then
turned to the question of the poisoning.

"I would rather say nothing about it," Mrs. Ellison said. "It is a
matter which has been productive of much pain to me, and I would
rather say nothing about it."

"But you must, madam," the judge said sharply. "You are here to
answer any question which may enable the jury to form an opinion on
this case."

"I am sorry to press you, Mrs. Ellison," the counsel continued,
"but I really must do so. You took a different opinion to that held
by your husband?"

"I regret to say that I did. Mr. Ellison told me the reasons he had
for suspecting the boy. I thought those reasons sufficient, and
have seen no cause for changing my opinion."

After the evidence for the prosecution had been given, the counsel
for the defence pointed out that there was, in fact, no evidence
whatever connecting Reuben with the robbery, beyond the discovery
of his tools on the premises; and that, as to this trumpery story
of the poisoning a dog, four years before, apparently only for the
purpose of showing some sort of animus, he regarded it as
altogether contemptible. When a man meant to commit a burglary in a
house, he did so in order to obtain possession of the goods, and
not from any spite against the owner. Had this young fellow felt
any malice, for this ridiculous charge on which he had been
dismissed, he would not have allied himself with burglars to rob
the house; but would probably have vented his spite in the usual
fashion, by setting fire to a stack or outhouse; but so far as he
could see, there was no foundation for the charge brought against
him, and they had already heard Mr. Ellison declare that he
regretted he had suspected him, and that he believed him to be
innocent.

But even had it been proved, up to the hilt, that the prisoner had
poisoned the dog, he should still hold it as wholly unconnected
with the present matter. If he had poisoned the dog, what then? It
was not a heinous sin, nor would it affect his moral character. No
boy likes having a piece taken out of his calf by a savage dog, and
there would have been nothing so very dreadful had he revenged
himself. It was probable that, even among the jury, there was one
or more who, if he had not absolutely set poison for his
neighbour's cats, for destroying his young chickens or scratching
up his flower beds, had threatened to do so, and would not have
regarded it as a very serious crime had he done so.

Therefore he contended