The summing up on both sides was a grave and solemn scene. Here Williams was thrown out, the District Attorney choosing to perform his own duty on an occasion so serious. Dunscomb made a noble appeal to the justice of the court and jury; admonishing both of the danger of yielding too easily to circumstantial evidence. It was the best possible proof, he admitted, when the circumstances were sufficiently clear and sufficiently shown to be themselves beyond controversy. That Mary Monson dwelt with the Goodwins, was in the house at the time of the arson and murder, if such crimes were ever committed at all; that she escaped and all her property was saved, would of themselves amount to nothing. The testimony, indeed, on several of these heads, rather told in her favour than the reverse. The witnesses for the prosecution proved that she was in her room, beneath the roof, when the flames broke out, and was saved with difficulty. This was a most material fact, and Dunscomb turned it to good account. Would an incendiary be apt to place herself in a situation in which her own life was in danger; and this, too, under circumstances that rendered no such measure necessary? Then, all the facts connected with Mary Monson’s residence and habits told in her favour. Why should she remain so long at the cottage, if robbery was her only purpose? The idea of her belonging to a gang that had sent her to make discoveries and to execute its plans, was preposterous; for what hindered any of the men of that gang from committing the crimes in the most direct manner, and with the least loss of time? No; if Mary Monson were guilty, she was undoubtedly guilty on her own account; and had been acting with the uncertain aim and hand of a woman. The jury must discard all notions of accomplices, and consider the testimony solely in connection with the acts of the accused. Accomplices, and those of the nature supposed, would have greatly simplified the whole of the wretched transaction. They would have rendered both the murders and arson unnecessary. The bold and strong do not commit these crimes, except in those cases in which resistance renders them necessary. Here was clearly no resistance, as was shown by the quiet positions in which the skeletons had been found. If a murder was directly committed, it must have been by the blow on the heads; and the jury was asked to consider whether a delicate female like Mary Monson had even the physical force necessary to strike such a blow. With what instrument was it done? Nothing of the sort was found near the bodies; and no proof of any such blow was before the jury. One witness had said that the iron-work of a plough lay quite near the remains; and it had been shown that Peter Goodwin kept such articles in a loft over his bed-room. He would suggest the possibility of the fire’s having commenced in that loft, through which the pipe of a cooking-stove led; of its having consumed the beams