I will go on to Mr. Baxter's evidence, if I may, please. He worked with Mr. Rideard for many years. They were colleagues, and he had examined the lead piping. He had unrolled it, he had examined the circular marks, all about an inch in diameter he said, and some were overlaid, one on top of the other. He had therefore concentrated on the deeper and more complete marks. He did not find any appreciable difference in the diameter. He made some plastic casts which we have seen, and he also made test marks with the suspect hammer in wax and lead and compared the two. In his opinion the marks on the piping had mostly a very sharp untapered edge. The marks made with the hammer were more rounded, the suspect hammer. In his view there was also a size difference, the marks on the pipe were larger. He thought that meant that the instrument causing the marks on the pipe would have been rather larger in face size than the suspect hammer. Again Mr. Baxter said that the suspect hammer had a rounded or convex face, a sort of slope in it, but the marks in the piping seemed rather flatter, and he pointed to the distinctly rounded character of the new hammer which he had bought. There was agreement between these two experts that the suspect hammer in its present state could not have caused the mark upon the pipe, and Mr. Rideard thought on the other hand that the suspect hammer when considerably newer could have done so, although many others of this similar common hammer could have done the same trick.