Mr. Newman was unable to direct our attention to any authority for this construction of the judgment in Woolmington's case, nor have we been able from other sources tp find any authority for the proposition, despite the fact that, following on the judgment every text book writer had materially to recast the relevant paragraphs of his text book and every judge presiding avena criminal trial was called upon to construe the judgment and apply it to the particulars of the case before him, and that every such trial was subject to review by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The argument of Mr. Newman, coupled with his frank admission that the first and second of his suggested duties of a trial judg¢ had in this case been fully and correctly discharged, inevitably involves a close examination of the circumstances in which and the reasons for which the learned Lord Chancellor spoke as he did in Woolmington's case. In that case, the main ingredients of which closely resembled the present case, Woolmington, who admittedly had fired the shot which took his wife's life, (as Eckford here admittedly shot Davis) advanced the defence (as does here) that the shooting was unintentional. Woolmington gave evidence on oath, and gave his version of the circumstances in which the fatal shot was fired,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.