The Judge asked to see the scar on the witness’ forehead and that on the forehead of the respondent.  They were brought near the bench, and the marks inspected, which were plainly seen on both.  During this time the infant of the respondent was entrusted to another colored woman.  The child, who, up to this time, had been quiet, raised a piteous cry and would not be pacified.  The whole scene excited a great sensation.

* * * * *

Mr. Brown then rose in reply to the plaintiff’s counsel, and said:  If I consulted my own views, I should not say one syllable, in answer to the arguments of the learned counsel upon the other side, and relying as I do upon the evidence, and out of respect to the convenience of your honor, I shall say very little as it is.  The views of the counsel it appears to me, are most extraordinary indeed.  He seems to take it for granted that everything that is said on the part of the witnesses for the claimant is gospel, and that what is said on the part of the witnesses for the respondent, is to be considered matter of suspicion.  Now I rate no man by his size, color, or position, but I appeal to you in looking at the testimony that has been produced here, on the different sides of the question, and judging it by its intrinsic worth, whether there is the slightest possible comparison between the witnesses on the part of the plaintiff, and those of the defendant, either in intelligence, memory, language, thought, or anything else.  This is a fine commentary upon the disparagement of color!  Looking at the men as they are, as you will, I say that the testimony exhibited on the part of the respondent would outweigh a whole theatre of such men as are exhibited on the part of the complainant.  I say nothing here about their respectability.  It would have been proper for the learned counsel on the part of the plaintiff, if he thought the witnesses on the part of the respondent unworthy of belief, to have proved them so; but instead of that, he attempts to bolster up men, who, whether respectable or otherwise, from their inconsistency, involutions and tergiversations in regard to this case, produce no possible effect upon the judicial mind, but that which is unfavorable to themselves.  Impartial men, are they?  How do they appear before you?  They appear under cover from first to last; standing upon their right to resist inquiries legitimately propounded to them; burning up letters since they have arrived, calculated to shed light upon this subject; and before they come here, corresponding with and deriving information from a man, an evident kidnapper, who dare not sign his name and gets his wife to sign hers.  This is the character these men exhibit here before you; clandestinely meeting together at the tavern, and that to consult in regard to the identity of a person about whom they know nothing.  Can they refer to any marks by which to identify this person?  Nothing at all of the kind.  Do they, with the exception of the first witness examined, state even the time when she left?  Have they produced the letter written by this kidnapper, showing how he described her?  Why, let me ask, is not the full light allowed to shine on this case?  But even with the light they have shed upon it, I would have been perfectly content to have rested it, relying upon their testimony alone, for a just decision.