GILFORD, AUGUST 12.
THE KING V. CHENNEL AND CHALCRAFT
At a very early hour this morning the Court, and all the avenues leading to it were filled up, so great was the public anxiety to hear the trial of these prisoners.
AT eight o’clock Mr. Serjeant Lens proceeded to the Court, when the prisoners, George Chennel and J. Chalcraft, were arraigned for the wilful murder of G. Chennel, at Godalming, on the 10th of November last; and on a second indictment, for the murder of Elizabeth Wilson, by fracturing their skulls with a hammer, and cutting their throats.
Mr. Gurney, as leading Counsel for the Crown, stated the case to the Jury, in an admirable speech. In his preliminary observations, he said, that even the horrid crime of murder had its gradations of atrocity. It was aggravated when committed by the strong upon the feeble and unresisting—when by the servant against his master—and above all, when by the son against his aged father. The last was the dreadful charge which was imputed to the prisoners—the one was the son, and the other the servant of the deceased. He mentioned this not to excite their passions; on the contrary they must not suffer themselves to be transported by their indignation at the crime, to be caused, by a premature judgement, to pronounce the accused guilty. They must discharge from their minds all they had heard elsewhere, and found their verdict only upon evidence which should be adduced before them, for upon that alone they had sworn to found their verdict. With respect to that evidence, from which they must form the result of their opinion, it must of necessity be collected from a variety of circumstances, all tending to the same end—The murderer did not do his foul deed in the presence of witnesses. He chose night and solitude for the perpetration of his crime. The deceased, Mr. Chennel was a respectable tradesman at Godalming near this place, and was also a man of considerable property. The prisoner Chennel was his son, and the other prisoner his carman, and had been so for many years, he having a little farm in addition to his trade of a currier.—Elizabeth Wilson, the other person murdered, was harmless old woman, who had been also for many years his house-keeper. The prisoner Chennel lodged in the town of Godalming, and usually took his meals at his father’s, but did not lodge there, and it would be proved, had not that filial affection which ??????? ought to have for a father. On the morning of Thursday, the 10th November last, about seven o’clock, the town of Godalming, was ????? with the account that Mr. Chennel and his housekeeper were both found murdered, at their house, which was in the middle of the street at Godalming; the old ???? in his bed, and the housekeeper in ??? ??? ??? front kitchen. They were last seen ???? o’clock on the Monday evening, and ????? the murder must have been committed ???? ten. The old gentleman was a ver??? Went to bed usually at nine; his housekeeper ??? him for some time, and usually retired to ???? was found in his bed, and therefore it was done after he had retired; she was found in the kitchen, where she had been at work, not having been to bed, and the work, which lay near her, was a shirt of the prisoner’s, which she was mending. It was, therefore presumed that it was before her usual time of going to bed. The person who lives in the next house, and whose bed room adjoined to Mr. Chennel’s, went to bed at ten o’clock and could hear any thing that passed in his????? to not hear any noise after that hour. ?? in addition ???????, a person was passing the house about half-past ????, and heard a scream, and afterwards something ????????? did not suspect the dreadful deed which was the????? Probably in perpetration. The next morning, ???? farming servant of Mr. Chennel’s came to the s????? for the horses at about six, he found Chalcraft there, ?????, and it was the conduct of Chalcraft that excited suspicion against him. They dressed their horses, and ?????? the house where usually the old gentleman and his housekeeper would be sitting at that hour. The ??? was open, but no one appeared; at length Chalcraft ?????? the front kitchen, and the other heard him calling his master, but no answer. Now it would be proved, that the murdered body of the housekeeper laid in such a position that when he opened the door, he must have ???????? must have stepped over it to get to ?????? and the???? His affecting not to see ????????? great suspicion. In addition to this, w?????? given, he stated that his master was n??????? before he, or any one had been up stair????to be the constant companion of the ????????????, and therefore he was immediately ????????? searching for the box of Chennel ??????????? found, one of them slightly ???????? notes would be traced to the possession ??????????? days before. The prisoner at once ????????????? notes had been his father’s, and said ????????????? gave them to him on the preceding Sunday; ????????????? to prove that th????? part of Monday, could not pay ??????? ten o’clock on Monday evening, after ??????? supposed to be commuted he went ????????? Arms, in that town, and squandered ???????? ???sely. As they were ??? suspected, ???? to say where they had been, and when ?????gether on the Monday evening ?????? they had not seen each other since the??? The falsity of this statement would be ??? for both Chalcraft and Chennel were ???? half past nine on the evening of the ????? was seen standing at the very passage ??? deceased’s house, and a witness afterwards ??? a woman walking backward and forward ??? apparently on the watch. This woman, ???, was one Sarah Hurst, an accomplice ?? was seen walking towards his home. (long passage illegible)
