In opening the case for the pronection, the Crown Advocate defined the nuture of "conspiracy to detent the due course of justice.' It did not follow, said Counsel, tha if the missing amah had been pre-wont at the trial the result would have been different, and_ therefore} the jury. war not re-trying the] charge of attempted murder; was no concern of the jury how! material or immaterial the evidence would have been had it been available, What they were to try was whether the two women agreed together to_prevent the girl's attendance at the police court and the Supreme Court. When the police were investigating the cireums: Yanees of the attack upon the Sikh money-lender und wanted to find the amah, they asked for her, but they were not assisted in their in-gumes and they were not told all they might have been told.
The case for the prosecution was that, although the amah was Mrs. Davis's employ, Mrs. Rowarth took the more active part in preventing the girl from giving evidence, andthe legal position was that where two people engaged in a common object, the acts of one could be used as evidence against the other. asked Mrs, Davis about her, they were not told the real facto and got hho assistance, the accused merely saying that if' she could find the girl she would telephone to the police and let them know. This she did not do. She must have known if her mother had any reason for keeping the amah out of the way, and must have known it was being done.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.