with it in a peculiar manner. I will not attempt to struggle with it; I will not try to shake it; I will not even descend to explain it. It shall stand in full force, bearing against my client to the very last; but then I will prove that it is utterly worthless, that it does not affect him even in the slightest degree; that there is not even a possibility of his having committed the crime. I will explain not one of all the circumstances that tell against him; and yet, without quitting that box, you shall give a verdict of acquittal. "Nevertheless, it will be necessary to examine the evidence, in order to extract from it those facts which have a real bearing on the case, and which fall into the line of defence. The rest I shall leave intact, without attempting to weaken it in the slightest degree. The evidence by which it is attempted to connect the prisoner with the crime, divides itself into three heads. One portion is that which shows that he was proceeding towards the spot where the dead body was found, nearly at the time when the murder must have been committed. The second refers to the traces of the deed left by the murderer, or supposed to have been left by him--the hoe with which the deed was done, the steps to and from the haw-haw and in the ditch. The third, relates to the demeanour and personal appearance of the prisoner after the murder had been committed. Under the first head we find from the witness, William Sandes, that he met the prisoner as he was going home from his work. The prisoner was going down towards the scene of the tragedy. The witness at first asserted, that it was about five o'clock when he met the prisoner, very naturally not wishing to make it appear that he had quitted his work before the proper time. But in cross-examination we got out of him, that he had on previous occasions left the garden earlier than he ought to have done, and had been reprimanded by the prisoner. He also admitted that it was broad daylight, and might be a quarter before five. Thus the time at which Sandes met the prisoner was rather more than half-an-hour before the murder could have been committed. I beg you to mark this fact well, gentlemen of the jury, for it is important. Then we have the evidence of the old woman, Humphries. She shows that he came into his cottage about half-past four, on the day of the murder, and went out again exactly at five, by a clock which is proved to have been on that night, from ten minutes to a quarter-of-an-hour too fast, thus corroborating the statement on cross-examination of the witness, Sandes. You will recollect, gentlemen of the jury, that on the fifth of February the sun sets before five o'clock. The witness, Sandes, says, that when he met the prisoner he does not think the sun was down; that it was broad daylight. The good woman, Humphries, declares that the prisoner went to take a look round the grounds before it was dark, all showing that it must have been considerably before five