The right way of looking at a speech made counsel seem
Bunter at Blaidstone the other cropped judicial
the Lord Chief Justice, when the prise: counsel was telling the jury, as is not unusual, that his client's mouth "was closed. Upon this he was interrupted by the judge, who rigel represented the accused, whatever the prisoner was entitled to say hiv counsel could say for him. Counsel observed that he was very glad to hear this ruling, as sume time ago Lori Justice Bramwell had of told him that he could not represent any atate of facts to the jury on behalf of the prisone! excep!
by way of hypothesis. With ti the Lord Chief Justice still own opposite opinion, repeat. ing that as the prisoner might give his own account to the jury, so his counsel could do tractions and on behalf of the accused. It may be that both these judges right in their views of the matter, and really mean the me thing. A counsel very often only offers an explanation by way of bypath for th consideration of the jur does not carry the case much farther to in his addi client' hi statement of much value the sworn testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, for i not made upon oath, and what is far more important, it is not tented by cross-amination. Whichever view be taken of the matter, the pi does remain closed for all practical purpose but whet!
ror not it would be better th it should be opened is a question ji much doubt and endless disc events th will not be ani fered by merel} saying that the speech mi a prisoner's conns should be ened to and regarded as if it were wade by the prisoner,—Lat Times, Tuitiale:—b, blue ak; clouds; ight
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.