uestioned.

George W. Phillips, attorney at law, had known Byrnes several years as
an officer, and had never heard his character called in question until
within a week.

John L. Roberts, a mason, had known Byrnes by name for a year, but had
never heard him spoken of.

Richard Hosea, constable, testified that his character was good as far
as he knew.

John Roberts, book-binder, had known him several years, not as an
acquaintance or neighbor, and had never heard his character doubted
until last week.

Samuel G. Andrews, a printer, living in Somerville the last year, had
met him 4 or 5 years, occasionally, and had never heard his character
questioned.

Robert T. Alden, sail-maker, had known him 10 years, never heard his
character for truth doubted.

Cross examined. Had met him at balls and assemblies, had known him as a
constable, plumber, and keeper of Cape Cottage.

It appeared from cross examination of the other witnesses, that Mr.
Byrnes had also been known as a farmer, iron founder, tack maker,
sailor, keeper of a restaurant, keeper of a bowling alley, real estate
broker, grocer, and deputy marshal. None of the witnesses had been his
neighbors since he left Bridgewater.

Elisha P. Glover, officer in the employ of the marshal. Had never heard
Byrnes' character called in question until a year ago, don't recollect
hearing it spoken of since then. Did hear one of the witnesses speak of
it a few days after. Was a witness for Byrnes at that trial.

_Simon P. Hanscom_ was now called for the defence, and stated that he
was one of the reporters for the Commonwealth. He was called for the
purpose of proving that Mr. Prescott, one of the government witnesses,
had stated that he saw what was done in the court room at the time of
the rescue. A short time after the rescue, he saw Mr. Prescott in the
street, and, in his capacity of reporter, applied to Mr. Prescott for
information, he having stated that he saw the rescue and knew all about
it. He supposed at the time Mr. Prescott gave him the account, that he
was relating what he had seen only. This was his conclusion at the time,
and, the question having been raised, he was not now able to separate
the hearsay statements made by Mr. Prescott, from the facts which he
stated upon his personal knowledge. Those statements differed from the
observations of Mr. Wright, who was in the court room, particularly in
reference to the knocking down of officers, &c., which Mr. Wrigh