John Currington was farming servant to the late Mr. Chennel. He left him on the Monday evening at hal past five. He saw his master about ??? after past seven. He went to the house on Wednesday morning at half past six. He took some horses from a field to the stable. The stables were behind the house. He saw there Chalcraft. He found him in the store-room, just within the door, at half past six. The door was open. Chalcraft had the corn sieve in his hand. Witness had never found that door open before, til his master had risen. His master used to leave the corn in two peck measures at the ??? of the stairs. The key was usually kept within the door of the front kitchen. To get that key it was necessary to enter the kitchen. Witness, after cleaning his horses, went up to the back kitchen to breakfast with George Sweetman. They found the door on the latch. Chalcraft went home to breakfast. When he came back they went to harness the horses. He returned about half past seven. They brought out their horses into the street; no person was up in the house. Witness told Chalcraft that he wanted small beer for breakfast, and told him that the back kitchen door was open. Chalcraft said, how the deuce did that come open? Mr. Milliner the shoemaker, rattled at the front door to awaken his master; then Chalcraft and witness went down the passage, went through the cellar, and called his master three or four times. Witness heard the door of the kitchen rattle; was not sure if it was the door of the kitchen. After having called, Chalcraft came back the way he went, through the cellar. Prisoner afterwards rapped the window in front with his whip at the chamber where Mr. Channel slept. Witness did not then know that his master slept there, but now knows. Chalcraft returned down the passage again, and unlatched the kitchen door, when witness or prisoner found a puddle of blood by putting down his hand. Prisoner then shove the door to. Witness mentioned to the prisoner that it was blood. They went up the passage as fast as they could, and gave the alarm. Chalcraft asked whom he should call. Chalcraft met Mr. Earl, who came to the house. People then collected.
Examined by the Judge—Witness said, that when he observed that it was blood, by dipping his finger in the puddle, Chalcraft made no reply. The prisoner being asked if he had any questions to put to the witness, replied no. Charlotte Haynes keeps the Little George, in Godalming. Her house is next Mr. Chennel’s; her sleeping room is next Mr. Chennel’s, divided from it by a very thin wall, whether brick or not she does not know. She knew the room to be Mr. Chennels bed room. She could hear Mr. Chennel cough in going to bed or getting up, or likewise draw the curtain. He usually went to bed about nine, or a little after, in winter. She recollected the night of the murder. Witness had gone to bed about ten minutes before ten o’clock. She was very poorly and wished to go to bed, and she therefore shut the doors, which made her observe the time. She did not go to sleep till before eleven, when her daughter came to bed. All was quiet in Mr. Chennel’s room. She did not hear him go to bed. She heard what had happened on Tuesday morning about half past seven. She heard it after she was up, and went out. She then saw Chalcraft standing at Harris the butcher’s door. He was saying nothing, but standing with his right hand on the door. Prisoner looked very hard at her across the street. Witness saw Mr. Milliner standing at Mr. Chalcraft’s door, and proceeded to him. She then saw the last witness, Currington, coming up the passage. He called out loud, “I think they are both murdered” Witness asked him, for what reason he thought so? And he replied, because there was a great lump of blood in the kitchen as big as his hand. Witness went to the kitchen and saw blood just within the door. Witness returned immediately, and met Chalcraft in the passage, who made a mewling noise, and asked witness if she thought they were murdered? Witness said, she was afraid they were. She then ran up to Mr. Knight’s to give the alarm.
Examined by the Court.—Witness said she was sure she was not asleep before eleven. Witness usually goes to bed about ten or a little afterwards.
