THE TIMARU POISONING CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 246, 19 October 1886, Page 4

THE TIMARU POISONING CASE.

(BY TELEORAI'II — SPECIAL REPORTER.)

MONDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Christchurch, Monday night. Socn satisfactory progress was made today with the further hearing of the charge of attempted murder against Thos. Hall and Margaret Houston that there now seems to be every probability of the case being completed late on Tuesday night. Before the trial commenced, I anticipated that it would occupy eight days, and it now eeems that this will prove to be the caso. The proceedings opened this morning with the evidence of Mr Schroup, who was called ue an expert to prove that antimony is not used in photography, and then came Dr. Symes, who was examined at somo length aa to the poisonous quality of antimony. This witness closed the case for the Crown.

Directly that announcement was made, Mr Joynt began by once moro attacking tho indictment, occasioning no surprise, for tho line of his cross-examinution had given ample evidence of his intention to do so. Tho indictment, he contended, disclosed no offence—antimony in its primary condition not boing a deadly poison, as stated in the evidence, but innocuouß as testified by the experts. After argument, His Honor ruled that the indictment was euiliciently good, but administering a gentle rebuke to Messrs Martin and White, the two Crown prosecutors engaged in the case, for not framing tho indictment, explicitly. The learned judge did not finally decide whether he would roserve Mr Joynt's point. The Case for tho Defence.

No witnesses wero called on behalf of Hall, and Mr Hay contented himself with ovidenco ns to character in the iutoreat of the female prisoner. The witnesses wero most reputable people, principally residents of Wellington, who gave Mies Houston an unblemished character, and in conclusion Dr Uutbrie proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the suggestions as to her nnchastity were entirely without foundation Dr. Keyworth, surgeon, deposed that ho had been in charge of Napier Hospital, and waß Doctor of Medicine in London. He had known Mies Houst n all her lifo; in fact, be was present at her birth in Birmingham. Her father io presented tho large Burton Brewery. Miss Houston came out to New Zealand by witness's advice. Her character was correct in ovory raßpect. Sho was cheerful and bright.aad just tho kind of girl one expected to find brought up iv a Scotch pious family. She was truthful, and by no means frivolous.

To Court: He knew nothing of want of good fooling or of cruelty on her part, Tho Rev. W. H. West, in whose employ prisoner was ot Wellington.also gave her an excellent character.

Mrs Hermison had been matron and nurse at Wellington Hospital for nearly four years. Mies Houston was engaged there for between three and four months. Her character was extremely good, and she was very good-natured. Sho was the lot t perpon witness would think cupablo of doing injury to anyone. W. C. Mathiaß, accountant. Union Bank, Timaru, slid that Mies Houston stayed at his house for six months as companion and nurse to witness's wife. She came to his house from Timaru Hospital, and left in November last year. Had seen her constantly since. While she was in his house he found her a well-conducted girl, who had a groat rfgard for the truth, was of a kiod disposition, retiring, and yet full of fun and mirth.

Dr Guthrie, who had beon In practice for 12 yoars, stated that he had examined Mies Homitoti p ofessionally on the 9th instant, and found all the evidences of virginity present. Mr Hay: Can you speak with certainty, doctor, or have 3 on the slij:hte«t doubt ? WitnoßS : Not the slightest doubt. I speak with absolute certainty. This closed tho evidence, and tho Court adjourned for lunch. Miss Houston was visibly affected while Dr. Keyworth was under examination.

After lunch a few minut's were ppent over seme slight discussion as to tho Attor-noy-Genoral'B right to reply. The point if an important one, and as it has not been rait>od in this colony prior to tho present trial, it will bo as well to narrate what oc curred. The Atomoy-General askod His Donor «hot hor ho ruled that he was entitled to a reply. His Donor said that if it wa3 intended as precedent ho should require to hear arguments. Tho Attorney - General said that he was prepared to show from cases that the Attorney-Gcnorol in New South Wales held tho same right to reply as the AttorneyGeneral in England. Air Joynt said, ao far as ho had been able to discover, only the Solicitor General had the right to reply. His Honor r. forred to tho rulo as it exists in England, whero tho Attorney-General theoretically is considered to bo I he prosecutor in overy case. The Solicitor-General also bad the right of reply. What was the origin of tho practice he could not say. The thing hud gone on without any protest. As regards the colonies, it had been decided in three colonies that tho At-tornoy-Gouernl hold tho same right If no more arguments were brought, ns at present advised, he would not decide against the right. Mr Joynt waß not prepared to argue the point. From the Attorney-General's conduct throughout the case, ho had inferred that he did not intend to exercise tho right. He (Mr Joynt) had found that somo of the English judges had considered tho practice an objectionable one.

