BRENNAN CASSIDY (for Mr. Fennell) On behalf of my client, Mr. Fennell, I wish to point out the absurdity of the charges brought against him.  For no reason whatever and without a moment’s warning, the sergeant rushed into his house without an invitation or observing the laws of common propriety by ringing the bell, and ruthlessly placed handcuffs on Mr. Fennell and marched him off to prison like a common felon.  And not a shadow of evidence as to misbehavior against him except the statements of his wife about the breaking of some furniture.  Now, let us suppose that Mr. Fennell did break the furniture.  Was not that his own affair?  The furniture was his property, and he could do with it as he pleased.  Perhaps he did not like the manner in which it was designed, and Mr. Fennell, mistaking his aversion for things not in keeping with his artistic ideals, came to the conclusion that he was only on a voyage of destruction when he merely was proving how little of the philistine there was in his nature by removing from his home such articles as did not harmonize with his conception of the beautiful.  The fact that the whole affair happened so hastily only goes to prove that Mr. Fennell has the artistic temperament.

MRS. FENNELL
The artistic temperament, my dear!  What next!

MR. CASSIDY The idea of doing away with the furniture, which Mr. Fennell emphatically states he disliked,—­and what greater proof of the fact could we have than his action in destroying it?—­came to him like an inspiration, and being a true artist he seized the opportunity, and the world was made all the lovelier by the riddance of ugly things.  I think, in fact, I know that I have proved that the charge of house-breaking is absurd. (Takes out his watch, holds it in the palm of his left hand) This watch is mine, and if I should choose to smash it into a thousand fragments, who is there to prevent me?  What power has the law over such matters?  None whatever.  Well, it would be just as ridiculous and absurd to punish my client for smashing his own furniture, which he purchased with his own hard earned money, as to punish me for smashing this watch if I should feel like doing so. (Applause, which is suppressed) To charge Mr. Fennell with drinking poteen is equally absurd.  He does not know what poteen tastes like.  The idea of taking a decanter and a bottle of whiskey out of any gentleman’s house without his permission is tyranny of the very worst kind.  It is a grievous offence in the eyes of the law as well as a breach of etiquette.  What, might I ask, would happen if any of us were to break into His Worship’s hotel and steal, or take if you will, some choice samples of his wines?  Would we not find ourselves in a prison cell?  Most assuredly we would, and what’s more, our good name would be gone forever.  The finger of scorn would be pointed at our children and our children’s children, and posterity would never forget us.