ing memory as to important details or con cise dates. This reflection is influencing the commun ity to resent the announcement that there will be a third trial of Gardner in time. In the meantime, the lawyers are trying to find a precedent for three trials of the same per son for murder, and are debating if it would not be better to accept the Scotch verdict of "not proven" rather than to stand out for a unanimous verdict of guilty or not guilty. The two trials have been held at two differ ent towns on the circuit, and a third town at some distance from the others is named for the new venue. The alternative is to bring the accused up to London for trial, but that will involve the bringing up of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defence also. The expense of this could, of course, be met by the State without difficulty, but to the defence it would be prohibitive, even if the public subscribe as liberally for the third trial as for the second. It is, therefore, not improbable that the prosecution will be abandoned. This will be a lame and impotent conclusion, un satisfactory to the government and terribly unjust to the accused if he is innocent; but there seems no other way out of the difficulty if the public insist that there must be a limit to the number of times a man can be pui upon trial for his life. jt Fortunately, the Government have taken the wise step of entering a nolle proscqui in this case, and Gardner has been quietly liber ated from his long confinement. Such an action on l;he part of the Crown in a capital offence is in itself a very extraordinary course and adds another to the sequence of remark able incidents in this case. It is a virtual ad mission, not only that the prosecutor will
have a difficulty in proving the case, but also that the Crown authorities are strongly of the opinion that the case is improvable. There is always a liability that the prisoner may be indicted again on the discovery of new and vital evidence, but on the other hand, it has been decided that such a course is not a bar to an action for malicious prosecution, as it is tantamount to an ending of the trial in the prisoner's favor. A characteristic story in connection with this process is told by Lord Campbell in his life of Chief Justice Holt: John Lacy, a notorious spiritualist of the early eighteenth century, a man who claimed to be an inspired prophet and miracleworker, created, about the year 1704, great excitement in London, and some of his fol lowers were arrested. One of them, John Atkins, was committed by Chief Justice Holt to trial for seditious language. Lacy there upon called at Holt's private house and in formed the servant that he had brought for the Chief Justice a message from "the Lord God." He was admitted, and thus addressed the judge: "I come to you a prophet from the Lord God, who has sent me to thee, and would have thee grant a nolle prosequi for John Atkins, his servant, whom thou hast sent to prison." Holt immediately replied : "Thou art a false prophet, and a lying knave. If the Lord God had sent thee, it would have been to the Attorney General, for He knows that it belongeth not to the Chief Justice to grant a nolle prosequi; but I, as Chief Justice, can grant a warrant to commit thee to bear him company." This, says Lord Campbell, was immediately done, and both prophets were convicted and punished. STUFF GOWN.
