finite and limited judgment do inflict, on testimony which admits of
doubt, an infinite and irreparable punishment. But there are on
record numerous instances of mistake; many of them very generally
known and immediately recognisable in the following summary, which I
copy from the New York Report already referred to.


"There have been cases in which groans have been heard in the
apartment of the crime, which have attracted the steps of those on
whose testimony the case has turned--when, on proceeding to the
spot, they have found a man bending over the murdered body, a
lantern in the left hand, and the knife yet dripping with the warm
current in the blood-stained right, with horror-stricken
countenance, and lips which, in the presence of the dead, seem to
refuse to deny the crime in the very act of which he is thus
surprised--and yet the man has been, many years after, when his
memory alone could be benefited by the discovery, ascertained not to
have been the real murderer! There have been cases in which, in a
house in which were two persons alone, a murder has been committed
on one of them--when many additional circumstances have fastened the
imputation upon the other--and when, all apparent modes of access
from without, being closed inward, the demonstration has seemed
complete of the guilt for which that other has suffered the doom of
the law--yet suffered innocently! There have been cases in which a
father has been found murdered in an outhouse, the only person at
home being a son, sworn by a sister to have been dissolute and
undutiful, and anxious for the death of the father, and succession
to the family property--when the track of his shoes in the snow is
found from the house to the spot of the murder, and the hammer with
which it was committed (known as his own), found, on a search, in