which Judge Chomley relied. Upon these grounds, and the principle he had named, and with the view of keeping the administration of justice free from reasonable suspicion or taint, he thought this Court was acting wisely, if he might say so, in following authorities, both ancient and modern, and saying that there should be a new trial. MR. JUSTICE HOLROYD said he concurred with his learned brother, Williams. He considered Mr. Coldham’s affidavit, on the very face of it, bore the stamp of truth; but he felt that he was absolutely constrained, by authority, to arrive at the same conclusion as his brother, Williams. He would be directly contravening English decisions, and decisions of this Court, if he were to decide otherwise. No doubt it was a great hardship to the defendant that he should lose the fruits of his victory because of an indiscretion upon the part of jurymen or his counsel or solicitor. At the same time that was a necessary condition of the relationship which existed between counsel and solicitor and client. Some people, not familiar with the great caution that both bench and bar, he believed, exercised in maintaining the pure administration of justice, might fancy that the Court in coming to this decision suspected some foul play. Speaking for himself—the other members of the Bench had spoken for themselves—he suspected none, but he cordially agreed that the administration of justice must be free from suspicion. Therefore he concurred in the judgment pronounced by his brother, Williams. MR. LEON: Then your Honour will make an order allowing the appeal, with costs? MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS: Before doing so we will hear what Mr. Schutt’s law point is. MR. LEON said he was not instructed as to the point, and the Court, therefore, adjourned the case until Thursday next, the understanding being that subject to the point of law involved a new trial should be ordered. * * * * * The Menzies’ Hotel incident, as a matter of course, created a good deal of stir in the Melbourne Press. It is impossible in these pages to give all the comments; but the following well-argued article front the leading columns of _The Age_ of March 10, 1897, is worth quoting:—