ACT II

● Setting: A Court of Justice, on a foggy October afternoon crowded with barristers, solicitors, reporters,
ushers, and jurymen.
● Counsel for Crown (Prosecution): Harold Cleaver - a dried, yellowish man, of more than middle age,
in a wig worn almost to the colour of his face.
● Counsel for Defence: Hector Frome - young, tall man, clean shaved, in a very white wig.
(Bring out difference between the mindsets of the old and the young; progressive nature of the law)

Opening Speech by Frome:

● Did not dispute the fact that alteration was done by prisoner
● Tried to put before the court that he was not in the right condition of mind
● Tried to show that that he was not responsible for his actions at that time
● did this in a moment of aberration, amounting to temporary insanity, caused by the violent distress
under which he was labouring.
● Tried to focus on the tragic events in his life involving Ruth Honeywill which caused him great distress
and duress and led to him stealing – he is infatuated with her.
● Grant him mercy due to young age of 23
● Ruth Honeywill:
o leading a miserable existence with a husband who habitually ill-uses her
o goes in terror of her life from him
● Does not try to justify the act of falling in love with a married woman or playing knight to a damsel in
distress
● Focuses and urges the jury to lay attention to the power of the passion of love and consequently that she
has no power to get rid of her husband as you know, another offence besides violence is necessary to
enable a woman to obtain a divorce; and of this offence it does not appear that her husband is guilty.

Justification by Frome: Ruth’s Testimony

● Confronted with a dire situation and no alternatives
● she set her whole hopes on himself, knowing the feeling with which she had inspired him
● saw a way out of her misery by going with him to a new country, where they would both be unknown,
and might pass as husband and wife.
● This was a desperate and an immoral resolution; but, as a fact, the minds of both of them were constantly
turned towards it.
● One wrong is no excuse for another, and those who are never likely to be faced by such a situation
possibly have the right to hold up their hands
● Tw young people under such circumstances tried to take the law into their own hand
● oung woman in her distress, and this young man, little more than a boy, who was so devotedly attached
to her, did conceive this reprehensible design of going away together.
● they had no money and required some
● calls Cokeson to the stand.

Closing Statement by Frome:

● Act committed under temporary madness arising out the mental and moral vacuity and the violent
emotional agitation which he had been suffering from; should not be held responsible for his actions –
all this is explicitly clear from the evidence
● Denies adding any romantic allure to the case as claimed by the prosecution
● Stresses on the background of palpitating life which always lies behind the commission of a crime
● We live in a highly, civilized age, and the sight of brutal violence disturbs us in a very strange way, even
when we have no personal interest in the matter but to see it inflicted on a woman we love us worse
● Beseeches them to put themselves in Falder’s shoes at his young age, he could not bear marks of
violence and strangulation on a woman he loves
● Goes on to say that he has not a strong nor a vicious face - sort of man who would easily become the
prey of his emotions.
● Cokeson’s description of Falder’s eyes – funny- better described as the peculiar uncanny look of those
strained to breaking-point
● Tries to contend that he did not have any criminal intent and should be treated as a patient and absolved
of the stigma attached to his crime.
● Admits that the plea may very well be abused but it is a matter for discretion - there is every reason to
give the benefit of the doubt in this case.
● Absolutely truthful answer by Falder that he thought of Cokeson’s face while committing the crime
● Affection may be illegitimate between him and Ruth but she came to give evidence for him at the risk of
her life.
● Impossible to doubt his distress on the morning when he committed this act – terrible havoc that distress
causes on the minds of the weak and nervous people – theft and forgery committed in the heat of the
moment
● Consequences followed as death follows a stab to the heart, or water drops if you hold up a jug to empty
it – tragic nature of impossibility of changing what has been done in those 4 minutes – Falder slipped
through the doors of the cage of law and coming back is an impossibility
● Further acts - his failure to confess, the alteration of the counterfoil, his preparations for flight, are not
evidence of deliberate and guilty intention when he committed the prime act from which these
subsequent acts arose- merely evidence of the weak character which is clearly enough his misfortune.
● Talks about the want of that human insight which sees men like Falder as patients, and not criminals –
make a criminal out of an innocent person if declared guilty – branding of a criminal leaves a
psychological mark and also Falder does not have the strength to survive the ordeal of prison.
● Weigh his criminality vis-à-vis his suffering – already suffered more – lain in prison for 2m already
● The rolling of the chariot-wheels of Justice over this boy began when it was decided to prosecute him.
We are now already at the second stage. Beseeches jury not to permit it to go on third.

Prosecution’s Arguments:
● Facts this case and defence is thin
● The plea is one of temporary insanity – bizarre
● The alternative would have been to plead guilty and rely on a simple appeal to the Judge (Lordship)
● Tried to give a romantic glow to the affair by putting woman on the stand – used her to bring out the
story of stress and motive
● Argues a technicality
● Woman has every reason to favour the prisoner, but said that the prisoner was not insane when she left
him in the morning. If he were going out of his mind through distress, that was obviously the moment
when insanity would have shown itself.
● Cokeson also said that Falder was ‘jumpy’ not mad when the cheque was handed to Davis – Falder
remembers the words Davis said when he handed him the cheque thus shows that he wasn’t mad
● Cashier that he was certainly in his senses when he cashed it – thus, man who is sane at ten minutes past
one, and sane at fifteen minutes past, may, for the purposes of avoiding the consequences of a crime,
call himself insane between those points of time. (only insane for 4 mins?)
● Defence has beseeched to the score of youth, temptation despite offence being very serious
● Peculiar circumstances- Falder allowed suspicions to rise against Davis who was innocent and had
illicit relations with Ruth
● Verdict should be guilty according to evidence.
 JUDGE:
● Facts and evidence and testimonies have been established.
● The defence set up is that he was not in a responsible condition when he committed the crime – jury
must figure out point of insanity question
● If prisoner insane, verdict is guilty but insane (nothing short of insanity will count)
● If prisoner sane, verdict is guilty.
● Mental condition must be reviewed vis-à-vis the evidence as to his demeanour and conduct both before
and after the act of forgery and testimonies of others
● Directs attention to the prisoner's admission that the idea of adding the 'ty' did come into his mind at the
moment when the cheque was handed to him; and also, to the alteration of the counterfoil, and to his
subsequent conduct generally.
● The bearing of all this on the question of premeditation [which will imply sanity] is very obvious.
(biased nature of judge comes out)
● must not allow any considerations of age or temptation to influence verdict.
● Before verdict of guilty but insane, jury must well and thoroughly be convinced that the condition of his
mind was such as would have qualified him at the moment for a lunatic asylum.