REVIEWS. 
391 
person was very hasty, and would have done better if he had looked about in 
his own house, and had sent the most trusty of his servants to seek the police 
at the same time. We apprehend that if he found a burglar, or a man of 
notoriously bad character, with the plate upon him, there could be no 
doubt as to who was the thief, without either the evidence of the dirty 
hands or footmarks in the garden ; but thieves do not generally carry 
stolen property about with them, especially when it is as heavy as silver 
plate is usually supposed to be ; and we must beg our author to let us pre- 
sume that the plate was discovered at a pawnbroker’s, and that a man 
with dirty hands and hob-nailed boots was found, whom the pawnbroker 
believed to be the person that pawned the plate. Now we anticipate that 
the jury would like to be satisfied — 
1st. As to whether this was the man who left his marks on the 
window. 
2nd. Whether the pawnbroker was correct as to the identity of the thief. 
For it is just possible that the actual thief may still have been in the 
house, and may have employed him of the dirty hands and hob-nailed 
boots to pawn the property for him. 
Let us follow the owner of the property. We suppose that although he 
might think the evidence perfectly clear, he would entrust his case to 
counsel, and the professional gentleman, not being the victim of the theft, 
would naturally inquire into all the circumstances, and, amongst others, 
would hear of the height of the window from the ground ; so, too, would 
the counsel for the defence. But, as our readers know, it is the duty of a 
barrister to make out his case, and upon his ability to do so under diffi- 
culties depends the success of his client. Well, we can imagine the pro- 
secuting counsel being very much puzzled to connect the marks left by the 
man with the man himself, and endeavouring to get over the difficulty by 
some such pleading as this : — 
“ Every portion of the evidence, gentlemen, is quite clear, excepting one 
link ; and this there is good reason to believe is much more tenable than 
it appears, for a friend of my client once succeeded, though with some 
difficulty, in getting upon the ledge half-way down, and he has been con- 
sulted, and repeats what he said at the time of his experiment, viz., that he 
is satisfied the thing could be accomplished. My client, who is a clever 
gymnast himself, thinks the same. And I defy my learned friend, the counsel 
for the prisoner, to show that it was impossible for the prisoner to have 
effected his escape to the ledge, and from the ledge to the ground. We 
don’t pretend to explain how it can be done, but we see every reason to 
believe that it is possible, and unless my learned friend can prove the con- 
trary, I argue that the jury has no other alternative than to commit the 
prisoner / ” 
Now it appears to us that the best course for the defending counsel to 
adopt would be to leave the evidence precisely where it stands; and not 
even to avail himself of the arguments used by the objector on the ground 
of “supernatural interference,” in the hope that some of the jury might 
be “ orthodox for we have little doubt that the prisoner would be 
