It shows how fatal it may be in Judge, counsel, or jury to take anything for granted in a criminal charge. It had been taken for granted at the former trial that _five_ men had entered the field, and how the counsel for the defence could have done so I am at a loss to conceive. It was further ascertained that the same number and the _same footprints_ marked the steps of those coming _out_ of the field. It went even further, for it was proved that _no footprints of a fifth man were anywhere visible on any other part of the field_, although the most careful search had been made. If this was established, as I think it was beyond all controversy, it clearly proved that only _four men_ were in the field when the injuries were inflicted. But it might, nevertheless, be that the young man identified was one of the four. Whether he was or not was now the question at issue; it was reduced to that one point. To disprove this the prisoner said he would like the men to be called. I cautioned him again as to the danger of the course he proposed, feeling that he was pretty safe as it was in the hands of the jury. They could hardly convict under my ruling in the circumstances. "No, my lord," he said; "I am _sure they will speak the truth about it_. They will not swear falsely against me to save themselves." The man who was alleged to have borrowed the cap was then brought up, and I asked him if it was true that he wore the prisoner's cap on the night of the outrage. He said, "It is true, my lord; I borrowed it." "Then are you the man who inflicted the injury on the keeper?" His answer was, "Unhappily, my lord, I am, and I am heartily sorry for it." When asked, "Was this young man with you that night?" "No, my lord," was the answer. The jury at once said they would not trouble me to sum up the case; they were perfectly satisfied that the prisoner was not guilty, and that what he said was true--that he was not in the field that night. They accordingly acquitted him, to my perfect satisfaction. Of course, I instantly wrote to the Home Secretary, Mr. H. Matthews (now Viscount Llandaff), who at once procured a free pardon on the former conviction, and the prisoner was restored to liberty. This case strikingly points to the imperative demand of justice that every case shall be investigated in its minutest detail. The broad features are not by any means sufficient to fix guilt on any one accused, and it is in such cases that circumstantial evidence is often brought in question, while, indeed, the _real_ circumstances are too often not brought to light. Circumstantial evidence can seldom fail if the real circumstances are brought out. Nobody had thought of raising a doubt as to there being _five_ persons in the field. Upon such small points the great issue of a case often depends.