Sir Robert Stout thereupon said that hia privilefo having boen decided he would content himself by summing up merely Seeing that it was unusual for the At-torney-General to prosecute, he did not pee that he ought to avail himself of the right, thereby placing prisoners in a different position to what they would be in if the counsol were prosecuting on behalf of the Crown.

Summing Up for the Crown. Sir Kobt. Stoat commenced at 1 55 p m., and made a concise and telling speech, which occupied exactly an boar in dtlivery. With regard to Miss Houston, ho admitted that she stood on a different platform to Hall—that the case against her was nothing like so strong as against the male prisoner, and then went on to instruct tho jury that, if they found that she was aiding Hall, and was cognisant of his doing so, they must bring her in as an accessory before the fact. Having stated sevoral circumstances inconsistent with Miss Houston's innocence before the jury, Sir Robert Stout said ho did not ask them to convict her without they were of opinion that the fac'B proved pointed to her guilt. He did not wish them to convict her if these facts were what he might call double-faced that was consistent with her innocence os well as hor guilt. They had before them the evidenceofherprevioue good character,and hedidnotask|rhew to convict unless they were positively convinced she was guilty either of ast-is'ing Hall or w:nking at his crime Dea'ing with Hall, the Attorney - Genet al said that seeing the man's position, and tho property he would inherit by his wife's death, the gain would be enormous. He did not know what the defence would be, but he noticed in cross • examination that it had been elicited that Hall was kind to his wife, but a man who was capablo of beioff guilty of forgery, and who would be guilty of such a crime, wculd bo also gujlty of hypocrisy. It would be a part of his crime. After shortly reviewing tho incidents of tbe trial connected with the malo prisoner Sir Robert Stout proceeded to ask the jury to believe that this was what took place : Ou the Sunday morning preceding the arrest, that prisonor went into the room, and tho nureo wont out. That out of the phial subsequently found in his pocket, be put the tartar emetic, dissolved in water, in tho ice wator, to the extent of eight grains to the ounce, so large that it prevented the murder of Mrs Hall, becauro of tho quantity. Then they had the confession made by piisoner that tho evidence of his guilt was ss complete that there was no chance of his escape. As ta the question of his taking morphia, did they think that, because he had taken this drug, his moral responsibility was so blunted as not to make him responsible for his conduct? He would net put such an absurd proposition to them. The prosecution asked them to belieyo that he had deliberately planned the death of his wife; that in June, July, and August he had purchased large, quantities of poison, and tbat Mrs Hall was suffering from illness duripg the whole period. So far from the prisoner being weak in intellect, he said that the male prisoner had displayed the greatest possible acuteness in his preparations. VI hat about the burning down of the building ? He asked them to believe that the accused had made ail preparations, so that the dead body of his wife, and all the evidences of hia crime should be swept away. Hall, though not asked

.by tbe executors of Captain Cain, gives directions for insuring the houee, then ho insures the furniture, etc. All this, lie contended, showed tho intention ttt his mind to destroy the IIOIIM. Thon, there wan the purchase of ''Taylor, on Poison.-," nnd his attempt to mislead by putting on it " Dunoditi, 1882" He asked them to couple this with ihe perusal of Hedlar.d. Now, what de fence had bt?0:: mado ? Hall himself, when arrested, made no protestations of his inno cenoe, but, on the contrary, told Inrpeotor Broham that he alone had done it, He said that they must be convinced of the euilt of the-accused. That, as for as Dr. Maclntyre was concerned, he had done the proper and honourable part that bis duty to his patient warranted, and that the witnosses, as a whole, were the witnesses of the truth. He had now put boforo them tho broad, salient facts of the case, and he as-ked thorn to do their duty. If they could, after hearing that evidence, como to the conclusion that the broad facta against tho prisoner could be explained away by nny theory of evidence, then they should return a verdict of " not guilty, " but if, on the contrary, they believed the prisonor guilty, thon they must do thtic duty, regardless of tbo consequence which might follow otherwise they would be inflicting a blow on the administration of justice iv tho colony from which it could never recover. Ho now left the matter in their hands, feeling that they would do their duty to themselves and tho community in which thoy resided. He had every confie'ence in tho result. THE DEFENCE.

