The school-teacher in his depositions at the preliminary investigation in September, 1912, gave important corroborative evidence. He there said that the accused came to Victoria on the 17th October, 1909, and stayed the night with him; that the accused went out about 9 p.m. and returned about 10 p.m. with two persons (who had since been executed for leopard murder), and that these two stayed with him for about a quarter of an hour; that next morning the accused went to the French Company’s Factory and came back to the house; that he asked the accused to stay and preach for him, but the accused said “No,” that he was in haste, as the Government, since his previous trial, never allowed him to come to Victoria, and the witness fixed the date by saying that the petty trader came to him the same morning to have the above-mentioned letter written. This letter was produced and identified, and was dated 18th October, 1909. At this preliminary investigation this witness, when cross-examined by counsel for the accused, said further, “I am certain that the accused slept at Victoria on the night of October 17th, 1909.” He also said in cross-examination that he was certain that accused came there only for the purpose of collecting subscriptions for the Mission to which he belonged, and that on this occasion he got a subscription from at least one other person besides himself. But before the Special Commission Court all this was changed. The keystone of the accused’s defence was that his collections at Victoria were made on or about the 17th December, 1909, and that he only paid this one visit to Victoria during the year 1909, and these two witnesses, when before the Special Commission Court, made their evidence fit in with this defence. The school-teacher witness was married to a niece of the accused, and both he and the petty trader witness admitted having gone back on their statements about seeing the accused in Victoria in October, 1909, after an interview with the son of the accused—who was also connected with the United Brethren in Christ Mission.[15] The introduction of outside influences to vary the evidence of important witnesses for the prosecution gave rise to grave suspicion, but the net result so far as the actual charges were concerned was that the prosecution was left without corroboration of the evidence of the accomplices. Had the only issue before the Court been the charges recorded, it is possible that counsel for the defence would not have called any witnesses, but would have claimed a verdict upon the evidence; but the Court drew attention to Section 11 of the Special Commission Court Ordinance, 1912, which declared that notwithstanding an acquittal, if the Court is of opinion that it is expedient for the security, peace, or order of the district that the acquitted person should be expelled therefrom, the Court shall report to the Governor, who may expel such person from the Colony and Protectorate accordingly.