concerned only in clearing himself. The evidence disclosed a lot of loose business methods, but if this was a crime, accused were not charged with it. The jury might say the state of affairs shown to exist was not business. He did not for a moment ask them to say that it was; but it was one thing to criticize business methods and a vastly different thing to say the accused carried on a conspiracy.
His Lordship then summed up, beginning by saying that the nonexistence of the two companies was uncontradicted and undisputed. Did Chalmers and Spence know they had never existed? If the accused believed, and had reason to believe that the companies were bona fide, then the jury must find them not guilty.
His Lordship commented upon the misfortune of the compradore, who paid out $5,500, without getting a penny back.
After a short deliberation the jury returned a verdict of "guilty" against both defendants.
Asked if he had anything to say in mitigation of sentence. Mr. Priestwood said he could only urge that Chalmers had had many misfortunes and in face of certain circumstances found it difficult to obtain employment.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.