There was a singular circumstance in the defence of this case, one which I have never heard before or since, and that was a complaint that the counsel for the prisoner was “twitted” by the Crown because he had not called evidence for the defence.  The jury were solemnly asked to remember that if one jot or tittle of evidence had been put forward, or a single document put in by him, the prisoner’s counsel, he would lose the last word on behalf of the prisoner!  Of course, counsel’s last word may be of more value than some evidence; but the smallest “jot or tittle” of evidence, or any document whatever that even tends to prove the innocence of the accused, is of more value than a thousand last words of the most powerful speaker I have ever listened to.  And I would go further and say that evidence in favour of a prisoner should never be kept back for the sake of the last word.  It is the bounden duty of counsel to produce it, especially where evidence is so strong that no speech could save the prisoner.  Neither side should keep back evidence in a prisoner’s favour.  I said to the jury,—­

“We are assembled in the presence of God to fulfil one of the most solemn obligations it is possible to fulfil, and I will to the best of my ability assist you to arrive at an honest and just conclusion.

“The law is that if a man deliberately or designedly administers, or causes to be administered, a fatal poison to procure abortion, whether the woman be pregnant or not, and she dies of it, the crime is wilful murder.

“You have been asked to form a bad opinion of this deceased woman, but she had brought up her children respectably on her slender means, and there was no evidence that she was a loose woman.  It more than pained me when I heard the learned counsel—­instructed by the prisoner—­cross-examine that poor little girl, left an orphan by the death of the mother, with a view to creating an impression that the poor dead creature was a person of shameless character.

“Again, counsel has commented in unkind terms on the deceased woman, and said the prisoner had no motive in committing this crime on a woman whom he valued at half a crown.

“He might not, it is true, care half a crown for her.  It is not a question as to what he valued the woman at; we are not trying that at all; but it showed there was a motive.

“I have not admitted a statement which the woman made while in her dying state, because she may not fully have realized her condition.  Probably you will have no doubt that, by whomsoever this fatal dose was administered, there is only known to medical science one poison which will produce the symptoms of this woman’s dying agonies.  One thing is surprising at this stage—­that immediately after death the door of the house was not locked, and while the body was upon the bed a paper of no importance was found, and that afterwards several relatives went