<p><SPAN name="link2H_PART2" id="link2H_PART2"></SPAN></p>
<h2> PART II. PARADISE REGAINED. </h2>
<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0015" id="link2HCH0015"></SPAN></p>
<h2> CHAPTER XV. THE STORY OF THE TRIAL. THE PRELIMINARIES. </h2>
<p>LET me confess another weakness, on my part, before I begin the Story of
the Trial. I cannot prevail upon myself to copy, for the second time, the
horrible title-page which holds up to public ignominy my husband's name. I
have copied it once in my tenth chapter. Let once be enough.</p>
<p>Turning to the second page of the Trial, I found a Note, assuring the
reader of the absolute correctness of the Report of the Proceedings. The
compiler described himself as having enjoyed certain special privileges.
Thus, the presiding Judge had himself revised his charge to the jury. And,
again, the chief lawyers for the prosecution and the defense, following
the Judge's example, had revised their speeches for and against the
prisoner. Lastly, particular care had been taken to secure a literally
correct report of the evidence given by the various witnesses. It was some
relief to me to discover this Note, and to be satisfied at the outset that
the Story of the Trial was, in every particular, fully and truly given.</p>
<p>The next page interested me more nearly still. It enumerated the actors in
the Judicial Drama—the men who held in their hands my husband's
honor and my husband's life. Here is the List:</p>
<p>THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK,}<br/>
LORD DRUMFENNICK, }Judges on the Bench.<br/>
LORD NOBLEKIRK, }<br/>
<br/>
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mintlaw), } DONALD DREW, Esquire<br/>
(Advocate-Depute).} Counsel for the Crown.<br/>
<br/>
MR. JAMES ARLISS, W. S., Agent for the Crown.<br/>
<br/>
THE DEAN OF FACULTY (Farmichael), } Counsel for the Panel<br/>
ALEXANDER CROCKET, Esquire (Advocate),} (otherwise the Prisoner)<br/>
<br/>
MR. THORNIEBANK, W. S.,}<br/>
MR. PLAYMORE, W. S., } Agents for the Panel.<br/></p>
<p>The Indictment against the prisoner then followed. I shall not copy the
uncouth language, full of needless repetitions (and, if I know anything of
the subject, not guiltless of bad grammar as well), in which my innocent
husband was solemnly and falsely accused of poisoning his first wife. The
less there is of that false and hateful Indictment on this page, the
better and truer the page will look, to <i>my</i> eyes.</p>
<p>To be brief, then, Eustace Macallan was "indicted and accused, at the
instance of David Mintlaw, Esquire, Her Majesty's Advocate, for Her
Majesty's interest," of the Murder of his Wife by poison, at his residence
called Gleninch, in the county of Mid-Lothian. The poison was alleged to
have been wickedly and feloniously given by the prisoner to his wife Sara,
on two occasions, in the form of arsenic, administered in tea, medicine,
"or other article or articles of food or drink, to the prosecutor
unknown." It was further declared that the prisoner's wife had died of the
poison thus administered by her husband, on one or other, or both, of the
stated occasions; and that she was thus murdered by her husband. The next
paragraph asserted that the said Eustace Macallan, taken before John
Daviot, Esquire, advocate, Sheriff-Substitute of Mid-Lothian, did in his
presence at Edinburgh (on a given date, viz., the 29th of October),
subscribe a Declaration stating his innocence of the alleged crime: this
Declaration being reserved in the Indictment—together with certain
documents, papers and articles, enumerated in an Inventory—to be
used in evidence against the prisoner. The Indictment concluded by
declaring that, in the event of the offense charged against the prisoner
being found proven by the Verdict, he, the said Eustace Macallan, "ought
to be punished with the pains of the law, to deter others from committing
like crimes in all time coming."</p>
<p>So much for the Indictment! I have done with it—and I am rejoiced to
be done with it.</p>
<p>An Inventory of papers, documents, and articles followed at great length
on the next three pages. This, in its turn, was succeeded by the list of
the witnesses, and by the names of the jurors (fifteen in number) balloted
for to try the case. And then, at last, the Report of the Trial began. It
resolved itself, to my mind, into three great Questions. As it appeared to
me at the time, so let me present it here.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />