|
1<73
that the paper did not conform to his testimony here. The witness
stated how that was. Mr. Andrews came to him, and said that-
Mr. Clifford. The witness had previously said nothing about the
meeting of Dr. Parkman, but spoke only of the meeting of Dr.
Webster.
Judge Merrick. It was in reference to another part of the case
upon which the cross-examination bore. Mr. Andrews asked him to
write down the testimony in the rough. He did so; and the paper is
not produced. And we may fairly infer from this, that there is
nothing in the paper which could conflict with the credibility of this
witness. He stands in this position: He is the clerk in the Registry
of Deeds' office, at East Cambridge. He has been employed there
many years. He was fully acquainted with Dr. Parkman, and he
swears to you that he met him at twenty minutes past two o'clock.
I do not suppose that this witness is to be discredited upon a part
of the ground of the cross-examination. This biological state, of
which he speaks, is nothing. We all know that many individuals
have their belief, which seems strange, and fantastical, and groundless,
but which they, in the utmost sincerity, adopt for themselves. Yet,
because they adopt these strange beliefs of theory, we cannot say
that they are not sincere. More frequently they are the most sincere,
and they adopt them on this very account. They adopt them, not to
make themselves agreeable by falling in with the common tone of
society; but they adopt them from conviction, because they believe
them to be true. And whether the world says yea or nay, in all
truth and integrity, they feel bound to adopt and promulgate them.
This is the position of this witness. There is no attempt to impeach
him. They have not tried to disparage his visual organs, and he
swears they are good; and he also swears that he saw Dr. Park-
man in Causeway-street at a time which is incompatible with the
proposition upon which the Government rest this prosecution.
Mr. Wentworth, a witness probably well known in this community
-a man whose persbnal appearance upon the stand certainly entitles
him to a favorable consideration-testifies, that in the afternoon of
the Friday of the disappearance, between the hours of half after two
and half after three, he inet Dr. Parkman in Court-street. The
witness was walking with Mr. I. H. Russell. He saw Dr. Parkman
approaching, and, at the point of meeting, he crossed from the right
hand side to the left hand side of the street; arid, as he crossed over,
he saw Dr. Parkman was coming; that Dr. Parkman turned round,
placing his hand under his coat; and he mentioned it, at the
time, to Mr. Russell. He says he went to his dinner, came back,
and waited there till his young man- who went at two o'clock-
returned; and that he thence went to the market, to purchase his
provisions for the succeeding day; and that he knows that he did it
upon that day; and that he knows that he did not do it at any other
time. And he fixes it by saying that on Saturday his business
required him to be at his store at a later hour than on an other day.
He was informed by his wife that two men came to his house to
inquire for Dr. Parkman, who was missing; and he immediately
said to his wife, '° I do not think Dr. Parkman can be far off, for 1
saw him yesterday afternoon." Now, Gentlemen, if this is' true,
here is evidence inconsistent with the theory of the Government.
|
