when it is of the opinion that a wrong view of the law had been taken by the judge presiding at the trial, but when it is apparent,... that no embarrassment or prejudice had in fact been suffered in consequence of the pleader having made the manifest error above mentioned, the court must act upon the proviso in this section of the Act.‖ Isaac CJ goes on to review several authorities where the court considers the evidence and comes up with its own decision on the law. In the case of John Harris (1910) Criminal Appeal Cases page 285 there was an appeal against conviction on a point of law and from refusal of Ridley J to grant legal aid. The Appellant was convicted of attempted larceny from the person and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Pickford LJ held in this case the only objection taken is that the indictment was bad because it omitted the words ―take and carry away‖ which were the ordinary words in an indictment for larceny. They held that: ―We are clearly of the opinion that this case comes exactly within the proviso to section 4 subsection 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. It was on the clearest possible evidence that the jury convicted the Appellant. There is no appeal on the merits. So that it is impossible to say that the omission has occasion any actual miscarriage of justice.‖ Furthermore even where an appeal has merit the court would not quash conviction unless a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. In the case of William Robert Powell (1921) Criminal Appeal Cases, 23 the Appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court before the Common Serjeant on 2nd June of Larceny and also of being a habitual criminal, and was sentenced to three years' penal servitude and five years preventive detention. He appealed against the sentence, and also applied for leave to appeal against his conviction as a habitual criminal. Appellant in person alleged that the learned Sergeant in summing up to the jury on the question whether he was a habitual criminal, had dwelt at great length on the advantages and benefits to habitual criminals of the system of preventive detention, and he contended that such consideration should not have been placed before the jury, and must have operated on their minds to his prejudice. The Lord Chief Justice held that ―In this case there has been "no substantial miscarriage of Justice" and the court could not interfere.