13 JANUARY 1866, Page 2

A case was heard at the Old Court on Wednesday

involving an extraordinary conflict of evidence. A young man named William Shirley, on the 2nd ult., asked his former employer, Mr. H. Hus, of Roupell Street, Lambeth, for a character. Mr. Hus, who had lived with Shirley's sister, refused to give him one, and Shirley then, as Mr. Hus turned to go out, shot him twice in the neck with a revolver. Mr. Hus seized the weapon and fired twice at Shirley, wounding him superficially. Shirley, however, re- gained the revolver, and on the arrival of the police was taken in charge as the assailant. He alleged, however, that Mr. Hus had shot him first, because he threatened to expose some fraud on an insurance company, and the pistol did in fact belong to Mr. Hus, who, however, said that it 'had been stolen. The jury, after two hours' deliberation, acquitted the accused. We never remember a case in which it was so difficult even to form an opinion as to guilt or innocence, and that seems also to have been the opinion of the jury, who probably relied also on the inadequacy of the motive assigned.