Mr. Shand—Your lordship will understand that I am objecting to all these questions. The Lord Advocate—Were you present during the whole of the riot? Mr. Shand—I object to that question. Lord Mure sustained the objection.” In addressing the jury, Mr. Shand said, “A slander had been committed and was unrepented, and only by a verdict from the jury could the calumny be wiped off. A nominal sum, however, would be an injury instead of an assistance. Excessive damages[80] he did not ask, but only such a reasonable sum as would mark their sense of the injury inflicted on the pursuer by the statements made in his absence.” Footnote 80: The amount claimed—£1000—was only specified when the case came into Court, having been inadvertently omitted from the issue. The Lord Advocate’s summing up was humorous in the extreme, and called forth peals of laughter at the pursuer’s expense; indeed in the end he almost went so far as to produce a counter-wave of sympathy for the victim of his brilliant raillery. But, indeed, nothing could be made of the case as it stood. In the final summing-up, Lord Mure said: “He had not allowed any evidence to prove that the pursuer had been a leader in the riot, because, according to his view of the authorities on the subject, it was incompetent to allow such evidence in the absence of an issue of justification. The jury had heard the evidence of Dr. Christison and others as to the injury which a man’s character was calculated to sustain from such a statement as had been made use of by the defender; and it was for the jury to judge whether that charge was one which was likely, without retractation or apology, to injure the pursuer’s character. The jury retired at five o’clock, and at half-past six they returned to Court, and gave a unanimous verdict in favour of the pursuer, assessing the damages at a farthing.”[81] Footnote 81: Edinburgh _Evening Courant_, June 1, 1871. On the following day a leading article in the _Glasgow Herald_ made the following comment: