that it would not have mattered about the destruc tion of the property, had the life of the de ceased been saved. Much had been said with regard to the presence of the prisoner fit the lire, hut there was no proof of this. [Mr, Williams here entered into some of the facts which had been adduced in evidence, in order to support this view of the case] lie should contend that there was no reliable ovidence to prove that the prisoner was at the place when the fire broke out. It was almost impossible that a man could have set the house on fire in the time which had mentioned; more especially a man who was reeling druuk. The prisoner had acted as many others had done. He had gone to the fire and was looking at it as any other inno cent person would have done. Was it likely that, had he been guilty of tli6 frightful crime, he would have calmly looked on at his diabolical work? It was contrary both to common reason and common sense to

suppose that such could betiil If the prisoner did not JJ houae on fire, the questions art t, 3 'lid the fire arise, and what has w olr Henry mith ? The rej,, 8 „ f b c being had been found, and it was rJu a prove that those remains were thow A ,' 0 deceased. Before the jury could find !' e pri-oner gmly 0 f mur.leri ng .«» must be satisfied that he was de d' there was n. proof that Smith had J °* tere I the house on the night of ti!> a a ' Again, a most important question aro* \v tlie deceased, whoever he might be ilk!' V a ' the fire ait >cked him ? A g eat d'i n existed between the medical evbwl 01 ? 0 ? had l.een that day adduced, and ihptlf " ch ofNighti, lg aleasto,nec,PdUi!!r?> he saw the decea-ed It was p >ssil,lMi, \ c L h deceased might kvc, of his ow! he entered the hou e after it was on fl a. C. 