Before the defendant's counsel could call for a poll of the jury, No. 1 arose in his place and laboriously addressed the Court. He announced that the jury had a communication to make and asked if this was the proper time to present it. The Court signified his readiness to hear the communication, and No. 1, nervously extracting from his pocket a sheet of note paper, read the following recommendation:--“The jury, having decided in its deliberations that the defendant, James W. Hildebrand, is legally and morally guilty as charged in the indictment, craves the permission of this honourable Court to be allowed to submit a recommendation bearing upon the penalty to be inflicted as the result of the verdict agreed upon. We would respectfully urge the Court to exercise his prerogative and suspend sentence in the case of James W. Hildebrand. The evidence against him is sufficient to warrant conviction, but there are circumstances, we believe, which should operate to no small degree in his favour. His age, his former high standing among men, and his bearing during the course of this trial, commend him to us as worthy of this informal appeal to your Honour's mercy. This communication is offered regardless of our finding and is not meant to prejudice the verdict we have returned. In leaving the defendant in the hands of this Court, we humbly but earnestly petition your Honour to at least grant him the minimum penalty in the event that you do not see fit to act upon our suggestion to suspend sentence.” The document, which was signed by the twelve jurors, had been prepared by Sampson, and it was his foresight that rendered it entirely within the law. He was smart enough not to incorporate it in the finding itself; it was a supplementary instrument which could be accepted or disregarded as the Court saw fit. The Court gazed rather fixedly at the sheet of paper which was passed to him by an attendant. His brow was ruffled. He pulled nervously at his moustache. At last, clearing his throat, he said, addressing the counsel for the defence: “Gentlemen, do you wish to poll the jury?” Mr. O 'Brien waived this formality. He and his partner seemed to be rather well pleased with the verdict. They eyed the Court anxiously, hopefully. “The Court will pronounce sentence on Friday,” announced the justice, his eye on the door. He acted very much like a man who was afraid of being caught in the act of perpetrating something decidedly reprehensible. “I wish to thank the jurors for the careful attention they have given the case and to compliment them on the verdict they have returned in the face of rather trying conditions. It speaks well for the integrity, the soundness of our jury system. I may add, gentlemen, that I shall very seriously consider the recommendation you have made. The prisoner is remanded until next Friday at ten o'clock.”