woman of color, that to her knowledge that Mary was this Bridget or
Sally, and the child John this woman's eldest son Lafayette. And hereupon
the court announced that on the morrow it would hear the argument of
counsel.

Salome's counsel besought the court for a temporary postponement on two
accounts: first, that her age might be known beyond a peradventure by
procuring a copy of her own birth record from the official register of her
native Langensoultz, and also to procure in New Orleans the testimony of
one who was professionally present at the birth of her son, and who would
swear that it occurred some years later than the date of the baptismal
record just accepted as evidence.

"We are taken by surprise," exclaimed in effect Roselius and his
coadjutors, "in the production of testimony by the opposing counsel openly
at variance with earlier evidence accepted from them and on record. The
act of the sale of this woman and her children from Sarah Canby to John
Fitz Miller in 1835, her son Lafayette being therein described as but five
years of age, fixes his birth by irresistible inference in 1830, in which
year by the recorded testimony of her kindred Salome Mueller was fifteen
years old."

But the combined efforts of Roselius, Upton, and others were unavailing,
and the newspapers of the following day reported: "This cause, continued
from yesterday, came on again to-day, when, after hearing arguments of
counsel, the court took the same under consideration."

It must be a dull fancy that will not draw for itself the picture, when a
fortnight later the frequenters of the court-room hear the word of
judgment. It is near the end of the hot far-southern June. The judge
begins to read aloud. His hearers wait languidly through the prolonged
recital of the history of the case. It is as we have given it here: no use
has been made here of any testimony discredited in the judge's reasons for
his decision. At length the evidence is summed up and every one attends to
catch the next word. The judge reads:

"The supposed identity is based upon two circumstances: first, a striking
resemblance of plaintiff to the child above mentioned and to the family of
that child. Second, two certain marks or moles on the inside of the thighs
[one on each thigh], which marks are similar in the child and in the
woman. This resemblance and these marks are proved by several witnesses.
Are they sufficient to justify me in declaring the plaintiff to b