His defence was one of absolute ignorance, and he protested that he had no knowledge as to the doings of Hugh Boone, his lodger, and that he could not account in any way for the presence of the missing gentleman's clothes.
Se defendió alegando absoluta ignorancia, insistiendo en que él no sabía nada de las actividades de Hugh Boone, su inquilino, y que no podía explicar de ningún modo la presencia de las ropas del caballero desaparecido.