it is proper for him to give.  If partly founded on what he has heard, then this opinion is not to be taken; but if on what he saw, then you can have no better evidence.  I lay no stress on similarity of dress.  No man will ever lose his life by my voice on such evidence.  But then it is proper to notice, that no inferences drawn from any dissimilarity of dress can be given in the prisoner’s favor; because, in fact, the person seen by Mirick was dressed like the prisoner.

The description of the person seen by Mirick answers to that of the prisoner at the bar.  In regard to the supposed discrepancy of statements, before and now, there would be no end to such minute inquiries.  It would not be strange if witnesses should vary.  I do not think much of slight shades of variation.  If I believe the witness is honest, that is enough.  If he has expressed himself more strongly now than then, this does not prove him false.

Peter E. Webster saw the prisoner at the bar, as he then thought, and still thinks, walking in Howard Street at half-past nine o’clock.  He then thought it was Frank Knapp, and has not altered his opinion since.  He knew him well; he had long known him.  If he then thought it was he, this goes far to prove it.  He observed him the more, as it was unusual to see gentlemen walk there at that hour.  It was a retired, lonely street.  Now, is there reasonable doubt that Mr. Webster did see him there that night?  How can you have more proof than this?  He judged by his walk, by his general appearance, by his deportment.  We all judge in this manner.  If you believe he is right, it goes a great way in this case.  But then this person, it is said, had a cloak on, and that he could not, therefore, be the same person that Mirick saw.  If we were treating of men that had no occasion to disguise themselves or their conduct, there might be something in this argument.  But as it is, there is little in it.  It may be presumed that they would change their dress.  This would help their disguise.  What is easier than to throw off a cloak, and again put it on?  Perhaps he was less fearful of being known when alone, than when with the perpetrator.

Mr. Southwick swears all that a man can swear.  He has the best means of judging that could be had at the time.  He tells you that he left his father’s house at half-past ten o’clock, and as he passed to his own house in Brown Street he saw a man sitting on the steps of the rope-walk; that he passed him three times, and each time he held down his head, so that he did not see his face.  That the man had on a cloak, which was not wrapped around him, and a glazed cap.  That he took the man to be Frank Knapp at the time; that, when he went into his house, he told his wife that he thought it was Frank Knapp; that he knew him well, having known him from a boy.  And his wife swears that he did so tell her when he came home.  What could mislead this witness at the time?  He was not then suspecting