I had naturally assumed that he would either claim that the shooting had been accidental or that he had fired in self-defense, after he had first been attacked by the deceased.

But no--he had had no pistol, did not know the man, and had not killed him.

Why should he have killed him?
he inquired.

No one could answer the question, least of all the jury.

The twenty witnesses were positive that he had done so, but he was equally positive that he had not.