In the long-lasting applause, the sound of the gavel sounded again.

With a smile on his face, the magistrate announced: "After listening to Officer Arthur's impassioned speech, I believe that everyone has a deeper understanding of the case and a stronger belief in your inner judgment. I now declare the adjournment of the court closed, and I invite you gentlemen and ladies to come to your respective places while we proceed to our case. ”

The lively courtroom was quiet again, and the magistrate looked at Arthur and asked with a smile, "Is there anything else you would like to add?" ”

Arthur regained his iron-faced and selfless expression, and he responded: "The claims of the Metropolitan Police Department of Greater London have been written in full in the indictment, and we have submitted the relevant evidence, so I have nothing more to say. ”

The magistrate nodded, then said to the jury, "The trial process is almost complete. Then invite the ladies and gentlemen of the jury to go out of court and give a verdict of guilt or innocence.

If you convict the defendant, I will consider the defendant's performance in court and consider social morality and justice to give an appropriate sentencing standard and make a final verdict. ”

At this point, the magistrate paused.

He picked up the Bible in front of him and pressed it to his heart.

He solemnly declared to the jury: "Gentlemen and ladies, I swear to God by my honor and faith that I will give a just sentence that does not violate my conscience, and believe in my promise." ”

The jury members understood the subtext of the magistrate.

Although Arthur's speech was successful, little Adam's criminal behavior was also real, so he hoped that the jury would not violate the law to make a decision to acquit him because of his personal feelings.

But he also promised that even if little Adam was found guilty, the magistrate's court would definitely consider a lenient sentence for little Adam, and that the nine-year-old would not be hanged on the gallows.

Hearing this, the jurors were still a little hesitant, and although they stood up, they did not go out for a long time.

Although they knew that little Adam would be given a light sentence, they did not know what the standard of this light sentence was.

In those days, law was an expensive discipline that only lawyers and judges could possess, and jurors clearly did not possess such knowledge.

Mrs. Peel saw that there was no way to continue such a stalemate, so she asked tactfully.

"Mr. Judge, may I ask you a question about the law?"

The magistrate smiled and nodded: "Of course, it is my duty to answer the questions of the jury." ”

Mrs. Peel pondered for a while before she came up with a question that would not embarrass the magistrate.

"Excuse me, then, if a man who has stolen more than five shillings worth a crime, if he has shown a strong sense of remorse and guilt during the trial, and if he is still a minor, what kind of verdict will the court make?"

"Oh! Great question! ”

The magistrate replied solemnly.

"I'm sure you must have noticed an important figure when you listened to Officer Arthur just now—Lord Samuel Romilley.

Although the name may be unfamiliar to the gentlemen and ladies present, he is a great figure in our legal profession and a learned jurist whom I greatly admire.

Although his 1808 bill to reform the penal code did not receive full parliamentary support, some of its provisions were approved for implementation.

There is an additional exemption criterion for juvenile offenders, which I can explain to you here.

Because juvenile offenders do not yet have the full capacity to judge, child offenders who commit lesser offences can be punished by imprisonment with a Gypsy for a month, caning, flailing, and other measures.

For children between the ages of 7 and 14 who have committed non-violent felonies but have strong remorse, there is a discretion to consider not the death penalty, but rather a secondary or lower punishment such as exile.

But from my personal point of view, I would not consider using this punishment if the offender is in poor physical condition, or if he was too young to be unfit for exile at the time of the crime.

So, if it's me who comes across this situation, let's say a child offender who is guilty of theft.

If the amount involved is more than 10 shillings, the sentence is eight years' imprisonment.

If the amount involved is between five and ten shillings, the sentence is five years' imprisonment. ”

The fat lady in the jury, who claimed to be the mother of three children, asked, "What if it is a theft of seven shillings and sixpence?" ”

"Ma'am, you're a little too hard for me."

When the magistrate heard this, he hesitated for a long time, but finally answered the question: "Seven shillings and sixpence are sentenced to four years in prison." ”

"Four years in prison?"

When the jury members heard this, they hesitated again.

They still think that this sentence is too heavy.

It was then that Mrs. Peel suddenly spoke.

She pulled out a white lace-trimmed parasol from her side and placed it on the table.

"Mr. Judge, could you please compare this parasol in my hand with the evidence in my hand? I suspect they might be from the same place. ”

"Huh?" The magistrate hurriedly put on his glasses: "Please bring me the things." ”

The bailiff hurriedly placed the parasol as evidence and Mrs. Peele's parasol in front of the judge.

After careful comparison, the magistrate exclaimed, "Oh my God! The two umbrellas are exactly the same. Officer Arthur, didn't the indictment say that this umbrella was only produced in one batch? Did the victim, Ms. Nancy, testify against you with perjury? ”

Arthur didn't figure out what the hell was going on.

He thought with a frown, but before he could understand, Mrs. Peel spoke again.

"Mr. Judge, Ms. Nancy should not have perjured that this umbrella was indeed produced in one batch.

Because this umbrella was specially made by Mr. George Morris, who had just been elected to the House of Commons, and brought it to thank the supporters.

When I saw the exhibits, I felt familiar, but when I thought about it carefully, I remembered that on March 25, the day of the crime, I should have attended the same campaign speech rally as Ms. Nancy.

The organizer of the speech rally was Mr. George Morris, a member of parliament, who distributed a total of 100 umbrellas of this style to the ladies present.

He also repeatedly affirmed to us that this was just a small gift to show gratitude, not worth a lot of money, and that he did not want to use it to bribe the public.

It was because of Mr. Morris's repeated assurances to us that I accepted the umbrella.

If he had told me that the umbrella was worth seven shillings and sixpence, I would have said that I would not have taken anything, for it would have tarnished his immaculate reputation.

If you are not convinced, I can write to Mr. Morris now, and I am sure he will be more than willing to come to court and explain the matter. ”