Both prisoners pleaded not guilty; no objections were taken to the relevancy of the indictment; and it was stated for Brodie that he intended to prove an _alibi_. An objection taken by the Dean of Faculty to the specification of certain of the articles libelled on having been repelled, John Clerk attempted to make some observations on behalf of Smith, which resulted in the first of those passages of arms between him and Braxfield, whereby the dignified course of the proceedings was frequently enlivened. Clerk had then been at the bar less than three years; this was the most important case in which he had yet been employed; and it is said to have been his first appearance in the Justiciary Court. The remarkable and characteristic energy with which on that occasion he conducted his client’s defence attracted the attention of the profession, and laid the foundations of his subsequent reputation and practice. An interesting point of law arose in connection with the calling of Smith’s wife as a witness for the prosecution against Brodie. Her proposed evidence was vigorously objected to by Clerk on account of the relation in which she stood to his client--both panels were included in one indictment, and it was impossible to criminate the one without the other. A sharp encounter with Braxfield ensued; but the Court admitted the witness. When Mrs. Smith entered the box, however, Alexander Wight, for Brodie, stated a fresh objection, viz., that the maiden name of the witness was wrongly given in the Crown list as “Mary Hubbart,” whereas her real name was “Hibbutt,” which, on her being requested by Braxfield to sign her name, turned out to be the fact. In view of this misnomer the objection was sustained and the witness dismissed. Another legal point of interest arose when it was proposed to identify the five-pound bank-note libelled on, the Dean of Faculty objecting that it was not a “bank-note,” as described in the indictment, having been issued by a private banking company in Glasgow. The Court sustained the objection, holding that nothing was to be deemed a bank-note but one issued from a bank established by Royal Charter. The crucial question of the case, however, both for the prosecution and the defence, was whether or not Ainslie and Brown should be admitted as witnesses to prove the panels’ guilt. So far the proof of their complicity in the robbery was mainly circumstantial. Although Smith, in his second declaration, had confessed his accession to the crime, yet, having pleaded not guilty, this was not in itself sufficient to convict him; while as regards the Deacon, apart from the statements of Smith, his guilt was only to be inferred from his flight and certain passages in his letters. It was, therefore, of vital importance to the prisoners that the direct evidence of their accomplices should be excluded, while the Crown case equally depended for a verdict upon its admission.