John Knight, jun. deposed, that on Tuesday, the 11th of November last, he came to Chennel’s passage about half past seven. Chalcraft was there standing at the entrance of the passage from the street. He was facing the other side of the street. Nothing about prisoner’s manner attracted witness’s attention at the time. Witness went to the door of the kitchen, followed by Chalcraft. Having opened the door, he saw the body of the woman lying on the ground. The door could not open completely on account of the body. Chalcraft did not enter, and when witness asked him to go up stairs, he replied he could not go, and seemed very much agitated. Prisoner just looked on, and witness did not go up. Witness left prisoner in the passage. Witness said that he believed that a person in opening the kitchen door to call up stairs must have seen the body. Witness did not observe the dress of the woman.
Mr. Henry Canston was next door neighbour to Mr. Chennel. Witness is a baker. The back of his premises opens into the yard to which, Mr. Chennel’s passage leads. Witness has a door nearly opposite to Mr. Chennel’s front kitchen, ??? into the passage. On the night of Monday witness went down the passage at a quarter before ten towards the street. He did not go by the kitchen. Every thing was then quiet. He returned and entered his own house at the front door. He then went out of the back door into the passage to the pump for water. His door is nearly opposite the kitchen window of Mr. Chennel. There was no light in the kitchen then. He must have seen the light, if there had been any, as ??? part of the window was not covered with the shutters. I ???? no person there. Witness then went to bed.—His bed-room is just over Mr. Chennel’s door. There ???? thin partition between the house of the witness and that of the deceased, so that every thing could be ????? Chennel’s house.—His room is against Mrs. Wilson’s bed-room. Witness heard no noise in Mr. Channel’s house ??? as long as remained awake. On Tuesday morning ?????? heard the alarm. About 20 minutes before eighth ??? standing at his front door, and Chalcraft in the ??? of the road, with his arms folded. Prisoner said “My master and Bet are both murdered to-night.” Witness said, “Good God, what do you mean Chalcraft?” He answered, “Bet lies in the kitchen, and master is upstairs.” Witness directly went down the passage, and met ?? Knight at the top, coming from the house. Witness ???? housekeeper lying on the floor of the front kitchen. She had on a light coloured shawl. Her stockings ??? white. She had a white handkerchief about her ???? Witness went and informed his family, and made ???? He returned and found John Earl standing in ???? hen. Witness though the body of Mrs Wilson had been moved a little, as the door could not otherwise ?????; the door of the passage, came against her head ???? first lying. Witness did not take particular ??? of the marks of violence, but observed blows on ??????le. and the hand had nearly been cut off. Witness ????? go up into Mr. Chennel’s chamber. The ????? Chennel did not live in the house with his father ???? frequently had his meals there. Witness lived next door neighbour to Mr. Chennel for 7 years. The prisoner and his father lived on very bad terms. Witness had ??? the prisoner Chennel make use of expressions regarding his father about a month or two before his father’s decease. The expressions conveyed vile names, and he wished he were dead. His language for several years past was so much against his father that witness shuddered at it. The expression of a wish that ???? dead had been used about a year before. His language against the housemaid was violent. He wished ???? her would ???? her out of doors, as she told his ???? was making mischief between them ????? at his father’s on Sunday at one o’clock ???? witness ‘s shop for his farther’s dinner ?????? minutes, and then went away.
??????? maker in Godalming, and used to ???? Chennel. He recollected the Monday when ???? took place. He saw Mr. Chennel about a quarter past sevem. Mrs. Wilson was in the back kitchen ????? of the murder about twenty minutes before eight. He was in the street, and saw the prisoner standing in the street with his hand-folded. He said, “For God’s sake, John Earl, come over, we cannot find Master no where, and there is blood in the kitchen.” Witness went, followed by Chalcraft, to the kitchen door, and saw Elizabeth Wilson lying on the floor, with her ???? leaned against the door. Witness ???? Bet murdered, and no doubt master has ?? with the same fate”—Chalcraft went for the constable. Witness then let the shutters down, but could see the body before the window was opened, from the light of the door. Witness did not examine the person of the house-keeper, but saw she had a white handkerchief. Witness, with two or three others, went up stairs, the staircase door being shut. They went into Mr Chennel’s room; saw him in bed, with his throat cut, and blood on the clothes. The body was covered up to the head. Witness then went into the housekeeper’s bed-room. There was no appearance there of the bed being slept in. He then went down, and saw Chennel at the front door of the side kitchen, outside, in the passage. Witness said, “George, a bad job has happened to night; ???? poor Bet, murdered, and your father has met with the same fate in his bed.” Prisoner said, “O dear, what is to be done?” Witness said, “Won’t you go up and see your father?” Prisoner made no reply, but went immediately upstairs, accompanied by witness. As soon as he went into the room, he took one look of his father, and sat down on the left of the room, holding his handkerchief to his face, and making a mournful noise. Witness went down stairs and left prisoner there with the prisoner there with the constable, who had come into the room a little before. On getting down stairs witness was shown a knife all stained with blood. It was the knife of the deceased; witness had often seen and used it before. Witness remained two or three hours about the house; he saw Chalcraft afterwards in the shop, and asked him why he did not go in the house; Mr. Austin had asked the question why he did not go to see his master, and he answered he could not because he had seen the man who was murdered at Petersfield. Witness thought that the door of the front kitchen could not be opened without seeing the housekeeper’s body.
