The apparent facts: In 1694 the merchant vessel Pennsylvania Merchant under the command of Captain Samuel Harrison of Gloucester, West Jersey, sailed from England bound for America. The ship stopped along the way, loaded additional goods and then proceeded on its journey. This landing and loading of untaxed cargo was a violation of the British Navigation Acts. When the ship landed at Chester, it was inspected by the authorities and the Captain charged with violating British law. During the trial, John Test acted as prosecutor. The jury found Harrison guilty.
Given this description, there is nothing unusual about these events. However, the court record of this case is much different. It begins with this sentence:
On the Twenty fifth Day of February ... John Test of Philidelphia in the province of Pennnsylvania: Merchant came in his proper person into the Court of Common Pleas held at Chester in the said province before Jasper Yeates, John Blunstone & Jonathan Heyes: three of the Justices of the said Court: and Then and There did Exhibit To the said Justices A Certain Information The Tennor wherof followeth in these words...."
The first item of the record is the presentation of John Test, a Philadelphia Merchant, in his proper person rather than a brief statement of the facts.
John Test was not the prosecutor in Chester County but the account given here shows that he acts as if he were the prosecutor. The concept of a special prosecutor is a recent development. A special outside prosecutor is appointed when it is believed that the existing prosecutors may have a political interest in the case. Perhaps the court appointed him as a special prosecutor because, as an outsider, he would have no interest in the case.
John Test had been a prosecutor, both in Chester and in Philadelphia, and the court certainly remembered that fact. The role of a colonial sheriff entailed more than the role of a sheriff does today. Colonial sheriffs, in addition to arresting suspects and holding prisoners in jail, also served as the prosecuting officer in court. They prepared the case for presentation to the grand jury, and if an indictment were handed down, then the sheriff argued the case before the judge and a petit jury.
But the record clearly indicates that he is not appearing before the court solely as the prosecutor but also as the main witness and as an interested party substantively involved in the case. How odd. The deference shown by the court here to John Test is astonishing.
Moreover, John Test clearly had more of an interest in this case than merely serving the court's function in enforcing the law. The reason, I suspect, he traveled from Philadelphia to Chester was related more to his interest in the cargo of the ship than in serving as a distinterested agent for the court.
The record describing John Test as a merchant rather than as a former sheriff should not be overlooked. It implies that his commericial attributes and not his legal abilities explain his presence in the court. Perhaps a large portion, if not all, of the goods aboard the ship were intended for him. He either already owned them or at paid for them in part and thus confiscation would mean a significant loss. John Test, through no fault of his own, faced the possibility of losing this cargo and his investment in it. And the court, recognizing that fact, seems willing to show John Test the utmost respect in giving him the opportunity to argue his case and recover his loss.
This record gives us a couple of facts about our ancestor John Test. First it shows us that John Test was actively engaged in commerce as a Philadelphia merchant in 1695. We may infer that even as he owned and operated a tavern he continued to operate as a merchant. This is contrary to Fryburg's claim about John Test that “there is nothing to show he was interested in anything except the buying and selling of Land.”
Secondly, it shows John Test’s standing in the community. The deference shown to his testimony is palpable. He testifies about the facts of the case as he knows them but he also recommends the remedies and penalties to the court as well. Presumably, he avoided disaster and may have salvaged a large profit.