rderous impulse on the part of the prisoner. The
jury would hear from one of the witnesses, an old friend of the
prisoner's, and a man who had been a sort of father to him, that a few
hours only before the murder was committed the prisoner had uttered
certain words which admitted only of one interpretation, namely that
murder was in his mind. That the provocation was great was not denied;
it was certain however, that the provocation was sufficient.

Counsel then sketched the actual circumstances of the crime, as far as
they could be constructed from what evidence there was. This evidence was
purely circumstantial, but of a sort which left no reasonable doubt that
the murder had been committed by the prisoner in the manner suggested.
Mr. Godfrey Mills had gone to London on the Tuesday of the fatal week,
intending to return on the Thursday. On the Wednesday the prisoner became
cognisant of the fact that Mr. Godfrey Mills had--he would not argue over
it--wantonly slandered him to Sir Richard Templeton, a marriage with the
daughter of whom was projected in the prisoner's mind, which there was
reason to suppose, might have taken place. Should the jury not be
satisfied on that point, witnesses would be called, including the young
lady herself, but unless the counsel for the defence challenged their
statement, namely that this slander had been spoken which contributed, so
it was argued, a motive for the crime it would be unnecessary to intrude
on the poignant and private grief of persons so situated, and to insist
on a scene which must prove to be so heart-rendingly painful.

(There was a slight movement of demur in the humane and crowded court at
this; it was just these heart-rendingly painful things which were so
thrilling.)

It was most important, continued counsel for the prosecution that the
jury should fix these dates accurately in their minds. Tuesday was June
21st; it was on that day the murdered man had gone to London, designing
to return on June 23d, Thursday. The prisoner had learned on Wednesday
(June 22d) that aspersions had been made, false aspersions, on his
character, and it was on Thursday that he learned for certain from the
lips of the man to whom they had been made, who was the author of them.
The author was Mr. Godfrey Mills. He had thereupon motored back from
Falmer Park, and informed Mr. Taynton of this, and had left again for
Falmer an hour later to make an appointment for Mr. Taynton to see Sir
Richa