He made a strong appeal for acquittal, but if not acquittal, then a verdict of manslaughter.

He showed that the only real evidence which could convict his man of murder was that of the witness Crozier.

If he had been content to discredit evidence of the witness by an adroit but guarded misuse of the facts he had brought out regarding Crozier's past, to emphasise the fact that he was living under an assumed name and that his bona fides was doubtful, he might have impressed the jury to some slight degree.

He could not, however, control the malice he felt, and he was smarting from Crozier's retorts.

He had a vanity easily lacerated, and he was now too savage to abate the ferocity of his forensic attack.
He sat down, however, with a sure sense of failure.