a secret and important appointment--he would be
more likely to take a short nap in his chair than to undress and go to
bed. Might not the prisoner, who was a bold and reckless man, have broken
into the house when the lights were burning and his victim was awake and
fully dressed? In that case what was to prevent his turning off the
lights before leaving the house instead of leaving them burning to
attract attention? What was to prevent the prisoner turning off the
lights in order to convey the impression that the crime had been
committed in daylight?

"I want you to keep in mind, when arriving at your verdict, that there
are certain material facts which have been admitted by the defence," said
Mr. Walters in concluding his address to the jury. "It has been admitted
that the prisoner was a party to a proposal to break into Riversbrook. As
far as that goes, there is no suggestion that he walked into a trap.
Whether he arranged the burglary and compelled Hill to help him, or
whether Hill arranged it and sought out the prisoner's assistance is,
after all, not very material. What is admitted is that the prisoner went
to Riversbrook with the intention of committing a crime. It is admitted
that he knew Sir Horace Fewbanks had returned home. In that case is it
not reasonable to suppose that the prisoner would arm himself, I do not
say with the definite intention of committing murder, but for the purpose
of threatening Sir Horace if necessary in order to make good his escape?
What is more likely than that Sir Horace heard the burglar in the house,
crept upon him, and then tried to capture him? There was a struggle, and
the prisoner, determined to free himself, drew his revolver and shot Sir
Horace. Is not such a theory of the crime--that Sir Horace was shot while
trying to capture the prisoner--more probable than the theory of the
defence that Hill, the weak-willed, frightened-looking man you saw in the
witness-box, was a masterful, cunning criminal who for some inexplicable
reason had turned ferociously on the master who had befriended him and
given him a fresh start in life, had killed him and left the body in the
house, and had then managed to direct suspicion to the prisoner? The
theory of the defence does great credit to my learned friend's
imagination, but it is one which I am sure the jury will reject as too
highly coloured. Looking at the plain facts of the case and dismissing
from your minds the attempt to make them fit