seditious trials that fair construction must be put upon the indicated matter paying more attention to the whole general effect than to any isolated words or passages. This was cant ever repeated by even the subordinate judiciary. Never hithertofore was this practically applied in deciding. Always the magistrates and judges repeated the public prosecutor's list of offending passages and in view of them pronounced that the general effect was against the accused. The method followed by Justices Batchelor and Shah was itself a guarantee. They did not permit a hair-splitting wrangle over the meaning of terms nor did they browbeat Mr. Jinnah the defence counsel from going at length into the speeches and explaining the setting of certain passages considered objectionable. Justice Batchelor was so courteous as to say,
"Read all the speeches. I don't wish you to shorten your argument. If you want to read the passages do so! we are entirely in your hands." The judges actually found certain passages objectionable. They attached no great significance to them. Justice Batchelor said, "The impression left on my mind is that on the whole, despite certain passages
