THE CASE OF CLIVE DURANT - 1898   This case was tried in 1898 at the Criminal Session of the Bombay High Court before Mr. Justice Candy and a special jury.  The case is noteworthy for some very unusual features, and a sensational and spectacular denouement.  Its main interest lies in the unexpected triumph of a lay-lawyer in defending himself on a serious charge, in the face of overwhelming odds.  The case revealed the unexpected and unsuspected forensic abilities and resourcefulness of a layman conducting his own defence; as also the judicial virtues of a judge, who had made a reputation as an irritable and impatient judge, very difficult  to deal with.   One Clive Durant, a man with a rather shady and dubious past, was charged along with another European named Williams, and some respectable Parsis of good social position, with forming a conspiracy to extort a very large sum of money from a wealthy Parsi of high position, Mr. Jeejibhoy Framji Petit (afterwards the Second Sir Dinshaw Petit, Bart.).  It was a private prosecution; and the complainant had engaged the service of an extremely able counsel instructed by well know and experienced solicitors.  J.M. Macpherson, a distinguished  leader of the Bar at the time, appeared for the prosecution.  Durant's co-accused were also represented by very able and experienced counsel.  Williams turned approver; with the result that, when the trial opened Durant looked a forlorn and pathetic figure, facing a very serious charge, without legal assistance.  Durant was not a habitué of the law courts, like a later litigant-cum-lawyer, Shamdasani, who made conducting his own numerous cases in person the business of his life.  Durant's past record was known to the police and the prosecution; with the result that he had a difficult task to surmount the prejudice and antipathy inseparable from a man of know character who faces a charge like this.  But he soon showed that he was well able to take care of himself and hold his ground against all odds.   At the very outset of the trial, he claimed his right as a European of being tried by a jury with a European majority.  As his co-accused refused to be tried by such a jury, separate trial were ordered.  As he was undefended, normally the other accused, who were all represented by able and experienced counsel, should have been tried first.  But Candy ordered Clive Durant's case to be taken up first, probably because he was the first accused, and the record made him out to be the brain and moving spirit of the alleged conspiracy.  Durant defended himself as ably and stubbornly as the most experienced the tenacious counsel.  He particularly distinguished himself by  his scathing and searching cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, with such force and effectiveness, that he smashed the case for the prosecution.  Incidentally one result of his cross-examination was that the judge ordered the prosecution of one of the witnesses for perjury.  Durant combined with ability an irrepressible contumacy and truculence, which severely tried the patience and temper of Candy, who was not blessed with a patient and placid temper.  But although irascible and hot-tempered, Candy was a very conscientious and fair-minded judge.  In spite of Durant's persistent provocations throughout the trial, he summed up the case with conspicuous fairness, eschewing all matters of prejudice.  Durant was acquitted. His triumph was so complete and devastating that, on his acquittal, the entire case of conspiracy collapsed; and the prosecution withdrew the charges against the other accused.  There was no trace of malice or of judicial bias in Candy; although owing to his defects of temper he was extremely unpopular with the Bar.   * * * * *