Richard Stedman went up into Mr. Chennel’s room on the Tuesday morning with the last witness and Austin. He there saw Mr. Chennel lying with his skull fractured and his throat cut. The blood about the wound was dry, and shewed that the murder had been committed some time. He did not turn the clothes down so as to observe if there was blood on the bed. He examined the body of the housekeeper, and found a knife resting against her body, with the point on the brick; the blood was dry on the knife; the apron and handkerchief were bloody but dry. The knife was a large case knife. He remarked the state of the wound on the woman, and it appeared to have been done a considerable time, as the blood was dry. The arm of the woman which witness felt, was cold.
John Kean is the son of the keeper of the House of Correction at Guildford. On the discovery of the murder he went to Godalming. He examined the premises of Mr. Chennel, and found a hammer covered with blood. He compared the hammer with a wound on Mr. Chennel’s head, and the end appeared to fit one of the marks. Chalcraft was committed to witness’s custody. He had a smock frock on (Wednesday) when he took him. On the Thursday morning when he examined him, he found spots of blood on the right sleeve of the frock. Witness went into the house on Tuesday with Chalcraft and Austin.
George Austin remembered Tuesday, the 11th Nov. last, and saw Chalcraft when he was looking up to his master’s windows. Witness called him into Chennel’s shop, and asked if he would like to see the bodies, and he said no. Witness asked him why; and he answered, because I never saw but one man murdered, and that was the man at Petersfield. He asked if he saw that man murdered, and he said no, I saw him afterwards. Witness then asked him again to go, remarking that they would do no harm, and he said he would not go for all the town. Prisoner seemed much agitated. Witness turned round him, and perceived a spot, which he considered to be blood, on the right arm. This was before he was taken into custody. On the following day witness went with Kean and Chalcraft to the house of the deceased. Kean asked if he would go and see the bodies, and he said he would, and they all went together. They passed through the shop, Chalcraft stepped over the body, and they went upstairs. Kean then asked if he knew which was his master’s bed room. He answered, no He did not know any more than the child unborn, not being up stairs before. They went in, and Chalcraft said, there he lies, poor old man, one of the best masters I ever had. When going down, witness asked the prisoner to take the position he was in when he called his master in the morning; he took the position, and the witness described his attitude from model—[The description could not be intelligible in words; but the object of the examination went to prove, that in the morning when the prisoner went to call his master, he must have seen the body of the housekeeper, though he had made no mention of it.] Witness asked him, why he did not open the door and pass through to the stairs instead of going round? to which the prisoner answered,—“If you knew the pedigree of it as well as I do, you would have done as I did.” Witness asked Chalcraft, on Wednesday, when in custody, when he saw George last, (meaning Chennel) and he answered, “on Friday last, ploughing” Witness saw G. Chennel on Tuesday night, at his (witness’s) mother’s house, when he said he had left the Richmond Arms on Monday night to go and see a lady; and that he was not gone above four or five minutes; and when he returned his pipe was not out.
