In reviewing the evidence, he had come to the conclusion that the Misses Kupock and Mrs. Guignard had given their evidence extremely well, while Mrs. Guignard was emphatic as to the jewellery produced in Court being that stolen. There was emphatic evidence for the prosecution and good evidence for the defence. The defence in no way tried to strain their evidence. Witnesses had fairly said they thought certain things to be true; had they been more em-photic there might have been a certain suspicion placed on their evidence. It was alleged that defendant took the opportunity when the boxes were leaving her house to steal some of the jewellery in them. A jury would ask if it would be likely for a thief to take such an opportunity. It was not very favourable opportunity. Unless she were the most- inept criminal she would have realized that she would have soon been discovered People stole things with the idea of gain. The prosecution had not shown that this girl had stolen anything for the purposes of gain.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.