whole occurrence was too recent and public to make the proof a task
of any difficulty. The only differences in the statements of the
witnesses were, that some thought Holden was standing at the side of
the reading-desk, when he addressed Davenport, while others were as
sure he was in front, a circumstance considered by Ketchum and
the Court as of no consequence, while Tippit regarded it as of the
greatest importance, as a test of the accuracy of the memory, if not
of the veracity of the witnesses; and, again, what came out in the
persevering cross-examination by Tippit, viz.: that in the opinion of
some witnesses, Holden, instead of saying "soul-damning and abominable
lies," said "damned, abominable lies". The eyes of Ketchum fairly
danced when the efforts of his opponent succeeded in eliciting from
the badgered and provoked witness this most _mal-à-propos_ testimony
which his own ingenuity had been unable to draw forth, and he took
care, in the rest of the examination, to get the same statement if
possible from the remainder of the witnesses. In this he was partially
successful, each one intending most sincerely to tell the truth,
and yet artfully led on by the lawyer, often falsely coloring and
distorting the facts. On the conclusion of the testimony on the part
of the State, Mr. Tippit produced witnesses to prove the words spoken,
who, after all, did not alter the complexion of things, and also the
good character of the prisoner, but this latter proposal was stoutly
opposed by Ketchum, as irrelevant to the issue.

"What have we to do," said he, "with the character of the prisoner?
His character is not at issue. That may be as good as the Court's,
for instance (and I desire no higher), and yet the offence charged
may have been committed. If brother Tippit is allowed to run into all
these side issues, we shall never be done with the examination, and
therefore I object to the testimony."