Therefore, the proved facts that Sir Charles Vandrift, with all his
millions, had meanly tried to cheat the prisoner, or some other poor
person, out of valuable diamonds--had basely tried to juggle Lord
Craig-Ellachie's mines into his own hands--had vilely tried to bribe
a son to betray his father--had directly tried, by underhand means,
to save his own money, at the risk of destroying the wealth of
others who trusted to his probity--these proved facts must not
blind them to the truth that the prisoner at the bar (if he were
really Colonel Clay) was an abandoned swindler. To that point alone
they must confine their attention; and _if_ they were convinced that
the prisoner was shown to be the self-same man who appeared on
various occasions as David Granton, as Von Lebenstein, as Medhurst,
as Schleiermacher, they must find him guilty.
As to that point, also, the judge commented on the obvious strength
of the police case, and the fact that the prisoner had not attempted
in any one out of so many instances to prove an alibi. Surely, if
he were _not_ Colonel Clay, the jury should ask themselves, must it
not have been simple and easy for him to do so? Finally, the judge
summed up all the elements of doubt in the identification--and all
the elements of probability; and left it to the jury to draw their
own conclusions.
Pages:
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288