oins of a
certain denomination, and dropped on the floor one-half of an envelope,
that once contained a will. In view of these circumstances (the
prosecution calls them facts), the counsel for the defence PRESUMES
that said stranger committed the murder, stole the will; and offers
this opinion as presumptive proof that the prisoner is innocent. The
argument runs thus: this man was an accepted lover of the accused, and
therefore he must have destroyed the will that beggared his betrothed;
but it is nowhere in evidence, that any lover existed, outside of the
counsel's imagination; yet Asmodeus like he must appear when called
for, and so we are expected to infer, assume, presume that because he
stole the will he must be her lover. Does it not make your head swim to
spin round in this circle of reasoning? In assailing the validity of
circumstantial evidence, has he not cut his bridges, burned his ships
behind him?

"Gentlemen, fain would I seize this theory were it credible, and
setting thereon, as in an ark, this most unfortunate prisoner, float
her safely through the deluge of ruin, anchor her in peaceful security
upon some far-off Ararat; but it has gone to pieces in the hands of its
architect. Instead of rescuing the drowning, the wreck serves only to
beat her down. If we accept the hypothesis of a lover at all, it will
furnish the one missing link in the terrible chain that clanks around
the luckless prisoner. The disappearance of the three hundred and
twenty dollars has sorely perplexed the prosecution, and unexpectedly
the defence offers us the one circumstance we lacked; the lover was
lurking in the neighborhood, to learn the result of the visit, to
escort her home; and to him the prisoner gave the missing gold, to him
intrusted the destruction of the will. If that man came to 'Elm Bluff'
prepared to rob and murder, by whom was he incited and instigated; and
who was the accessory, and therefore particeps criminis? The prisoner's
handkerchief was the medium of chloroforming that venerable old man,
and can there be a reasonable doubt that she aided in administering it?

"The prosecution could not explain why she came from the direction of
the railroad bridge, which was far out of her way from 'Elm Bluff'; but
the defence gives the most satisfactory solution: she was there,
dividing her blood-stained spoils with the equally guilty
accomplice--her lover. The prosecution brings to the bar of retribution
only one crimin