sion of a great deal of valuable jewellery belonging to the estate; we have now dismissed him; we have called upon him to surrender the property and account for it; he declines; from his conduct and these circumstances I have strong reason to suspect that he had criminally misappropriated some of it and I invoke your assistance as Magistrate to make him answer, to make him give an account of himself and his property'. I believe 99 out of 100 persons would have done exactly what Tilak did." And yet Mr. Tilak had to fight full 8 months before he could extract this clear judicial statement on such a simple question.
But this was only the first charge. Mr. Tilak, no doubt was successful here; but six remained. The next in order related to forgery and fabrication of false evidence. But these were triable by a Sessions Court with the aid of a jury while the last and the mildest of all charges did not require the aid of a jury. Apparently the Prosecution had not the courage to take the case to a jury. Mr. Tilak formally applied to the Magistrate requesting him to take up the more serious charges first. But the challenge—for so it was—was not accepted. Mr. Tilak was tried for perjury by Mr. Clements, the Special Magistrate and on 24th August 1903 was convicted and sentenced to 18 month's rigorous imprisonment to which a fine of Rs. 1,000 was added.
"Mr. Clements had kept ready a warrant for the Police and he refused to interfere in their discretion which was evidently to result in Mr. Tilak 's removal to jail without being allowed a sufficient time to give instructions for lodging the appeal by his pleaders on the spot. All this, however, was anticipated, so that the appeal*
