“There could be no doubt,” said the advocate for the pursuer, “that, however injurious the arguments she used might be, if they were justified by facts, it was perfectly open to Miss Jex-Blake to maintain that her statements were true, and to take what is called an ‘issue in justification,’ for the purpose of establishing upon her own issue, as counter to the present one, what she said. But she had not chosen to do that: it was not pretended that the statements were true; and therefore the only question the jury had to try was, practically, whether those statements were to the pursuer’s loss, injury, and damage.[79]” Footnote 79: _Scotsman_, May 31, 1871. This argument, fair enough as coming from an advocate, represents to all intents and purposes, the attitude adopted by the Judge. The case positively bristled with arguments, but the humblest appearance of a really relevant fact brought Mr. Shand to his feet with a taboo. “Thomas Sanderson deponed in answer to Mr. M‘Laren—I am a student of medicine and last winter I attended Dr. Laycock’s class. On the 18th November I was at the gate leading to Surgeons’ Hall. There was a large crowd of students and a larger crowd of other people at the gate. The students were both inside and outside the gate. The majority were University students. I assisted the ladies to pass through the College gate. I was pulled about a little by the students. The students were hooting, and oaths and offensive expressions were used. Among the students inside the gate did you recognize Mr. C.? Mr. Shand (to witness)—Don’t answer that question. Lord Mure sustained the objection. Mr. M‘Laren—Did you see Mr. C. at any time on the 18th November? Witness—Yes. Where did you see him?—At the Surgeons’ Hall. At what time of the day did you see him?—A few minutes after four o’clock. How was Mr. C. conducting himself? Lord Mure disallowed the question. E. C. C., examined by the Lord Advocate, deponed—I am the pursuer in this action. I was twenty-one years of age last August. You remember the riot at Surgeons’ Hall on the 18th of November?—I do. Where were you? Mr. Shand objected to this question. His Lordship had already ruled that no evidence could be led as to whether the witness took part in these proceedings; and it seemed as if the Lord Advocate was attempting to evade his Lordship’s decision. Lord Mure said this was a general question and he allowed it to be put to the witness. The Lord Advocate—Where were you at the time? Witness—At what time? At the time of the riot?—I was at the College of Surgeons during part of the time. When did you go there?—Three o’clock. When did the riot begin? Shortly after four. What were you doing between three and four?—I was in the class for practising physic. When did it come out?—A few minutes before four. Was there a mob of students at the gate?