in consequence of the reversal of their order by the House of Lords, the decision of that House being, it was suggested, merely for the guidance of Courts in the future. That was a very serious contention, and was one which they could not adopt. By section 1, subsection 6, of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, an appeal to the House of Lords might be brought by the prosecution or the defendant or the Director of Public Prosecutions if the _fiat_ of the Attorney-General was obtained. If the defendant, in a case where the conviction had been affirmed, could satisfy the Attorney-General that the case was one of sufficient importance, he could take the decision of the House of Lords upon it, and if he succeeded in obtaining an order of the House of Lords that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissing his appeal was wrong, he was obviously entitled to ask the Court for an order entering a verdict of ‘Acquittal’ and for his immediate release. When the present case was before the House of Lords last week the question as to the proper procedure was discussed, and an application to this Court, which had full power to act in accordance with the order of the House of Lords, was considered to be the proper course. As had been pointed out by Mr. Justice Pickford during the argument, the finality of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal was subject to the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. It appeared to them that by virtue of the decision of the House of Lords the conviction was restored, and, if necessary, an order would be made amending the record in accordance with the order of the House of Lords. The male defendant would remain in custody to undergo his sentence. As regards the female defendant, there would be an order for her arrest.... Mr. Forrest Fulton said that the male defendant had originally given notice of appeal against sentence as well as against the conviction. In view of what happened, the question of sentence was not gone into. He (counsel) said he would like a short time to consider as to this part of the appeal. The Lord Chief Justice said the case could be put in the list again, if necessary, early in the next sitting for this point to be considered.” The Ball case brings out with dispassionate accuracy the utterly fantastic possibilities of intermediate acquittal, followed by an order for re-arrest. Whether the authorities, in this particular case, took the precaution to carry out a very needful network of surveillance, between the discharge of the prisoners by the Court of Criminal Appeal (when the convictions were set aside), and the moment when the Lord Chief Justice gave practical effect to the order of the House of Lords, one does not know.