I am a journalist, and I write Fenian letters for the _St.
Johns Gazette_. I remember the afternoon of the murder. It was the
sub-editor who told me of it. He asked me if I would write a "par" on
the subject for the fourth edition. I did so; but as I was in a hurry
to catch a train it was only a few lines. We did him fuller justice
next day.

Cross-examined: Witness denies that he felt any elation on hearing that
a new topic had been supplied for writing on. He was sorry rather.

A policeman gives evidence that about half-past four on Jubilee Day he
saw a small crowd gather round the entrance to the offices of the _St.
John's Gazette_. He thought it his duty to inquire into the matter.
He went inside and asked an office-boy what was up. The boy said he
thought the editor had been murdered, but advised him to inquire
upstairs. He did so, and the boy's assertion was confirmed. He came down
again and told the crowd that it was the editor who had been killed. The
crowd then dispersed.

A detective from Scotland Yard explains the method of the prisoner's
capture. Moggridge wrote to the superintendent saying that he would be
passing Scotland Yard on the following Wednesday on business. Three
detectives, including witness, were told off to arrest him, and they
succeeded in doing so. (Loud and prolonged applause.)

The judge interposes here. He fails, he says, to see that this evidence
is relevant. So far as he can see, the question is not whether a murder
has been committed, but whether, under the circumstances, it is a
criminal offence. The prisoner should never have been tried here at all.
It was a case for the petty sessions. If the counsel cannot give some
weighty reason for proceeding with further evidence, he will now put it
to the jury.

[Illustration]

After a few remarks from the counsel for the prosecution and the
counsel for the defence, who calls attention to the prisoner's high and
unblemished character, the judge sums up. It is for the jury, he says,
to decide whether the prisoner has committed a criminal offence. That
was the point; and in deciding it the jury should bear in mind the
desirability of suppressing merely vexatious cases. People should not
go to law over trifles. Still, the jury must remember that, without
exception, all human life was sacred. After some further remarks from
the judge, the jury (who deliberate for rather more than three-quarters
of an hour) return a verdict of guilty. The pri