“Is it the name by which you have called yourself, and by which you were known in New York?” “It is not.” “By what name were you known?” “Mary K. Buckstone.” “Were you the wife of Mr. Buckstone?” “I was not.” “Were you not married to him?” “I do not know that I was, or was not.” “Was a ceremony performed?” “There was; but Mr. Buckstone assured me I was not his wife.” “You intended to marry him at the time the ceremony was performed?” “I did.” “And he intended to marry you?” “I suppose he did not, as he repudiated the marriage, and declared that I was not his wife.” “It is important to know whether the man who was murdered was your husband or not. The court will instruct you that you were legally the wife of Buckstone, if any ceremony was performed, and you believed that it was real; that the fictitious character of the marriage does not affect its legality.” “Was the marriage otherwise legal?” asked the magistrate. “I don’t know,” replied Mary. “Have you any certificate--was there any record made of the marriage?” “None, sir.” “Is there any evidence that the marriage ceremony was performed?” “I know of none.” The magistrate did not presume to decide upon the validity or invalidity of the marriage; it was sufficient for the present purpose that the witness did not regard herself as the wife of the deceased. Mary then gave her testimony, as already indicated. It is probable that she was aware how much might depend upon her marriage; that Ross’s very life might hang on this question, for it was one thing to kill his sister’s husband, and quite another to kill her betrayer and seducer. The issue with the jury at the trial must lie between these two points. She was a well-informed person; had always read the newspapers; and understood the merits of the case as well as any man who would sit upon the jury. Ross had told her that, while he acknowledged the fact of the killing, it was not murder; the deed was a justifiable one, and no jury would convict him. Her testimony, so far as it could be without distorting the simple truth, was based upon this view. Hence she called herself Mary Kingman, honestly believing that she was not legally a wife; and hence she did not attempt to conceal or mitigate the facts contained in her brother’s confession to her. Dr. Bilks was called. He had been summoned to attend Mary Kingman--as she chose to call herself--though he was still of the opinion that she was Mrs. Buckstone--a legal venture which produced a smile on the almost impassible face of the magistrate. Going to and returning from the residence of his patient, he had been accompanied by the prisoner, who had told him what he had done, substantially as related by the last witness; but with the additional fact that Buckstone was not alone just before the murder. “Who was the person with him?” asked the government attorney. “I do not know who he was,” replied the doctor.