Into what a minute point this great case had dwindled! "There is no evidence whatever to prove," said Sir William Follett, "that the person at whom the noble Earl is charged to have shot, on the 12th September last, was Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett--the name contained in every count of the indictment. The evidence would rather lead to a contrary presumption, if presumption could be entertained in such a case; but it is incumbent on the prosecutor to give positive evidence of the identity of the person named in the indictment with the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed.... Is there anything before your lordships to identify the Captain Tuckett spoken of by the army agent, Mr Codd, with the person who is said to have been at Wimbledon Common on the 12th September last? There is nothing whatever."--"If there be the smallest _scintilla_ of evidence," answered the Attorney-General, "the prosecution cannot be stopped on this ground; and there is abundant evidence from which it may be inferred that the person wounded in this duel was--Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett. We prove that the wounded gentleman was _a_ 'Captain Tuckett;'--that it was 'Captain _Harvey_ Tuckett:' that the wounded Captain Tuckett lived at 13 Hamilton Place, New Road. Is there any doubt that it was _that_ Captain Tuckett who had taken the premises in the Poultry? When he did so, he gave a reference to No. 13 Hamilton Place, New Road. Is it not an irresistible evidence, then, that the Captain Tuckett of the Poultry and of Hamilton Place, and who fought with Lord Cardigan, was one and the same person? There is only one other stage--that this Captain Tuckett is the Captain Tuckett of whom Mr Codd speaks. Is there not cogent evidence to prove the identity here? Would any person, out of a court of justice, for a moment doubt the identity here? If not, can this House undertake to say _that there is not a scintilla_ of evidence of identity before it?" "What we object," said Sir William Follett, in reply, "is this--that Mr Codd, who says he knows _a_ Captain Tuckett who bears the names mentioned in the indictment, gave no _scintilla_ of evidence to connect that individual with the gentleman who was on Wimbledon Common on the 12th September last. It depended altogether on Mr Codd to give such proof--and that proof he wholly failed to give. Your Lordships are now sitting as judges, to decide solely on the evidence which has been laid before you. The Attorney-General says that the card afforded _one_ of the Christian names--'_Harvey_ Tuckett;' but is that proof that the person mentioned in that card is the 'Harvey _Garnett Phipps_ Tuckett' mentioned in this indictment? There may be two, or ten, or fifty persons named 'Harvey Tuckett.' I ask your Lordships, sitting as judges on a criminal case, and looking at the evidence alone--disregarding surmise, conjecture, and what you may have heard out of doors--whether