Georges JA, Henry JA, Zacca JA
```html <table> <tr> <td>IN THE C. GEORGE ANDS COURT OF APPEAL</td> </tr> <tr> <td>HOLDEN AINL TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CICA (CRTHE I</td> </tr> <tr> <td>APPEAL NO. 16 OF 1992</td> </tr> <tr> <td>THE F</td> </tr> <tr> <td>BEFORE</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RT. HON. MR. JUSTICE EDWARD ZACCA， PC.， OJ. PRESIDENT</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RT. HON. MR. JUSTICE P. TELFORD GEORGES， PC.， J.A.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RT. HON. MR. JUSTICE KENNETH C. HENRY， J.A.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. Norman C. and Mr. Garcia for the Appellant</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mr. Bulge pliant the Crown</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Hill VALDA MAE PARCHMENT v. REGINA</td> </tr> <tr> <td>On 31st enartme 1994 and 11th August， 1994.</td> </tr> <tr>
the s </tr> <tr> <td>name d for c REASONS FOR JUDGMENT</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The to tle， who was at the time employed in the Foreign</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Exchange risont of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bank")， ales ticted for the theft from the bank of bank draft No.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3932917 to i ot of obtaining by deception from the First Home Bank Ltd.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>U.S. $1， 0 case pe proceeds of that draft. She was sentenced to 9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>months i to have nt on each count， 6 months of which was suspended，</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the sentan， ve run concurrently.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>whi</td> </tr> <tr> <td>She by the against her conviction on two grounds - firstly that</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the verd in its verie jury was unsafe and unsatisfactory and secondly</td> </tr> <tr> <td>that the out l submission made at the close of the prosecution's</td> </tr> <tr> <td>case oug ae say e been upheld by the learned trial judge. She also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>sought 1 ha appeal against the sentence which it was alleged was</td> </tr> <tr> <td>manifest</td> </tr> <tr> <td>excess</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ive</td> </tr> <tr> <td>IM</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The I had on previous occasions purchased from the Bank</td> </tr> <tr> <td>U.S. $ Ma lch she used to make monthly payments on a mortgage</td> </tr> <tr> <td>loan hel an RE First Home Bank Ltd. on her home. The prosecution's</td> </tr> <tr> <td>case was 30 January 1989 she managed to obtain and use such a</td> </tr> <tr> <td>draft wi mp Apying for it. The case rested largely on the evidence</td> </tr> <tr> <td>of Celia en icour， a supervisor in the Foreign Exchange Department</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ap n</td> </tr> <tr> <td>tly</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ra ht</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ra mth</td> </tr> </table> ```
```html <table> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td
The document appears to be a legal transcript or court document. Below is a faithful transcription of the visible text, formatted according to the instructions provided: --- **er** **3** It be to the learned trial judge that the prosecution evidence is such that the jury's strength or weakness depends on the view of a witness' reliability or other fact) which are generally speaking within the province and where on one possible view of the evidence on which the jury could conclude that the defendant is guilty, the judge should allow the matter to be tried. Applying the principles it is clear that the learned trial judge was correct in using the no case submission. The second ground of appeal against conviction therefore fails. There, however, evidence which appeared to be inconsistent with the evidence of both Celia Seymour and Movine Brown. Movine Brown's evidence is that the salary cheque was cashed at some time after 2:30 on Friday January 13, 1989, was in accordance with the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and appears in the copy of the noteller's record for January 16, 1989 which was produced twice. The cheque would therefore have been in her possession until the following Monday and
```html <table> <tr> <td>b</td> <td>4</td> </tr> </table> <p>Q. Transcription of your statement is it correct the draft</p> <p>nd issued but the funds never reached the</p> <p>transfer department?</p> <p>A. No.</p> <p>And at paid to is</p> <p>Q. Reimbursement for the draft had been</p> <p>properly made to the other party and then the cheque be cashed and the</p> <p>action destroyed?</p> <p>A. Yes, that is possible.</p> <p>The prosecution did not give evidence at the trial, but in one of</p> <p>her statements she said the police, which was put in evidence by the</p> <p>prosecution, denied cashing her husband's cheque and said that she</p> <p>had used on Mr. King a method which was not a reliable one.</p> <p>In the absence of all the evidence, and in the absence of any</p> <p>evidence to the contrary, counsel for the Appellant appears to have</p> <p>suggested that Mr. King had used on Mr. King a method which was not a</p> <p>reliable one.