ique. The prisoner
in the dock was a man who by his distinguished abilities had won for
himself a leading position at the bar, and had been honoured and
respected by all who knew him. It was not the first occasion that a
member of the legal profession had been placed on trial on a capital
charge, though he was glad to say, for the honour of the profession, that
cases of the kind were extremely rare. But what made the case unique was
that it was not the first trial in connection with the murder of Sir
Horace Fewbanks, and that at the first trial when a man named Frederick
Birchill had been placed in the dock, the prisoner now before the court
had appeared as defending Counsel, and by his brilliant conduct of the
defence had materially contributed to the verdict of acquittal which had
been brought in by the jury. Some evidence would be placed before the
jury about the first trial and the conduct of the defence. He ventured to
assert that the jury would find in this evidence some damaging facts
against the prisoner--that they would find a clear indication that the
prisoner had defended Birchill because he knew himself to be guilty of
this murder, and felt an obligation on him to place his legal knowledge
and forensic powers at the disposal of a man whom he knew to be innocent.
At the former trial the prisoner, as Counsel for the defence, had
attempted to throw suspicion on a man named Hill, who had been butler to
the late Sir Horace Fewbanks, but evidence would be placed before the
jury to show that in doing so the prisoner had been smitten by some pangs
of conscience at casting suspicion on a man who he knew was not guilty.

It was not incumbent on the prosecution to prove a motive for the murder,
continued Mr. Walters, though where the motive was plainly proved the
case against the prisoner was naturally strengthened. In this case there
was no doubt about the motive, but the extent of the evidence to be
placed before the jury under that head would depend upon the defence. The
prosecution would submit some evidence on the point, but the full story
could only be told if the defence placed the wife of the prisoner in the
witness-box. It was impossible for the prosecution to call her as a
witness, as English law prevented a wife giving evidence against her
husband. She could, however, give evidence in favour of her husband, and
doubtless the defence would take full advantage of the privilege of
calling her.

The evidence wh