"The of oonfidebces betweeu counsel aud cliont is one of great iuterast and importáuoe, " said a well knovvu jurist and ex-jurlgo the other day. "As to tbo dutj of a lawyer on the trial of a casa whero he has been informed by hls cliënt that he is guilty, the best and most oontrolliug example is that of Charles Jarues Phillips, the eminent Britisli barrister who in many directions was rated iu his time as second only to Lord Erskine. "He was defencling Conrvoisier, who was indicted for the rxmrder of Lord Rnssell. During the trial, on theexamination of a very important witness for the people, the aecused was muoh overeóme, and in the intensity of his emotion communicated either to Mr. Phillips or to his solicitor the fact that he was guilty of the crime. "Mr. Phillips immediately asked for an adjourmnont of the case and for a consultation with the judges. The consoltation was grauted, and Mr. Phillips stated to the bench that the accused had opnfessed his guilt and requested the judges to point ont to him his path of duty. The judges, after deliberation, stated that he wonld have a perfect right to make such legal and logioal deductious froni the evidence as he thought tended to the oxculpatiou of the accused, bnt it would be unprofessional to state to the jury any personal belief of his inuocence. "In his argument to the jury Mr. Phillips, carried away by his emotions and imaghiation, did state to the jury his owu personal belief in the inuocence of his cliënt, and this statement of his occasioned mnoh critioism afterward. "