His Lordship having summed up, the jury retired to consider their verdict. They returned after about half-an-hour, when the foreman said, that eight of them were of one mind, and one jury man was of arbitrary opinion.
His Lordship—I understand, gentlemen, that one of your number is of opinion; that in order to convict a person of murder, there should be eye-witnesses of the offence. That I think, SIR, in your view, is it not?
Mr. Abdool Hai (dissenting Juror)— That is so my Lord.
His Lordship—Then it is my duty to tell you that it is not the law of the land and that the obligation you have taken upon yourself is to deliver a verdict in this case, according to the law of the country, in which you live and in where you are governed, and it is my duty to lay down the law to you, and your duty to accept that law as laid down by me; and the law of the land does not require— and one cannot conceive how any person or persona could be safe, if the law require that in every case there should be eyewitnesses to an offence. If that, were so, crimes of enormous magnitude, and of unparallelled atrocity would go undiscovered, it may be— certainly unpunished. The law is that you must take the whole of the evidence which has been given on the part of the prosecution into your careful consideration, weighing carefully and attentively, with every desire to consider the prisoner's case as favourably as you possibly can. But if you are of opinion that the evidence is true, then you have but one duty to perform. I must tell you, SIR, that watever your peculiar religious scruples and conscientious convictions may be, they ought to
