Is he true and every man a liar? I am sorry to be obliged thus to characterize the witness, but duty requires it. Again, he did not observe which hand Butler struck with. Here it was convenient to forget. And then he says Ward put on his hat, just as he gave the lie to Butler, and in this he is corroborated by the other boys. One thing he does remember, that Ward gesticulated with his right hand. Of course he would not forget so important an item.

At the bedside of Butler were Drs. Thomson, Caldwell and Yandell. Thomson was there first, and heard portions of Butler's statements before Caldwell and Yandell arrived. He asked the question, and was in a better position than the others to hear the answer. Dr. Caldwell remembers Butler said that he did not see who shot him. Dr. Thomson says so. Caldwell understood they were engaged at the time; Thomson's testimony imports the same. If anything was required to confirm Thomson it is furnished by the defense itself. Yandell says Butler raised his hand to show Ward's motion, but does not know whether he meant by that that Ward did or was about to strike, but he supposes Butler did strike first. Now from the proof, if Butler had not been shot, and this was an action of trespass, brought by Ward against him for an assault, could he recover damages? But Ward was the trespasser; he was the wrongdoer. The testimony of Thomson, in this respect, is confirmed by Caldwell and Yandell, substantially. As respects the wound, there is no material difference in the testimony. From the suggestion about raising the arm, an attempt has been made to show the arm was in a striking position; but when raised in that way, the probe did not follow the ball. The position of the muscles, as shown by the wound, shows that Butler was grasping at the right hand of Ward, as is proved at the time.

Their next witness is Mr. Allen, of Mississippi, introduced to impeach these boys. There were a thousand men in Louisville who knew these boys, and could testify to their character. Yet it is a singular fact, that of all the witnesses summoned by the defense from Louisville, not one question is

asked them about their veracity; but an unknown man from Mississippi, confirmed by only one man, and he equally unknown, and by him only in some particulars, is called for that purpose. And now, must all these young men of Louisville be swept down,-must their reputations be blasted, that this prisoner may live and flourish, and upon such testimony? But they disavow such an attempt. They have manifested the willingness, but are afraid to strike the blow. They do it by inuendo. But suppose you believe all Allen says. He does not identify a single boy, as saying anything there, contradicting his testimony here. He says he saw young Worthington there, shook hands with him, and asked about the matter, and several boys answered several questions, and to some of their answers Worthington nodded assent; to which, the witness does not know. There is no evidence that a single boy who answered Mr. Allen has been on the stand as a witness.

Mr. Gudgel is next introduced, and how do these witnesses confirm each other? Two men walking together ought to agree. Allen says the boy said that Ward cursed Butler, and Butler struck him, and Ward shot. Gudgel says that the boys said that Ward came for an apology, and Butler ordered him out of the house; Ward refused to go, and Butler undertook to put him out, and Ward shot him. They disagree with each other more than with the boys. He testifies, too, that some of the boys said Butler knocked Ward down. Allen heard no such thing, young Robert Ward swore there was no such thing, all the boys testified the same, and there was no motive for the boys to say so, and therefore it was not said. Gudgel is contradicted by this fact, and also fails in his attempt to identify Benedict, after boasting of his memory of countenances.

Hershbell is brought in to testify about the music box, and show that Ward was engaged in making arrangements for a trip south. Admit that the witness sought the conversation, still the statements are none the less Ward's, and grant their truth they only confirm his guilt. To say nothing

of the discrepancy of the statements,-some that he was going to Arkansas, and some to Mississippi,-the design might be to commit the crime, and then, because he was a Ward, go where he pleased. But it was probably true that he meant to go, that such was his plan, and that he was making preparations, and had been for weeks; but do you suppose he would be stupid enough to go and tell that he expected a difficulty with Butler, and therefore was not going to Arkansas? This is simply ridiculous. It was the time of year at which he usually went south, and he would not neglect preparations on account of his anticipated difficulty with Butler.

That Butler struck Ward is attempted to be proved by the red spot on Ward's face. It was so slight, that George D. Prentice and others did not see it until Ward mentioned it. Was such a wound a sufficient provocation for the killing? Grant that there was a spot, could not a man that could murder produce such a spot on his face? There were no marks or mark of blows elsewhere. If there had been, they would be proved.

