the servant.  The deceased, had entirely trusted the prisoner; had given him a pass-key with which he might enter his chambers at any hour of the day or night; and hence it was argued that the prisoner, being the only one who had the entree to the deceased’s apartments, must have been the person who admitted the murderer to his victim.  The prisoner had faithfully obeyed his master’s orders for the day, in declining to enter his rooms before his bell should ring; and thence it was argued that he only delayed to call his master because he knew that master lay murdered in his room, and he wished to give the murderers, with whom he was said to be confederated, time to make good their escape.  He was sure, he said, that a just and intelligent jury must at once perceive the cruel injustice of such far-fetched inferences.  In addition he would call witnesses who would testify to the good character of the accused, and prove that the great esteem and confidence in which he had been held by his late master was abundantly justified by the excellent character and blameless conduct of the servant.

Mr. Kinlock then proceeded to call his witnesses.

They were the fellow-servants of the accused.  Some of them were the very same witnesses that had been called by the prosecution, and were now re-called for the defence.  One and all, in turn, testified to the uniform good behavior of the valet while in the service of Sir Lemuel Levison, deceased.

The presiding judge, Baron Stairs, summed up the evidence in a very few words.

The evidence against the prisoner at the bar was circumstantial only.  It had appeared in evidence that some servant of the family had admitted the assassin to the house.  It did not appear who that servant was.  The valet John Potts, was the only one who had the pass-key to the apartments of the deceased.  That circumstance had fixed suspicion upon him; had brought him to trial; the trial had brought out no new facts; the witness principally relied on by the prosecution had not only failed to give any testimony to convict the prisoner, but had certainly perjured herself to shield the real criminal, whoever he was, and to accuse a noble personage, whose high character and lofty station alike placed him infinitely above suspicion.  On the other hand, many witnesses had testified to the good character and conduct of the prisoner, and the estimation in which he had been held by his late master.  Such was the evidence, pro and con.

His lordship concluded by saying that the jury might now retire and deliberate upon their verdict, remembering that in all cases of uncertainty they should lean to the side of mercy.

The jury arose from their seats, and, conducted by a bailiff, retired to the room provided for them.

Many of the people now left the court-room to get refreshments.

But as the judges remained upon the bench, the Duke of Hereward kept his seat.  He felt sure that the jury would not long deliberate before bringing in their verdict.