ntleman by
birth and upbringing, the heir of an old and proud name, with a hitherto
unblemished reputation, and the prospects of a long and not
inconspicuous career in front of him, would in his senses have murdered
this old man.' That is a matter for you to consider, because we do know
that brutal crimes are committed by the most unlikely persons. But the
prosecution also allege motive, and you must consider the question of
motive. It is suggested, and it is for you to consider whether rightly
or wrongly suggested, that there was a motive in killing this man,
because the prisoner was absolutely penniless and wanted to get money."

"Gentlemen, you will first apply your minds to considering all the
evidence, and you will next consider whether you are satisfied that the
prisoner knew the difference between right and wrong so far as the act
with which he is charged is concerned. You must decide whether he knew
the nature and quality of the act, and whether he knew the difference
between that act being right, and that act being wrong. I have already
pointed out to you that the law presumes him to be of sane mind, and
able to distinguish between right and wrong, and it is for him to
satisfy you, if he is to escape responsibility for this act, that he
could not tell whether it was right or wrong. If you are satisfied of
that, you ought to say that he is guilty of the act alleged, but insane
at the time it was committed. If you are not satisfied on that point,
then it is your duty to find him guilty of murder. Gentlemen, you will
kindly retire and consider your verdict."

The jury retired, and there ensued a period of tension, which the
lawyers employed in discussing the technicalities of the case and the
probabilities of an acquittal. Mr. Oakham thought an acquittal was a
certainty, but Mr. Middleheath, with a deeper knowledge of the ways of
provincial juries, declared that the defence would have stood a better
chance of success before a London jury, because Londoners had more
imagination than other Englishmen.

"You never can tell how a d----d muddle-headed country jury will decide
a highly technical case like this," said the K.C. peevishly. "I've lost
stronger cases than this before a Norfolk jury. Norfolk men are
clannish, and Horbury's evidence carried weight. He is a Norfolk man,
though he has been in London. One never knows, of course. If the jury
remain out over an hour I think we will pull it off."

But the jury r