Frank Knapp of any thing.  He could not then be influenced by any prejudice.  If you believe that the witness saw Frank Knapp in this position at this time, it proves the case.  Whether you believe it or not depends upon the credit of the witness.  He swears it.  If true, it is solid evidence.  Mrs. Southwick supports her husband.  Are they true?  Are they worthy of belief?  If he deserves the epithets applied to him, then he ought not to be believed.  In this fact they cannot be mistaken; they are right, or they are perjured.  As to his not speaking to Frank Knapp, that depends upon their intimacy.  But a very good reason is, Frank chose to disguise himself.  This makes nothing against his credit.  But it is said that he should not be believed.  And why?  Because, it is said, he himself now tells you, that, when he testified before the grand jury at Ipswich, he did not then say that he thought the person he saw in Brown Street was Frank Knapp, but that “the person was about the size of Selman.”  The means of attacking him, therefore, come from himself.  If he is a false man, why should he tell truths against himself?  They rely on his veracity to prove that he is a liar.  Before you can come to this conclusion, you will consider whether all the circumstances are now known, that should have a bearing on this point.  Suppose that, when he was before the grand jury, he was asked by the attorney this question, “Was the person you saw in Brown Street about the size of Selman?” and he answered Yes.  This was all true.  Suppose, also, that he expected to be inquired of further, and no further questions were put to him.  Would it not be extremely hard to impute to him perjury for this?  It is not uncommon for witnesses to think that they have done all their duty, when they have answered the questions put to them.  But suppose that we admit that he did not then tell all he knew, this does not affect the fact at all; because he did tell, at the time, in the hearing of others, that the person he saw was Frank Knapp.  There is not the slightest suggestion against the veracity or accuracy of Mrs. Southwick.  Now she swears positively, that her husband came into the house and told her that he had seen a person on the rope-walk steps, and believed it was Frank Knapp.

It is said that Mr. Southwick is contradicted, also, by Mr. Shillaber.  I do not so understand Mr. Shillaber’s testimony.  I think what they both testify is reconcilable, and consistent.  My learned brother said, on a similar occasion, that there is more probability, in such cases, that the persons hearing should misunderstand, than that the person speaking should contradict himself.  I think the same remark applicable here.