Battle
It was Old Mat who was responsible for the arrest of Joses on the charge of incendiarism.
"I got to do me duty by the pore feller," he said quietly. "And will do, de we. Same as the Psalmist says. It"s _because_ you love "em you got to chastise of "em. Only where it is," he ended disconsolately, "don"t somehow seem as they _can_ understand."
The evidence was fairly plain. Jerry had marked the tout late in the afternoon of the day in question cross the Paddock Close from the public park and enter the shed half an hour before the fire; while Monkey Brand, coming off the hill, on his return from the hunt, swore he had seen him emerge from the shed as flames broke from the thatched roof.
It was growing dusk at the time, and the distance was considerable, as Monkey admitted, but the little jockey maintained with restraint and emphasis that "he"d know that waddle anywheres."
Joses did not go undefended. The fact of his value to the Three J"s, if ever in doubt, was proved beyond question by the fact that they paid a good lawyer to keep him out of gaol. And it was notorious that the Three J"s never gave except where they got.
Indeed, one of the funniest scenes at the trial took place when Ikey Aaronsohnn, who it was said had returned post-haste from America for the purpose, Jaggers, and Chukkers, one after the other, stood up in the witness-box and gave evidence solemnly as to the character of the accused.
"Of course we know he _has_ made a little mistake in the past, pore chap," said Jaggers, who looked like an austere Stiggins. "But he"s a _good_ man for all that."
"A hopeful penitent," suggested the prosecuting counsel.
"There"s "ope for all, I "ope, sir," said Jaggers, with quiet manliness.
The case against the accused seemed black; but he met it with extraordinary courage and resource.
He admitted that he had been in the shed at the time alleged.
He said that he had gone there to smoke out of the wind, and admitted further that he _had_ set the shed on fire--by accident.
When asked in court why, if he had set the shed on fire by accident, he had run away, his defence was simple and convincing.
He said he was afraid. He"d been in trouble before.
"And once you"ve been in trouble, the police know you, and you never get a chance. I got a panic, and I bolted--very foolishly."
The defence evidently impressed both judge and jury. And had it been simply a question of setting fire to the shed the accused might have got off; but there was the further matter of Four-Pound-the-Second.
How did the yearling come to be in the shed?
Joses retorted that it was not for him to say; but he suggested that it had come on to rain, and that the colt had sought shelter from the storm.
It was there that Silver came in.
The papers said, and said truly, that the young banker gave his evidence with obvious reluctance.
"Was the colt in the shed when you came up?" asked the prosecuting counsel.
"Yes."
"Was it raining?"
"It was drizzling."
"Was the door shut?"
"Yes."
"How was it shut?"
"With a wooden latch."
"That you lifted to let the colt out?"
"Yes."
"Could the wind have banged the door to?"
"Possibly."
"Could the latch have _fallen_ into its place?"
"I don"t know."
"What d"you think?"
"I doubt it."
In cross-examination the aim of the counsel for the defence was to show that the evidence of the witness was unreliable because he was actuated by personal malevolence against the accused.
"Have you had words with the prisoner on more than one occasion?"
"Yes."
"It was a word from you that put the police on to him in the first instance?"
"It was _not_," with warmth.
"You found a knife you believed to belong to the prisoner in the shed after the fire?"
"Outside the shed."
"And you took the knife to the police?"
"I did not."
"Where is the knife now?"
"I don"t know."
"Who did you give it to?"