Sarah Hurst appeared deeply affected, and could scarcely stand. She lived in Godalming, and knew the prisoners; saw Chalcraft at five in the evening of Monday, the 10th of November. He asked if she should be down town that evening, and she answered she did not know if she should. He said he wished she would, giving no reason for his wish. She told him she would come down if he wanted her. Nothing more then passed. She saw him again a little after nine over against Mr. Pason’s, or, as near as she could tell, a few doors below Mr. Chennel’s. He was then alone. She asked what he wanted. He answered, that he wanted her to stand by Mr. Chennel’s door to watch. Nothing more then passed. He went to Mr. Chennel’s house, and witness walked in front of the door-way backward and forward. She remained there some time, but could not tell how long. She saw George Chennel going in too when Chalcraft went. After Chalcraft came out, she heard a screech from within doors. Chalcraft said when he came out, “Is that you Hurst?” and she said “Yes” She asked him what they had been doing? He answered, we have done for them both.—Witness saw some blood on his round frock sleeve by the light of two candles in the opposite window. Witness asked how it came there, to which he answered, it was the blood from them two. Chennel came up while they were talking from the passage, and asked who Chalcaraft was talking to. He said he was talking to Hurst. One or two persons passed at this time. They parted—Chalcraft went down the town, and Chennel went up. Witness likewise went up. The nest night she was in company with Chalcraft, and he offered her 4/- to keep it secret at a public house. She told him she would not have it, as she did not want the money. He spoke in whispers. This happened in the Angel Inn. She told him at last to hold his tongue, she did not want to hear any more of it. She saw him on Wednesday evening coming from Mr. Wood’s house, in the custody of Pattock. She asked him how he got on. He said “All well, Sarah, at present.”
Cross examined by the Common Serjeant—She said that her husband was at Guildford. She had not seen him since April—She had been in gaol since. She had been taken up in March, and been in prison ever since. She and her husband were living in Godalming at this time. It was dark about five o’clock on the 10th of February. She never made an improper appointment except once [Q What was there in this once?—A. I have done a great deal of harm by ???] (The witness here could scarcely answer, being overpowered by her feelings) Her husband was to have met Chalcraft at six. She set off from her husband’s at nine o’clock; her husband had left her about six o’clock. (The Common Serjeant was proceeding to question the witness about her husband, when he was stopt by the Court, as what she might say might incriminate him. It was mentioned on the part of the counsel for the defence, and admitted by the counsel for the prosecution that Thomas Hurst was not her husband, he being convicted of bigamy at these assizes for marrying her as his second wife. Any thing that she might say, therefore, had no reference to her husband.)
After some pause, the examination went on. Then you knew of the murder, and gave no intimation of it till March? I did not. Did you not charge others with this horrid murder?—Yes, I did, and I am sorry for it. Who did you first charge?—I cannot recollect his name. You were sworn then, and charged that person on oath, without recollecting his name?—Yes. Who was the second person whom you charged?—I never mentioned the name but said another person was concerned; that other person was meant to be myself. Were you concerned then?—Yes, too, for I watched. Did you not charge another person still?—Yes. Who was that?—Thomas Hurst. Was that the person with whom you were living as your husband?—Yes. Was that after you accused these two men?—Yes. What share did you say Thomas Hurst took in the murder?—I said, he went down there. Was he taken up?—No, Sir, he was not. This Thomas Hurst was the person whom you called your husband?—Yes. What you said about him, was it false?—Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Gurney—Witness said, that she charged those who were not guilty before Mr. Woods. She named no person to Lord Middleton, but Chennel and Chalcraft. She was taken into custody in consequence of the declaration which she voluntarily made. Did you not state to Mr. Smallpiece, the Under-Sheriff at Kingston, that a man of the name of Scooly, who was once a servant of Mr. Chennel’s, was concerned?—Yes.
Mr. Gurney said he was bound to declare that there was no foundation for this charge, as had been found on inquiry. The court asked, was there any truth in this?—No. She was confused, and began to mention the name without any foundation. Find any body suggested this?—No; it was all out of my own head. What induced you to do this?—She could not tell, nobody suggested it to her. The witness nearly fainted away in Court, and was obliged to be supported and to have smelling salts applied.
Many other witnesses were examined, whose evidence established the prisoners’ guilt.
The prisoners were then asked what they had to say in their own defence.
Chennel gave an account of the transaction of Monday, which he partly read from a paper. The account did not vary from what appeared in evidence and his previous statement. He persisted in saying, that he used the same pipe when he returned to the inn as he had used before he left it. He went through the transactions of the night at Richmond Arms nearly as given by the master of that house. He mentioned a good deal of irrelevant matter about his conduct on Tuesday morning, which it is unnecessary to repeat.