Now we come to the testimony of the father himself. There is no doubt of its truth. Matt. made the statements. But they are the prisoner's statements still, made after his preparations were completed, and he was ready to go. Might they not all be made with a view to introduce them as evidence? If an explanation was all that was wanted, he would not have objected to his father's going. The true reason was he expected a difficulty, was prepared for it, and sought it. His statement that Butler was a gentleman, and there would be no difficulty, was all a ruse. Why all this preparation? why tell Bob not to interfere unless Butler and Sturgus both attacked him? Because he expected a fight, and could manage one easily. If an explanation or apology was the object of the visit, the prisoner had no right to go. Robert J. Ward was the father, had placed the boy in school, and Prof. Butler was responsible to him alone, and not to the prisoner. Here, then, you have, in the fact of the refusal of prisoner to allow his father to make the visit, and the reasons he gave

why he should go, another proof of the wilful, premeditated and malicious character of this murder.

Mrs. R. J. Ward's testimony is to the same effect. Her statements about what her son said of the severity of the whipping, is to be taken only as his expressions, not as any proof that such was the fact. The strongest point that can be taken in his behalf is, that they believed the statement. All the others say they expected no difficulty, but the watchful eye of a mother penetrated through every disguise, and she expected a difficulty, else why send Robert? She knew her son, his temper, his family pride, and therefore she sends Robert, who, she knows, is always armed. His mother notices his disguised excitement, and says, "Be calm"; and he answers, "I am calm," showing his determination to do the deed.

Col. Hodge, and others, are next introduced to prove the custom of having pistols loaded when purchased. One witness testifies that pistols are loaded when purchased, if the request is made. The prisoner requested his loaded, showing that he meant to use them, and he did most efficiently.

The Marshal of Louisville, L. B. White, is next examined. He hears that a man has been shot, goes to arrest Ward, meets the father, tells him his object, and then goes to see how Butler is,-thus giving Ward an opportunity to escape,and says that he could certainly have escaped in that time. This may be the efficiency of the Louisville police. But he knew well there was no escape from the people of Louisville. They were on the alert, and that was impossible; and if he could, he would not have attempted it. He would sooner run the risk of this trial, with all its array of counsel, and witnesses, and money, than be an outcast on the face of the earth, ever fleeing from the pursuit of justice, with no hope of rest or refuge.

One fact developed by White's testimony is in perfect keeping with the heartlessness of the whole case. Robert came to the door, when White went to arrest the prisoner, and "quizically said, Matt. has vamosed." There is a volume in that

expression. It shows his estimation of the value of human life. He has just heard the dying exclamation, "My poor wife, my poor child," and he is now jesting about it! He is the young man one would expect to carry a bowie-knife, and use it too.

But a police officer is brought here to testify that Ward never made an attempt to escape from jail. Now I have heard that when a prisoner wanted to escape, he told the police of it, and secured their co-operation, but I never believed it. If he regards it as a compliment to be thus made the depository of all their intentions, I cannot help it; but I do not think Ward would have told White, even if he did design escaping. No, he would never have told him, whatever he might have told to the turnkey, with whom he and Barlow so innocently played cards.

The last proof on the part of the defense is that respecting the former good character of the prisoner. In a crime of an atrocious nature, when men are actuated by different motives from those generally governing mankind, a good character is no palliation, especially when the crime is positively proved. It is only when doubts exist in regard to the facts, that character may be brought in to decide the doubt.

This is not the first time that a man of good character has killed another. The law is made for such men as well as others, and he that offends in one point, is guilty of a violation of the whole law. No matter what position that one has previously occupied, if guilty he must fall. If the prisoner had killed a dozen men before, it could not be produced as testimony against him on this trial; and if guilty of this one sin alone, his former purity is no justification. Instances have occurred in this State, where men, charged with murder, have proved, by a large number of witnesses of every variety of position, previous good character, and this was argued in their defense.

The case of Dr. Webster, who killed Parkman,20 is too recent to need more than a brief notice. Webster had sustained 20 See 4 Am. St. Tr.