a diamond ring on the forefinger of his right hand,
and the cabman, Rankin, swore to the same thing about the man who got
out at Powlett Street. Against this could be placed the evidence of one
of the prisoner's most intimate friends--one who had seen him almost
daily for the last five years, and he had sworn positively that the
prisoner was not in the habit of wearing rings.

The cabman Rankin had also sworn that the man who entered his cab on
the St. Kilda Road alighted at Powlett Street, East Melbourne, at two
o'clock on Friday morning, as he heard that hour strike from the Post
Office clock, whereas the evidence of the prisoner's landlady showed
plainly that he entered the house five minutes previously, and her
evidence was further supported by that of the watchmaker, Dendy. Mrs.
Sampson saw the hand of her kitchen clock point to five minutes to two,
and, thinking it was ten minutes slow, told the detective that the
prisoner did not enter the house till five minutes past two, which
would just give the man who alighted from the cab (presuming him to
have been the prisoner) sufficient time to walk up to his lodgings. The
evidence of the watchmaker, Dendy, however, showed clearly that he had
put the clock right at the hour of eight on Thursday night; that it was
impossible for it to gain ten minutes before two on Friday morning, and
therefore, the time, five minutes to two, seen by the landlady was the
correct one, and the prisoner was in the house five minutes before the
other man alighted from the cab in Powlett Street.

These points in themselves were sufficient to show that the prisoner
was innocent, but the evidence of the woman Pawlins must prove
conclusively to the jury that the prisoner was not the man who
committed the crime. The witness Brown had proved that the woman
Rawlins had delivered a letter to him, which he gave to the prisoner
and that the prisoner left the Club, to keep the appointment spoken of
in the letter, which letter, or, rather, the remains of it had been put
in evidence. The woman Rawlins swore that the prisoner met her at the
corner of Russell and Bourke Streets, and had gone with her to one of
the back slums, there to see the writer of the letter. She also proved
that at the time of the committal of the crime the prisoner was still
in the back slum, by the bed of the dying woman, and, there being only
one door to the room, he could not possibly have left without the
witness seeing him. Th