A person by the name of Renza was first called, who stated that for about two years he had resided in the house with the prisoner; that he esteemed him as a friend; that the prisoner had treated him as a brother,—­had never seen anything amiss in his conduct,—­at night he came directly home from his place of business, was generally in at nine, seldom out later than ten,—­remembered the night in question,—­thought he was in about ten, but was not certain on that point,—­had been acquainted with John Smith for a number of years,—­had not said much to him during that time,—­had often seen him walking about the streets,—­had known him to be quarrelsome and avaricious, easily provoked, and rather lacking in good principle.  After a few cross-questions the witness took his seat.

Seven others were called, whose testimony was similar to the above, placing the evidence of the principal government witness in rather a disagreeable light.  The evidence being in on both sides, the prisoner’s counsel stood forth to vindicate the innocence of Castello.  For three hours he faithfully advocated the cause, dwelt long upon the reputation of Smith, and asked whether a man should be convicted upon such rotten evidence.  He brought to light the character of Smith, and that of Castello; placed them in contrast, and bade them judge for themselves.  He wished to inquire why Smith, when he heard the terrible scream, when he saw a person running from the place whence the sound proceeded, why, when he heard and beheld all this, he did not make an alarm; why did Smith keep it a secret, and not till nine days had elapsed make this known?  “Perhaps he would reply,” argued the counsel, “that he did not wish to suspect any person, fearing the person suspected might be the wrong one; if so, why did he not inform of the person he saw running?  If he was not the doer of the deed, perhaps he might relate something that would lead to the detection of him who was.  Beside, if he had doubts whether it was right to inform then, why does he do so now with so much eagerness?  It would be natural for one, after hearing such fearful noises,—­after seeing what he testifies to having seen,—­to have related it to some one; but no-Smith keeps all this important information treasured up, and not till two weeks had nearly passed does he disclose it.  But, gentlemen, I have my doubts as to the truth of John’s evidence.  It is my firm belief that he never saw a person running from that house; he might have heard the noise-I will not dispute that.  I believe his story has been cut and dried for the occasion, and surely nine days and nights have afforded him ample time to do so.  The brains of an ox could concoct such ideas in nine days.  Now comes the inquiry, why should he invent such a story?  Of what benefit can it be to him to appear in a crowded courtroom?  Gentlemen, I confess myself unable to give you his reasons; to him and to his God they are only known.  The veil which, in my opinion, now shrouds this affair, will some day be withdrawn, and we shall know the truth, even as it is.”