“I don’t think there is very much doubt about that,” observed the Parson, “We must be unanimous in this matter. I think we may safely leave it to you, Colonel, to make the award.” The M.P. and the Author assented, but it was understood that the former should have the privilege of sending the case back for re-trial if he disagreed. “Then, gentlemen,” said the Colonel, “I give judgment as follows: “Rosenstein loses the hole. It was his duty to have played the ball from the place where it lodged in the car, and there is a strong suspicion that he knew it! He is not entitled to regard the car as an agency outside the match, since he controlled the car and ordered it away. By his own act he made it impossible for him to obey the rules. He loses under Rule 7, and it may be mentioned that the Rules of Golf Committee has already decided that a ball played into a motor-car must be played out of it, or the hole given up. Clearly the ball lying in the car in the club garage does not lie where it did before.” “I quite agree,” said the M.P. “But should not something be done with Rosenstein?” the Parson asked. “That is for his own committee to determine,” the Colonel replied. “We have no jurisdiction. And now, Septimus, I am sure that the tit-bit of this sitting of the court will be submitted by you. We are anticipating that. I beg to move that if your case is not so pointed and interesting as those already presented, you shall be condemned to give such an order to the steward as will do something to stifle our disappointment, and take the chill from our blood on this wretched day. What do you think, my colleagues?” “It is an excellent and a most proper idea,” the Author said, and the M.P. concurred. “As you will,” the clergyman assented. “Now the little problem that has arisen in my mind runs this way:--