it of playing at this public table for the
purpose of deceiving the persons who might come there?' The witness
answered--'I was.'

The witness Ford fared no better in the cross-examination, and Mr
Sergeant Runnington, at its close, asked him the same question that
he had addressed to Wright, respecting his playing at the table, and
received the same answer.

Mr Mackenzie did not appear, and there was no further evidence. Mr
Adolphus said that if he were called upon to make any defence for his
client upon a charge so supported, he was ready to do it; but, as he
must make many observations, not only on the facts, but on the _LAW_, he
was anxious if possible to avoid doing so, as he did not wish to say
too much about the law respecting gaming before so large and mixed an
audience.(72)

(72) See Chapter XI. for the views of Mr Adolphus here alluded to.

Two witnesses were called, who gave evidence which was damaging to the
character of Ford, stating that he told them he was in a conspiracy
against O'Mara and some other moneyed men, from whom they should get
three or four hundred pounds, and if witness would conceal from O'Mara
his (Ford's) real name, he should have his share of the money, and might
go with him and Wright to Brussels.

After hearing these witnesses, Mr Sergeant Runnington, without calling
on Mr Adolphus for any further defence of his client, pronounced the
judgment of the Bench.

He reviewed the transaction from its commencement, and stated the
impression, to the disadvantage of O'Mara, which the tale originally
told by the two witnesses was calculated to make. But, on hearing the
cross-examination of those witnesses, and seeing no evidence against
the defendant but from sources so impure and corrupt--recollecting the
severe penalties of the Vagrant Acts, and sitting there not merely as a
judge, but also exercising the functions of a jury, he could not bring
himself to convict on such evidence. The witnesses, impure as they were,
were _NOT SUPPORTED BY MR MACKENZIE IN ANY PARTICULAR_, except the
fact of his losing money, at a time when O'Mara did not appear as a
proprietor of the table, but as a player like himself. O'Mara must
therefore be discharged; but the two witnesses would not be so
fortunate. From their own mouths it appeared that they had been using
subtle craft to deceive and impose upon his Majesty's subjects, by
playing or betting at unlawful games, and had no legal or visible means
o