e judge summed up with great fairness. He picked out the facts which
had been sworn to in regard to the actual receiving of the wound, which,
he said, were compatible with the theory of self-infliction, with that
of wilful infliction by the husband, and with that of accident. As for
the first theory, it would imply that the dagger had passed from the
prisoner's hands to those of his wife, and back again, and it seemed to
be contradicted by the evidence of the landlady and the other lodger.
Moreover, it was not even suggested by the defence, which relied upon
the theory of accident. An accident of this kind would certainly be
possible during a violent struggle for the possession of the dagger. Now
the husband and wife virtually accused each other of producing this
weapon and threatening to use it. It was for the jury to decide which of
the two they would believe. There was a direct conflict of evidence, or
allegation, and in such a case they must look at all the surrounding
circumstances. It was not denied that the dagger belonged to the
prisoner, but it was suggested in his behalf that the wife had purloined
it some time before, and had suddenly produced it when she came to her
husband's apartments in Surrey Street. If that could be proved, then the
woman had been guilty of perjury, and her evidence would collapse
altogether. Now there were some portions of her evidence which were most
unsatisfactory. She had led a dissolute life, and was cursed with an
ungovernable temper. But, on the other hand, she had told a consistent
tale as to the occurrences of that fatal afternoon, and he could not go
so far as to advise the jury to reject her testimony as worthless.

His lordship then went over the remaining evidence, and concluded as
follows:--

"Gentlemen, I may now leave you to your difficult task. It is for you to
say whether, in your judgment, the wound which this woman received was
inflicted by herself or by her husband. If you find that it was
inflicted by her husband, you must further decide, to the best of your
ability, whether the prisoner wounded his wife in the course of a
struggle, without intending it, or whether he did at the moment
wittingly and purposely injure her. The rest you will leave to me. You
have the evidence before you, and the constitution of your country
imposes upon you the high responsibility of saying whether this man is
innocent or guilty of the charge preferred against him."

The jury retire