</p> <p>The learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence (repeated)</p> <p>but what Mr. King told him (nobody knows that), Mr. King is</p> <p>implying that the draft was not a reliable witness. That's a matter for you</p> <p>to decide it upon this cock-eyed approach.</p> <p>On appeal, the learned trial judge in his summing up told the jury:</p> <p>"Mr. King through his counsel that because Mr. King spoke to others</p> <p>in the office of the system, we had reached the conclusion that Mr. King</p> <p>had used a method which was not a reliable one. That's a suggestion</p> <p>by Mr. King, and it is not what Celia Seymour told you. In brief,</p> <p>Mr. King's counsel invited you to find not on evidence
The document appears to be a legal or judicial text, discussing the case of Celia Seymour and the involvement of Mr. Tyndale. Below is a faithful transcription of the visible text, formatted with Markdown, HTML, and LaTeX as requested: ```markdown ## Page 5 The text underlines Crown's case (and I think you will understand it then) is that Mr. King erred in concluding that there had been removal of the draft which had been signed by Mr. Tyndale and had been removed, invites you to accept the evidence of Celia Seymour and to dismiss it by speculating on what any one might have said to the contrary because we don't know what that could be. You will see that Mr. Tyndale has been called several times on the absence of Mr. Tyndale and the evidence he will remember that. He put it that Mr. Tyndale should have been called as a witness. Because he, too, had been called and had been called by the Crown, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If the Crown should call Mr. Tyndale, there is no reason why the Crown should not call Mr. Tyndale. If
```html <table> <tr> <td>In the case of the Queen (1993) 1 W.L.R. 818 at 820 Lord Lane</td> </tr> <tr> <td>delivering the Privy Council observed:</td> </tr> <tr> <td>as the Privy Council took the view that the trial judge</td> </tr> <tr> <td>was to lead the jury forward an unfair or unbalanced picture of</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the defendant and that the comments of the judge were unfairly</td> </tr> <tr> <td>weighing against the defendant. In rejecting the defendant's</td> </tr> <tr> <td>comments of the judge, the court asked themselves whether the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>comments amounted to a usurpation of the jury's function. In</td> </tr> <tr> <td>chair, the Lord Chief Justice observed that it is difficult to see how a</td> </tr> <tr> <td>judge or wish to usurp the jury's function short of withdrawing in</td> </tr> <tr> <td>term from the jury's consideration. In other words</td> </tr> <tr> <td>usurp a test which by present day standards is too</td> </tr> <tr> <td>favorable to the prosecution. Comments which fall short of</td> </tr> <tr> <td>such a test may nevertheless be so weighted against the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>defendant as to leave the jury little real choice</td> </tr> <tr> <td>otherwise comply with what are obviously the judge's</td> </tr> <tr> <td>view of the case. As Lloyd L.J. observed in Regina v. Gilbey</td> </tr> <tr> <td>(unreported) 26 January 1990:</td> </tr> <tr> <td>a judge is not entitled to comment in such a way as</td> </tr> <tr> <td>to mislead the jury, summing up as a whole unbalanced. It cannot be</td> </tr> <tr> <td>saidly to the jury or too strongly that a summing up which is</td> </tr> <tr> <td>fundamentally unbalanced is not saved by the continued</td> </tr> <tr> <td>repeal of the phrase that it is a matter for the jury.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>It is never an easy one. He must of course remain</td> </tr> <tr> <td>impartial at the same time the evidence may point</td> </tr> <tr> <td>strongly in favor of the defendant; the judge may often</td> </tr> <tr> <td>feel that the evidence has to supplement deficiencies in the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>case of the prosecution or defence, in order to</td> </tr> <tr> <td>strike a proper balance between the two sides in the</td> </tr> <tr> <td>adverse proceedings. It is all too easy for a court</td> </tr> <tr> <td>to urge a judge who may have fallen into</td> </tr> <tr> <td>error to criticise a judge who may have fallen into</td> </tr> <tr> <td>error. However, if the system is trial by</td> </tr> <tr> <td>jury, his decision must be that of the jury and not of</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the judge.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>It is all too easy for a court</td> </tr> <tr> <td>to urge a judge who may have fallen into</td> </tr> <tr> <td>error to criticise a judge who may have fallen into</td> </tr> <tr> <td>error. However, if the system is trial by</td> </tr> <tr> <td>jury, his decision must be that of the jury and not of</td> </tr> <tr> <td>the judge.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>In the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td>reminded us of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant,</td> </tr> <tr> <td>in the present case, although the learned trial judge ultimately also</td> </tr> <tr> <td