74
to avoid prejudice.
At one stage, thinking that "very
I
material" was too strong, I added that I did not say that
the proposed evidence was by any means conclusive.
also admitted that I knew of no precedent in my experience
for the admission of the evidence.
21 Para. 42(h); It quite escaped me that Mr. Larkins
was in the same firm as a member of the jury. Mr. Jenkin !
did not draw my attention to the fact when I informed him
before hand of my intended application and of the substance
of Mr. Larkina's evidence.
22 Para. 42(j): The Chief Justice put the evidence on
both sides, and pointed out that the two stories were in-
consistent.
23. Para. 42(K): My recollection is that the chief
Justice did refer to the alleged inconsistencies in the
Crown evidence.
Zu Para. 42(m): I cannot recollect what the Chief
Justice did read out, but Mr. Jenkin offered no suggestion
of any kind on the summing up at the time.
1st May,
1922.
Attorney General.