not sounded them beforehand by asking them to point out the prisoner's
photo among a number of other photos? Did they not hit upon the right
photo? Is this not conclusive evidence that they must have seen and
known the prisoner? In spite of all this precaution, the first witness
in this case declared, on being cross-questioned _re_ the photo in
question, that a certain officer had shown him the photo at Norval's
Pont, and asked him to note it carefully, so that, if called upon, he
would be able to identify the person concerned!

I watched the prosecutor, who exhibited signs of uneasiness or disgust.
This stupid native was spoiling his good case; the other witness was
going to commit as great a blunder. He declared that on the 10th of
January he saw the corpses of two natives, and, on seeing them,
immediately recognized the one as being the body of his brother-in-law.
Questioned as to how he could still recognize his brother-in-law in a
decomposed body, he promptly replied, "Oh! my brother had still a smile
on his face!" Although the native in question was shot on the 14th of
August, 1901, on the 10th of January he still had a smile on his face!
Death must have conferred a great boon upon him. And if he could have
appeared in court, he certainly would have objected to my being tried.
Have not sentences of death, confiscation of property, and imprisonment
been passed on the evidences of such witnesses?

When all the evidences had been taken the prosecutor delivered his
address. After him the counsel for the defence addressed the court. In a
very able speech Advocate Gardiner pointed out the shallowness of the
accusations against me. He urged that the court should not be long in
coming to a decision, as a prolonged trial meant increased expenses for
the accused.