In 18th century there was a judge Cambro of Mmalta, Italy, who was early raiser. One early fine morning while he was looking out from his balcony, he saw a man hotly chased by another. The victim was overtaken just under his balcony and was stabbed with a knife. At that very point of time a police constable was to be seen in the distance and the assailant leaving the knife with the sheath in the wound and ran away. Soon a baker came with the basket of bread and saw the victim laying dead in a pool of blood. As he tried to remove the knife from the wound he saw the constable approaching from a distance. Frightened as he was, quickly stood up taking the blood stained knife in his hand, put it in his basket and concealed himself in a neighbour house. All this was seen by Judge Cambro.
The constable arrived there, found the victim dead and his body warm and still bleeding and thought that the murderer was hiding somewhere in the neighbourhood. He made a search and the baker was found with his basket with blood stained knife. Terror seized the baker and he gave incoherent inconsistent and conflicting answer. His hands were stained with blood. This circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict anyone. The baker was put on trial before Judge Cambro; there being no other judge he had to try him.
Judge Cambro found the circumstantial evidence so clinching he convict him and brushed aside his personal knowledge that the baker was innocent and convicted him to death as required by law. The sentence was duly carried out.
Later when the truth became known the judge’s conduct was freely commented upon and some public even cry for his blood, while other judges appreciated his conduct for doing justice according to Law:
Inviting Your Opinion Please:
