Should the jury not be satisfied on that point, witnesses would be called, including the young lady herself, but unless the counsel for the defence challenged their statement, namely that this slander had been spoken which contributed, so it was argued, a motive for the crime it would be unnecessary to intrude on the poignant and private grief of persons so situated, and to insist on a scene which must prove to be so heart-rendingly painful.
(There was a slight movement of demur in the humane and crowded court at this; it was just these heart-rendingly painful things which were so thrilling.) It was most important, continued counsel for the prosecution that the jury should fix these dates accurately in their minds.

Tuesday was June 21st; it was on that day the murdered man had gone to London, designing to return on June 23d, Thursday.

The prisoner had learned on Wednesday (June 22d) that aspersions had been made, false aspersions, on his character, and it was on Thursday that he learned for certain from the lips of the man to whom they had been made, who was the author of them.
The author was Mr.Godfrey Mills.

He had thereupon motored back from Falmer Park, and informed Mr.Taynton of this, and had left again for Falmer an hour later to make an appointment for Mr.Taynton to see Sir Richard.

He knew, too, this would be proved, that Mr.Godfrey Mills proposed to return from London that afternoon, to get out at Falmer station and walk back to Brighton.