while a partially consumed candle lay upon the floor. In the
police court they pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, and
were promptly indicted by the grand jury.

At the trial they claimed to have gone into the house to
sleep, said they had found the bunch of keys on the stairs,
denied having the candles at all or that they were in a room
on the top story, and asserted that they were in the entrance
hall when arrested.

The story told by the defendants was so utterly ridiculous
that one of the two could not control a grin while giving his
version of it on the witness stand. The writer, who
prosecuted the case, regarded the trial as a mere formality
and hardly felt that it was necessary to sum up the evidence
at all.

Imagine his surprise when an intelligent-looking jury
acquitted both the defendants after practically no
deliberation. Both had offered to plead guilty to a slightly
lower degree of crime before the case was moved for trial.

These two defendants, who were neither insane nor
degenerates. consorted with others in Bowery hotels and
saloons,--incubators of crime. What effect could such a
performance have upon them and their friends save to inculcate
a belief that they were licensed to commit as many burglaries
as they chose? They had a practical demonstration that the
law was "no good" and the system a failure. If they could
beat a case in which they had already pleaded guilty, what