“I understand you to say, witness, that you knew both Peter Goodwin and his wife?”
“I did—I knew them well—saw them almost every day of my life.”
“For how long a time?”
“This many a day. For five-and-twenty years, or a little more.”
“Will you say that you have been in the habit of seeing Peter Goodwin and his wife daily, or almost daily, for five-and-twenty years?”
“If not right down daily, quite often; as often as once or twice a week, certainly.”
“Is this material, Mr. Dunscomb?” inquired the judge. “The time of the court is very precious.”
“It is material, your honour, as showing the looseness with which witnesses testify; and as serving to caution the jury how they receive their evidence. The opening of the prosecution shows us that if the charge is to be made out at all against the prisoner, it is to be made out on purely circumstantial evidence. It is not pretended that any one saw Mary Monson kill the Goodwins; but the crime is to be inferred from a series of collateral facts, that will be laid before the court and jury. I think your honour will see how important it is, under the circumstances, to analyze the testimony, even on points that may not seem to bear directly on the imputed crimes. If a witness testify loosely, the jury ought to be made to see it. I have a life to defend, your honour will remember.”
“Proceed, sir; the court will grant you the widest latitude.”
“You now say, as often as once or twice a week, witness; on reflection, will you swear to even that?”