THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 245, 18 October 1886, Page 2

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.

■ At 11.20 a.m. Mr Joynt said that before calling witneete3 he wished to state a few propositions' e&riatum. He BiibmJtWm the firrsfc place that the iDdictment'&uclosed no cft'once, because antimony, being i tlie name given to the poison in its primary sense. His Honor : What is the primary sense? Mr Joynt : A metal, and nothing else. Hiß Honor : What ii your authority for that? Mr Joynt: We have evidence for it in the hest witness called for the Cown, Dr. Black. I cay the indictment is bad, because whit is called "deadly poison" is not a poiton. It is shown by the evideace that antimony, if administered properly, is not a poison.

His Honor : What you really mean is that the indictment is not proved. •

Mr Joynt concurred. The evidence showed that the indictment was not sapported by evidence. What was apokenof in the indictm nt as a deadly poison, was ehown to be something entirely innocuous.

Hia Honor caid the point waa whether or no antimony sufficiently described tbftarticlo as it was vulgarly known, and not by its scientific name. Mr Joynt shbmitted that " Oxide of Antimony" or' "tavtarised antimony' were the words that ehould have appeared in tho indictment after " deadly poison." .:

His Honor said the point was this:. Seeing that the language of the indictment■■.> was language in which the poison in qnea-1 tion was popularly known, was it sufficient ■ for information given to the parson accused \ of the offence with which he was charged. Mr Joynt: So far as I have been able to" ascertain from the reported cases the poison i charged in the indictment has always^ received its scientific description, and not - its popular description. His Honor : I am uot aware of that stall. Has the point ever been mooted and em- 1 tamed that the popular description, aa dfe-§ closed in the indictment, is at variance with 'i the scientist description ? Mr Joynt could not say that it hodc-l1 In Dr. Pritchard's case, it was called "tartarised antimony." He urgedjj that it would be equally right to say that silver meant nitrate of Bilver, as to", say that antimony meant oxide of antimony?"' Dr. Syme had said that it would be'wrong'i to describe nitrate of silver as silver. In., he Sale of Poisons Act, of 1871, there was no i' mention of antimony, though tartar emeic I was enumerated. The Legislature had., given the proper name to the poisoningl' ingredient of antimony, viz., tartar emetic. If persons chose to uso popular, loose, and ! inaccurate expressions that should not be sufficient for the purposes indicated when ~' the language was clearly incorrect, Antfr" mony was undoubtedly primarily a metal, and that was its well-known meaning.— Another proposition was that if it be proper}' to call a poieonous salt of antimony by the-? name of antimony, then the indictmen would be bad for being too general, because ■ the name was equally applicable to anyone-* of ths poisonous salt, and evidence showed there were several. If Hall were now acquitted, a fresh indictment for anotherkind of salt could be laid. ,;> His Honor said that this was not so. Had " the loaincd counsel a single authority to<r support his contention.

Mr Joynt—Oh ! yes; 1 think there MS some authority. Hfs Honor -Then you had better get it" Mr Joynt cited an authority to show that when a person was acquitted owing to I tho indictment being too general in its terms, his previous acquittal .could not ' bo pleaded as a bar to future proceedings. He submitted that tho indictment was bad for tho reasons stated.

His Honor aßked if tho Attorney-General had authorised, otherwise ho should not stop the case.

Sir lloborb Stout had plenty of cases t», :• cito why it was not necessary to allege^ tho kind of poisoning. It ;Wonlo-£ h<wo ' been sufficient to have euSs.!y "poison, to the jurors unknown," "Ho would show that it had been held that if the * Crown alleged arsenic and proved antimony, it would have been sufficient. The substance of the indictment was not the kind of poison used, but whether poison had been administered with the intention of | murder. Several contentions in support of these arguments were quoted. Though antimony had been mixed with a dozen other things, if antimony was thepoiaonous ingredient that was suffioeat for > the purposes of the indictment. Then coming to the second proposition it was said . that because antimony was used ia different kinds of poUon, thß term in the indictment was too general. He submitted that all that the Crown had to prove, was that although antimony may • have been mixed in" a different form, i it Btill was antimony, and that there was no variation of proof between the indictment and what the prosecution has proved. According toy medical experts, it had been shown that B antimony was a poison, and "poisiningby antimony" was tho proper term to use,