Chalcraft, when asked what he had to say, said he would state his defence, if the jury would give attention. He likewise gave an account of his conduct on Monday, stating what he did at the different hours, and brought in many things that had no reference to his exculpation. He delivered his story, introducing the most minute circumstances, and the most trifling dialogues, without the least stop or embarrassment, in a firm voice, and with great composure of manner. The only symptom of anxiety or agitation that appeared was a quivering in his lips, when he found it necessary to wet frequently with his tongue. He concluded by declaring “What I have said is true, so help me God.”
Mr. Andrews then called witnesses in behalf of Chennel.
James Chennel deposed, that he resides in Guildford, and was a brother of the deceased. He received a letter in November, from Mrs. Mary Gill, his sister, which he gave to be delivered to Mr. Chennel, of Godalming, by his son. He received no message from Mr. Chennel on his letter, except through his son. This examination, as inadmissible, was dropt.
James Coles remembered the Monday night when Chennel was murdered. Saw Chennel the prisoner in the shop about eight o’clock at night. He went up the passage of his father’s house towards the street. Witness saw no more of him that night.—Witness went to him next morning, and found him in bed, and told him what had happened in his father’s house. When he heard it, he cried, “Lord have mercy upon us, is he quite dead?” He dressed himself in the clothes he had on the previous night, and witness saw no stain of blood on them. This was all the defence of Chennel.
Chalcraft said, he had two witnesses, who were immediately called. Their testimony was of no consequence. The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners. We observed very little change in the appearance or countenance either of Chalcraft of Chennel when the verdict was pronounced.
The Learned Judge then proceeded to pass the awful sentence of the law, apparently much affected. He told the prisoners that they had been found guilty by a jury of their countrymen, after the most mature and patient investigation of their case; and he might now mention what he had studiously abstained from hinting before, that he thought the conclusion they had come to the only one to which any reasonable man could come on the evidence against them. After the long examination into which the Court had already entered, he felt that he could not much longer make a demand on their attention, but he could not omit stating to the prisoners the situation in which they stood with regard to the deceased. The one of them stood in the relation of a son—a relation which should always create the utmost reverence and love; the other in that of a servant, which should always command duty and respect. Murder committed in these relations could scarcely admit of aggravation, but the crime in their case had been aggravated by circumstances of almost unexampled atrocity. The one had lifted up his hand not only against his father, but that father aged and feeble; and the other against a master whom he himself had denominated kind and benevolent. If they had not yet prepared their minds by repentance to supplicate that God whom they had offended, they should employ the few hours that yet remained for that purpose, without uselessly denying their guilt, and endeavour to place their souls in a state to receive pardon in another world for a deed like this. He had only now to pronounce the awful sentence of the law, which was that they should be taken hence to prison from whence they came, and on Friday next carried to the place of execution, there to be hung by the neck till dead, and their bodies afterwards to be given to be anatomised and dissected according to the statute. This being the sentence of the law, the Lord have mercy on their souls. The prisoners were then led away, Chalcraft protesting that he was “as innocent as the child unborn,: and Chennel saying nothing. The latter seems a person about 40; he is a stout made man, rather inclined to be corpulent, with the outline of a good face, apparently rendered heavy and dull by the effects of indolence and irregular habits. He was dressed in a black jockey coat, a striped waistcoat, and a black neckerchief. He displayed on entrance into Court the utmost indifference to his situation, and did not appear to be much touched by any thing that occurred. The prisoner Chalcraft appeared in a smock frock with a coloured handkerchief tied carelessly about his neck; he had all the rustic appearance of his situation, joined to a considerable degree od acuteness in his eye and general intelligence in his countenance; he seemed secure and confident, but at the same time earnest and attentive.
The trial began a few minutes after eight o’clock in the morning and lasted till nine in the afternoon; the pressure of the crowd was great during the whole of the day, which, together with the heat of the weather, made the situation of some of the audience almost intolerable. The windows being open, great numbers of people remained at them listening during the whole of the trial. The interest of the proceedings that were going on seemed to be as great outside as inside. The doors were surrounded, and the Court sometimes disturbed, by crowds pressing for admission which the Town Hall could not contain.
During the Judge’s address, the prisoners appearing both fatigued, were allowed to sit down on the sides of the docks, Chalcraft had no Counsel. Mr. Common Sergeant and Mr. Andrews were Counsel for Chennel.