26 mnmzsn nnronrnn.
they were boys together, and they renewed their acquaintance in this
country. There were others who did not know him in the old coun-
try, but knew the family, both this lady and her husband, up in
Carver county, where, it maybe presumed, and I think the testimony
shows, about 70 families resided at that time, and nearly every one
living there a pioneer life knew every one else. Then you have the
testimony of those two persons in California. You have, on the other
hand,the testimony of witnesses in Carver county ignoring or negativ-
ing, according to the statements of those witnesses the alleged fact that
this William Wackerle was the husband. You have this testimonyfrom
Quincy-Dr. Bassett and those other gentlemen who knew him there.
Now, in such a vast conflict of testimony, in which there is a question
of personal identity to be established, it would seem that the mode of
solving it would be, first, (supposing all parties testifying equally
upright and desirous of only telling strictly the truth,) what witnesses
had the best. opportunity and were most likely to know the facts, and
giving to such persons whose long acquaintance and whose special
opportunities were such as to enable them to carry in their recollec-
tion distinctly the identity of a particular party, greater weight than
those who only casually knew him, and who consequently might not,
from having nothing particular to impress upon their memory the
appearance of the man,~ren1ember him as distinctly, and giving to
- the latter less weight. Begin at the occurrence in Louisiana first;
ascertain whether the person killed was the husband of this lady;
next, whether the person exhumed was the person killed; then exam-
ine the testimony that has been produced here from various persons,
who allege that they know this is the husband—some testifying that
he is the husband, and some saying that they do not recognize him,
though they did know the husband when he lived in Carver county.
Now, the court cannot aid you any further, gentlemen, in regard
to this matter. I can only direct your attention to these salient mat-
ters, and you alone can solve the questions involved. ·
You will have to take the case, gentlemen, as it is, to ascertain
whether the husband of this lady died, as contended, from a rail-
road accident on the twenty-fifth of December, 1873, or whether, on
the other hand, he was not then killed, but is still alive. That is
all there is in the case, as far as the court is concerned
The jury retired, and, after a not very long conference, brought in
a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $6,300 on the policy for $4,000, in-
cluding interest, and for $206.99 on the payment of premium by the