Addressing the jury on behalf of accused, r. R. G. MeDonaid commented upon two observations by the Crown Advocate. First of all, said counsel, there was his illuminating and picturesque phrase about Mr. Hammond having been "done in the eye by a tumour cheque." It was not the kind of language which one expected te hear in a court of justice, and from the representative of the Crown, and it was not a phrase which was likely to assist the Court in ecming to a decision. The Crown Advocate had also remarked that counsel for the defence was concerned in, or was doing nothing else but the throwing of mud at Mr. Hammond. But was there a single detail of Mr. Hammond's past life to which he ha@ referred? He suggested, and invited the jury to find, that in the course of this case (Mr. Hammond had committed wilful and deliberate perjury for the purpose of securing a conviction at all costs.
Continuing, © counsel suggested that any. other verdict than a verdict of acquittal was impossible. What weight could they attach to the evidence of a man who had -said he would have taken these proceedings even 1f the sum involved had been but 100 cents! In the witness box, complainant had been discursive and evasive. He forgot little points that might be in the ae cused's favour, but had a most remarkable memory for little details and conversation which might tell against him. He was determined to allow nothing to slip which might secure a conviction. The case for the defence was 3 most natural and convincing story, and was based on evidence which had not been shaken in any respect. Continuing, counsel emphasized that in order to establish their case the prosecution must show intention to defraud. Even if the accused had deliberately made out the cheque in the form in which it stood, he could not be guilty if from the first he had the intention to redeem it. Commenting on Macdonnell's debts referred to by the prosecution, counsel observed that if owing money in Shanghai was a crime, all he could say was that the gaols would have to be considerably enlarged.
As to the charge itself, said Mr. McDonald, it was an insult to the intelligence of every man in the court. Was it credible that anyone, much less a solicitor just starting in practice here, and therefore obviously intending to remain, would with his eyes open attempt to obtain $100 by fraud, and that not for his own use. He would know that, apart from the ignominy and shame of the affair, he would be struck off the rolls, and might possibly be sentenced to as much as five years' penal servitude, and all for a paltry one hundred Mexican dollars. It was not credible.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.