hand, there was nothing except the prisoner's own statement. While all the ingenuity of the Police was arrayed against her, it should never forgotten that she was a native woman, without any kowledge of law, and from the circumstances of her social position, without any friends. It might be said that, if she was innocent, she may have nailed evidence. But how was she to compel these men to come and give evidence on her behalf? They had no interest in the case. The only interest they took in the matter was to keep clear of the Police and thus it was that it came about, that while there was a long and elaborate statement on one side there was no evidence of contradiction on the other. Learned counsel briefly recapitulated the statement of Preeo and commenting on it, said that the law on the subject was that the evidence of an accomplice may be believed, but the presumption was strongly against its being true.
His Lordship interposed, by saying that he intended to ask the Jury if they thought the woman Preeo was an accomplice. It was true she had obtained a pardon from the Magistrate on the condition of her speaking the truth; but as far as he could see, it was no account of the accusation brought against her by the prisoner.
Mr. Fagan, continuing his address, asked, by whom Preeo's evidence, supposing it to be true, had been corroborated?—by two or three women of her own walks of life. It was perfectly fair to contend that evidence of this kind, got first of all from a woman, who at one time, at any rate, was under
