one of the most eminent specialists of his day. Sir Henry Durwood,
Mr. Middleheath pointed out, had seen the prisoner in a fit at the
Durrington hotel, and he emphatically declared that the accused was an
epileptic, with homicidal tendencies. Such an opinion, coming from such
a quarter, was, to Mr. Middleheath's mind, incontrovertible proof of
the prisoner's insanity, and he did not see how the jury could go behind
it in coming to a decision.

Sir Herbert Templewood's address consisted of a dry marshalling of the
facts for and against the theory of insanity. Sir Herbert contended that
the defence had failed to establish their contention that the accused
man was not in his right mind. He impressed upon the jury the decided
opinion of Dr. Horbury, who, as doctor of the metropolitan receiving
gaol, had probably a wider experience of epilepsy and insanity than any
specialist in the world. Dr. Horbury, after nine days close observation
of the accused, had come to the conclusion that he was perfectly sane
and responsible for his actions.

The general opinion among the bunch of legal wigs which gathered
together at the barristers' table as Sir Herbert Templewood resumed his
seat was that the issue had been very closely fought on both sides, and
that the verdict would depend largely upon the way the judge summed up.

His lordship commenced his summing up by informing the jury that in the
first place they must be satisfied that the prisoner was the person who
killed Mr. Glenthorpe. He did not think they would have much difficulty
on that head, because, although the evidence was purely circumstantial,
it pointed strongly to the accused, and the defence had not seriously
contested the charge. Therefore, if they were satisfied that the accused
did, in fact, cause the death of Mr. Glenthorpe, the only question that
remained for them to decide was the state of the prisoner's mind at the
time. If they were satisfied that he was not insane at the time, they
must find him guilty of murder. If, however, they came to the conclusion
that he was insane at the time he committed the act, they would return
a verdict that he was guilty of the act charged against him, but that he
was insane at the time.

His lordship painstakingly defined the difference between sanity and
insanity in the eyes of the law, but though his precise and legal
definition called forth appreciative glances from the lawyers below him,
it is doubtful whether the jury we