dicated that the matter was not worth a
moment's consideration.

He began his address to the jury by emphasising the fact that a fellow
creature's life depended on the result of their deliberations. The duty
that rested upon them of saying whether the prosecution had established
beyond all reasonable doubt that the prisoner shot Sir Horace Fewbanks
was a solemn and impressive one. He asked them to consider the case
carefully in all its bearings. He could not claim for his client that
he was a man of spotless reputation. The prisoner belonged to a class
who earned their living by warring against society. But that fact did
not make him a murderer. On what did the case for the prosecution rest?
On the evidence of Hill and three other witnesses who, on the night of
the murder, had seen a man somewhat resembling the prisoner in the
vicinity of Riversbrook, or making towards the vicinity of that house.
But so far from wishing to emphasise the weakness of identification he
admitted that the prisoner went to Riversbrook with the intention of
committing a burglary.

"We admit that he went there the night Sir Horace Fewbanks returned from
Scotland," he continued. "Counsel for the prosecution will make the most
of those admissions in the course of his address to you, but the point to
which I wish to direct your attention is that we make this damaging
admission so that you may decide between the prisoner and the man who
led him into a trap by instigating the burglary. Now we come to the
evidence of Hill. I know you will not convict a man of murder on the
unsupported evidence of a fellow criminal. But I want to point out to you
that even if Hill's evidence were true in every detail, even if Hill had
not swerved one iota from the truth, there is nothing in his evidence to
lead to the positive conclusion that the prisoner murdered Hill's master,
Sir Horace Fewbanks. What does Hill's evidence against the prisoner
amount to? Let us accept it for the moment as absolutely true. Later on I
will show you plainly that the man is a liar, that he is a cunning
scoundrel, and that his evidence is utterly unreliable. But accepting for
the moment his evidence as true the case against the prisoner amounts to
this: by threats of exposure Birchill compelled Hill to consent to
Riversbrook being robbed while the owner was in Scotland.

"Hill's complicity, according to his own story, extended only to
supplying a plan of the house and giving Birchill s