FROM THE COLUMNS OF THE "THE EVENING MOON," UNDER THE HEADING, "THE MYSTERY OF M. FELIX SOLVED."

"The stirring incidents of a great city are so numerous, and so pressing in their demands upon the space of the local papers, that it occasionally happens that incidents as stirring and exciting which occur at a distance from the Metropolis are either overlooked or dismissed in a short paragraph at the bottom of a column. This happened in a trial for murder which took place in the Midland Circuit, and, were it not that this particular case bears directly upon the mystery known as The Mystery of M. Felix, its remarkable features would probably have escaped notice in the Metropolitan journals. The circumstances of the case, so far as they were known to the public on the day on which the trial took place, are as simple as they are singular. A man was found murdered in Deering Woods. He was a stranger in the neighborhood, and nothing was found on him which could establish his identity. His pockets were empty, and his underclothing was unmarked. He met his death by a shot fired from a revolver, and the bullet was extracted from his body. In the same woods on the same night a man suspected of the murder was taken into custody. He had in his possession a six-barrelled revolver, and one of the barrels had been discharged. Upon being questioned he refused to answer, but looked vacantly about him. The bullet which was extracted from the body of the murdered man fitted the discharged barrel, and was similar to the bullets, with which the remaining five barrels were loaded. The accused, who was properly committed for trial, was, like the victim, a stranger in the neighborhood, and bore about him nothing that could lead to his identification. His silence was a suspicious element in the charge against him, and the revolver with which the deed was done being found upon him, there was little room for doubt that he was the murderer. What the motive for the crime could have been it is impossible to say; if it were robbery the stolen property was carefully hidden away, for no traces of it were discovered. The evidence was simple, but appeared to be complete, and the accused lay in prison until the Assizes, which were held soon after he was committed. At the trial he preserved the same stubborn silence as he had maintained before the magistrate. Asked to plead, he made no answer, and a plea of not guilty was recorded. He had no counsel, and one was assigned to him. The young barrister to whom the defence was entrusted had a difficult task before him. He could obtain not the least assistance from the prisoner, who stood in the dock apparently unconcerned regarding his fate. But it is said that there could occasionally have been observed on his features a pitiful expression, which aroused the sympathy of the spectators. This expression has been described by an onlooker as that of a man who had borne the cruellest and bitterest of buffets in his course through life, and who had been brought to a pass in which he looked upon death as the kindest mercy which could be meted out to him. There were women in court who sobbed as they gazed upon his sad and hopeless face, and yet could not have accounted for their tears on any other ground than those of unreasoning sentiment. That this mute and unconscious appeal had a powerful effect upon the jury will be seen a little further on; it certainly led them to act in a manner which is perhaps unprecedented in a trial for murder in an English court of justice. It will be seen that there were very few witnesses. The surgeon who extracted the bullet, a gun-maker who testified that the barrel had been recently discharged, and that the bullet was one of six with which the weapon had been loaded, the constables who arrested the prisoner--these were all that were called for the prosecution. The Crown counsel elicited all the facts in a fair and impartial manner, and it was evident that he considered the case conclusive. The cross-examination was skilfully conducted, severe tests being applied to the evidence respecting the bullet; but the witnesses remained unshaken. The cross-examination of the constables was directed principally to the demeanor and conduct of the prisoner. Did he make any resistance?--No. When he was arrested, was he endeavoring to make his escape?--It did not appear so; he was wandering through the woods. Was it, to all appearance, an aimless wandering?--Yes. Did he make any excuses for, or give any explanation of his presence in the woods?--He did not utter a single word. Did he endeavor to hide or get rid of the revolver?--No. For the defence a physician who had examined the prisoner was called. His testimony was to the effect that the prisoner was afflicted with melancholia, and that his mind was in such a condition as to render him irresponsible for his actions. It was clear that the line set up for the defence was that the prisoner was insane. The cross-examination of the physician somewhat damaged the weight of his evidence. Did he base his belief that the prisoner was afflicted with melancholia and was not responsible for his actions on the circumstance of his refusing to speak?--Partly, but only to a slight extent. Had he not met in his professional experiences with cases in which persons accused of crime preserved an obstinate and dogged silence for the express purpose of being considered insane and irresponsible?--Yes, there had been such cases. Scanty as was the evidence it occupied several hours. Counsel for the defence made an eloquent and impassioned defence on the plea of irresponsibility and insanity, and then the prosecuting counsel addressed the jury. He dealt in hard and plain facts; he spoke coldly and without passion; he refused to entertain the line of the defence, and said it was more than likely that the prisoner's demeanor proceeded from a cunning nature, and that he hoped by this means to escape the consequences of a ruthless murder committed in cold blood. The Judge, who said that there was no reason why the trial should not be concluded that night, and that the Court would sit late to receive the verdict, summed up dead against the prisoner. Following in the train of the counsel for the Crown, he laid down the law in the clearest manner, and he directed the jury to consider certain issues and be guided by them, and to perform conscientiously the duty for which they were called together. At a quarter to ten o'clock the jury retired, and the Judge left the court, with directions that he should be called when the jury returned.

"It was at this stage of the inquiry that the case promised to assume a new aspect. Our reporter, Mr. Agnold, with whom our readers are acquainted, and to whom the public are indebted for the light thrown upon the Mystery of M. Felix, entered the court in the company of the young girl, Sophy, and immediately fell into earnest conversation with the counsel for the defence. Their conversation lasted a considerable time, during which the counsel took copious notes, breaking off occasionally to put questions to Sophy, who answered them readily. Once the counsel turned Sophy's attention to the prisoner, and she moved toward him. He, turning, saw her, and greeted her with a smile of much sweetness, to which she pitifully responded. This sign of mutual recognition, indicating as it did an acquaintanceship between the prisoner and the young girl, heightened to fever-pitch the interest and excitement of the spectators, but before any explanation of the incident could be given, the return of the jury was announced. Almost at the same moment the Judge made his appearance. The names of the jury were about to be called out, when the counsel for the defence rose for the purpose of making a remark, but was desired by the Judge to resume his seat until the verdict of the jury was given.

"Counsel for the defence: 'If your Lordship knew the impor............