The facts show that this murder had been long in agitation; that it was not a new proposition on the 2d of April; that it had been contemplated for five or six weeks.  Richard Crowninshield was at Wenham in the latter part of March, as testified by Starrett.  Frank Knapp was at Danvers in the latter part of February, as testified by Allen.  Richard Crowninshield inquired whether Captain Knapp was about home, when at Wenham.  The probability is, that they would open the case to Palmer as a new project.  There are other circumstances that show it to have been some weeks in agitation.  Palmer’s testimony as to the transaction on the 2d of April is corroborated by Allen, and by Osborn’s books.  He says that Frank Knapp came there in the afternoon, and again in the evening.  So the book shows.  He says that Captain White had gone out to his farm on that day.  So others prove.  How could this fact, or these facts, have been known to Palmer, unless Frank Knapp had brought the knowledge?  And was it not the special object of this visit to give information of this fact, that they might meet him and execute their purpose on his return from his farm?  The letter of Palmer, written at Belfast, bears intrinsic marks of genuineness.  It was mailed at Belfast, May 13th.  It states facts that he could not have known, unless his testimony be true.  This letter was not an after-thought; it is a genuine narrative.  In fact, it says, “I know the business your brother Frank was transacting on the 2d of April.”  How could he have possibly known this, unless he had been there?  The “one thousand dollars that was to be paid,”—­where could he have obtained this knowledge?  The testimony of Endicott, of Palmer, and these facts, are to be taken together; and they most clearly show that the death of Captain White was caused by somebody interested in putting an end to his life.

As to the testimony of Leighton, as far as manner of testifying goes, he is a bad witness; but it does not follow from this that he is not to be believed.  There are some strange things about him.  It is strange, that he should make up a story against Captain Knapp, the person with whom he lived; that he never voluntarily told any thing:  all that he has said was screwed out of him.  But the story could not have been invented by him; his character for truth is unimpeached; and he intimated to another witness, soon after the murder happened, that he knew something he should not tell.  There is not the least contradiction in his testimony, though he gives a poor account of withholding it.  He says that he was extremely bothered by those who questioned him.  In the main story that he relates, he is entirely consistent with himself.  Some things are for him, and some against him.  Examine the intrinsic probability of what he says.  See if some allowance is not to be made for him, on account of his ignorance of things of this kind.  It is said to be extraordinary, that he should have heard just so much of the conversation,