township, and worked about the neighborhood.

On the night of the 14th, of December, 1820, (we now take his own story, as given immediately after the transaction to several) his wife was from home—he was alone—lay down but felt uneasy & could not sleep—got up and made a fire About midnight, thought he heard persons walking about the house—one at length rapped smartly at the door—he asked what they wanted, the person answered they had authority to search, and had come for stolen goods. Read told them to go away—he believed they were kidnappers; if they were not; he had no stolen goods, and if they would wait till morning they might search. Soon after they began to force the door: He rolled a barrel of cider against it: told them if they attempted to come in, he would kill them They prized the door off the hinges, and it fell over the cider barrel. at the instant he heard the click of a pistol cocking, then said Read. "it is life for life": one of the persons said "rush on Shipley: damn the negro, he wont shoot." A person attempted to enter: he shot him: another attempted to come in; he struck him with a club, the man fell on his knees, as he rose Read struck him once or twice: then seizing his gun he ran to the neighbors and told them that the kidnappers attacked his house; that he had killed two; asked for more powder, as he was afraid they would pursue him. He made no attempt to escape After being arrested and in custody; one witness testified that he heard Read say, that after he got out of the house and to the fence, on looking round, he saw one of the men trembling; that he went back and beat him until he thought he was quite dead.

When the neighbors came upon the ground in the morning, they found Mr. Griffith lying on the bed, in the black man's house, dead. Mr. Shipley, the overseer, for whose murder the prisoner was now on trial, had got up; carried him there, taken his pocket book and watch out of his pocket, and put them in his own, and then went to a neighbouring house about 100 yards off; and prevailed upon Mrs. Harvey, to let him in. There he languished eight days. and died.

The club was found in the house, close by the cider barrel; two pistols loaded, one of them cocked, a whip and pair of gloves were found at the door. a pair of handcuffs and a rope were found in the pockets of Mr. Shipley. A third pistol in the pocket of Mr. Griffith. There were but two wounds upon Mr. Shipley

It appeared sufficiently clear that Read was the child of Maria, formerly an African Queen, recently a slave, and no proof of his manumission was shown. He was claimed by Mr. Griffith, from whose service he had absconded. Having learnt where he was, Mr. Griffith, his overseer. Mr. Shipley, and two assistants, Minner and Pearson, came to the house occupied by Read, about midnight, and made the attempt which resulted in the death of both Mr. Griffith and Mr. Shipley, as related.

The principal points disputed were Whether Mr. Griffith intended to take Read out of the State without taking him before a Judge, in violation of the act of Assembly?
2d. Whether Read knew his Master.
3d. What right could Read, as a slave, acquire of self-defence in Pennsylvania?
4th. Whether he returned as stated. that he confessed to one of witness, from the fence and beat Shipley?

It is impossible for us, our limits do not admit it, to go into the particular arguments, in relation to the facts and the law, as will be perceived when we state. that the cause began on Monday the 5th. and continued until Tuesday the 13th. occupying the Court and Jury nine and ten hours each day.

It was fully and ably argued. Mr. Dick for the prosecution, took up about one hour and an half in a sensible and argumentative address. He was followed by Mr. Bell, on behalf of the prisoner, in a maiden speech, distinguished for clearness, method and force Mr. Tilghman for the prisoner, began to speak on Monday afternoon, at 3 o'clock, & spoke until half past seven. The deep and fixed attention of a crowded audience, for four and a half hours, showed the power of genius, in enchanting fetters of eloquence, the human mind. The courage and humanity of Mrs. Harvey, in rising at the mid-hour of the night, although alone, & taking in a stranger who was moaning at her door for assistance: were adverted to, with much force and beauty, accompanied by the quotation from Walter Scott:
"Oh, woman! in our hours of ease,
Impatient, coy, and hard to please
And variable as the shade
By the light quivering aspen made:
When pain and anguish wring the brow,
A ministering angel thou."

Mr. Duer began his argument in conclusion, on the part of the Commonwealth. on Tuesday morning. He contended that the master had a right, under the law of Congress, at any time and place, and at any hour, by himself, or his agent, to seize his slave: that the slave had no right to resist his master: that his house was no protection; that therefore, the master, and the deceased Shipley, his overseer, were in the exercise of a legal right; and Read, in resisting, in perpetration of a wrong: that Read must have known his master, and that, therefore, the killing, in resisting the legal attempt to arrest him. was murder in the first degree. Mr. Duer spoke for two and an half hours

Judge Darlington then summed up the evidence, and laid down the law in a charge of an hour and a half He adverted to the delicacy of his situation having been on the other trial. Attorney for the Commonwealth; but remarked that his regret was considerably diminished, by the consideration that the Jury were the Judges of the law. as well as the fact. in the case before them. He gave a full and lucid exposition of the whole law on the subject. In respect to the construction of the Act of Assembly, of 1820. on which much reliance was placed. he differed from the opinion of Judge Ross, delivered at Norristown. The Counsel for the Prisoner had contended that by this act, the attempt to take any person claimed as a slave out of the State without taking him before a Judge to prove his right, was declared a felony that from the time and circumstances of the attack, no doubt could exist but that it was the intention of the party to take Read out of the state, in violation of that act—that they were, therefore, in the commission of a felony, and Read was justified in resisting unto the death. The Counsel for the Commonwealth maintained that this act was intended to prevent kidnapping, or man-stealing. that it did not apply to a master, who intended to arrest and reclaim his runaway slave, who by the act of Congress, he was authorised to arrest, or seize, when and where he could. But Judge Ross had decided that the act had reference to masters seizing their slaves, and taking them out of the state, without going before a Judge.

Judge Darlington was of opinion that such was not the construction, inasmuch as the law so construed inflicted the same penalty (seven years imprisonment in the Penitentiary) upon the acknowledged master, reclaiming his slave & taking him away, as upon the kidnapper, who should attempt to carry off a free man; and this was confirmed by the construction of the Supreme Court, of the old act of Assembly in relation to the same subject, He then examined the evidence and weighed it with great perspicuity and impartiality, expressing his opinion that there was not conclusive proof that Read knew his master or overseer; and intimating very clearly, that the witness who testified that the Prisoner confessed, he returned and beat the deceased, until he thought him quite dead—was mistaken.

The Jury, immediately on the Court opening in the afternoon, returned to the box with a verdict of manslaughter.

The next day he received his sentence of nine years imprisonment in the Penitentiary.

Record.