case. He said that it was urged that Mr. Tilak was guilty only of sedition, but what was worse than sedition but its bedfellow, high treason? How long a step was it from articles " seething with sedition " to the overt act which was necessary to constitute high treason ? Dealing with the murder of Mr. Rand, His Lordship said Mr. Tilak reminded him of the story in ^sop of the enemy trumpeter who begged the soldier to spare him on the ground that he was a non-combatant. The soldier refused on the ground that without the trum- peter's summons the enemy soldiers would not have advanced. Turning to the case of Mr. Jackson His Lordship said that it was true that he (Mr. Tilak) had not singled out Mr. Jackson as he had singled out Mr. Rand for denunciation, but it was enough that he had created the atmosphere for the crime by stirring up hatred of officials generally. Was it unjust to say that he was the real author of the crime just as Fagin was the real author of the crimes committed by his pupils ? Concluding His Lordship said that he did not think that he had ever tried a more serious case having regard to its possible public consequences. He would not submit the alleged libel to the Jury in snippets but as a whole, as it has been pleaded. If they found that in any part of it, the defendants had failed to make good their plea of justification, they could find for the plaintiff and award damages accordingly.
The Jury retired at 5-50P.M. (February 21st 1919, the eleventh day of the proceedings) and after a deliberation of 25 minutes returned a verdict for the defendants. Judgment was entered accordingly with costs. As one distinguished writer said ** No Indian in Bri-
