NOTES ON THE PETITION.
8. Since I wrote the above the defence have been
goodenough goodenough to supply me with a copy of the petition.
I add a few notes on it.
73
14 Para. 12 and para. 42(1); This is incorrect.
did not say a single etatement- word about any dif- fering statement.
I
I did not even ask to be allowed
to treat the witness as hostile.
I purposely re- frained from doing so in order not to prejudice the
jury. I merely asked to be allowed to hand up the
paper, and I did so as unobtrusively as possible. The Chief Justice at once realised the nature of my appli- cation and said that he saw to ground for allowing me
to treat the witness as hostile.
Of course I had
showb the paper to the counsel for the defence before
handing it up,
and that probably explains his lapse of
memory as to what I said to the court. I have no
recollection of having characterised the evidence of
this witness as a fabrication, at this or any other
stage. I do not think that I did so. I had to
treat his evidence delicately as he was my witness.
Para. 42(h): I do not know what is intended to
be suggested by the word indicated." All that I
said about Larkins evidence is reported in the Daily
Press. This passage is one of the best portions of
the report. In such cases one naturally always tries