Tom Bristow seldom let a day pass over without seeing Lionel Dering. Sometimes he accompanied Mr. Hoskyns to the prison, sometimes he went alone. The lawyer and he held many long consultations² together as to the probable result of the trial. They could not conceal³ from themselves that there was grave cause for apprehension⁴. The weight of circumstantial evidence that would be brought to bear against Lionel was almost overwhelming; while, on the other hand, not a single tittle of evidence was forthcoming which tended to implicate⁵ any other person. Notwithstanding all this, Tom was as morally convinced of his friend's innocence⁷ as he was of his own existence. Mr. Hoskyns, in his way, was equally positive. He felt sure that Lionel had not knowingly committed the crime, but he thought it possible that he might have done it in a fit of mental aberration⁸, without retaining the least recollection of it afterwards. In the annals of criminal jurisprudence such cases are by no means unknown. And this was the supposition on which the eminent⁹ counsel whom he had retained for the trial seemed inclined to base his argument for the defence. Hoskyns had engaged a detective from Scotland Yard, and had left no stone unturned in his efforts to lift at least some portion of the dreadful weight of evidence from off his client's shoulders, but up to the present time all such efforts had been utterly¹⁰ in vain. That there might possibly be some foul¹¹ conspiracy¹² on foot to get rid of Lionel was an idea that for a little while found a

分享到：