Mr Joynt's addros-! for tho defence began at 3 p.m. He asked the jury to approach \he consideration of the caso from the evidence alone, und not from any prejudice which might unwillingly have been formed In their miniis. He , begged them to dismiss from their mirds what aver they might havo heard on tnu rase. At Other thing he tnußt.sa.y- thut, whilst Batu-fled with the personnel of iheiu.y.heinubtbeg them to judge oy evidence aioi.e, and not to bo inflaenced by any prejudice from anything heard outside, either as io this casj or any other There was one matter which he thought most deplorable shou;d hi. va come before the public o.i the eve of this trial. Hie Honor : 1 quite agree with you as to its being reported, nocita being done. Mr Joynt: Thia was done at such a time and under aich circumstances aa could not bo other wife than mod prejudicial to tho prisoners. It waa therefore all the more important that tho jury shouli tree from their minds all the lmpreteion thin caused. As to the female prisoner, he was glad that she was to be defended by another gentleman, BB bis feelings not having the cool temper of the Caledonian would consist so much of indignation that he could not do the cate justice, which the greater dimness of his loarnud friend would ensure, lie would ilrst call attention to tr c itdictment. Of all iho lnuictments he had ever seen on such a charge, this was the most utterly meagre, shallow, and unsatisfactory, and he would remli.d the jury that they would be bound to go by the Indictment. The indictment did not say tha 1. between ceitalu dates poison had b^en administered at various times, but charged one act alone—to that alone iho Crown was confined, All the other acts shown in tho evidence wero admisaabl-- only to show motive and intention. Ho submitted that the jury must co llnethemselvebto thechirge as laid, "'lhat on Augnnt 15 tbo prisoners, or ell her of them, administered poison." His Hoi or: I cmnot agree with that, Ihey could prove administering at any time up tc ihat date. Tl.ejury coula select anjone of U c acts. It was not necessary to prove that tne poisoning nctua ly took p ace outhj 15th August Mr Joynt submitted that they could not go outside >ho one act as laid. His Honor said he bhould rule to the jury that if tney were nalisfiea aa to the intention, they c.uld find the prisoner guilty, though the date might not be that in the indictment Mr Joynt submitted that the Que.mijns before the jury were (1) Did the prist n rj or either ol tnem aaminiter a poi on to Mrs Hall.' (2i Was that poi on antimony! (3) Waß ; .hut poison admin Btered witc intent ro kil.'J Hero the Crown PiuSt cuior. in order to show motive had gone Into evide cc foreign t. the caae. He had attempted to show that, j owing 11 Ban's financial uttiurs. I o had com milted forgery. Now, let them 1 sok st ihe financinl portion. They saw that the banks were pe'Uctly pati.-,fled filli taeir sicmity. The bank had allowed them a credit of £B,COO, of wcini fo.OO) was repri senu-d by billK unaci discount, and then; wei c si curitles f ■ r £5.100 to cover ihe other £1,000. Then the bank in wnic-h Hall's private cccount was kftpt had told li em that tluy were fully aeetin d. This was what his fiend called • hopeless insolvency.'' Of course now. with thefe criminal charges haugii g the assets of the firm cult d i.ot b« realised a', ail. 'I hen there we'o t q ii i s of redemption, yet bis 1-iarned frienu told ihem that Hall was hopelessly insolvent, and be told them it w s perfectly c eai Iha', Hall hac committed Beviral forgeries, bet wa3 this so I They had not heard one Wurd of at fence oi cause it was not their duty to bring evidene on the subject. T:e jury then foie would r.ot cjrne to ihe conclusion that Hall hud con.mi tea forgery, ncr were they told that under cc: tain sc-itlemente, and hit wil-'h will. Hall wculd bt entitled in case of his wife's death to a o- rtain sum of money. !■ ow every c an whose wife had insured her life would, if th's a'one v. ere accepted, live in dread that, he might be acensed that ho had made away with her. Under a freehold settlement of the principal property It was very doubtful ;,6 to how me troptriy would go. Now, if the'o »«« any trutr in the; heory or the Crown evolved from Airs Hameitlej's irider.ee as to the te i, they woutd have to come to the conclusion that Hall was encoavour ng to no son his wife before the birta ot the chili which wa-i to bring hi •■■ considerable riches end pa*s the property over 60 a coil'iterel brancn or the fami y tin no« cane to the story of the arrest It was more than p. obabte that they would be completely i xeited They found that the utteiaiicea of these two people vi der the exeitfiiiKLt wee tnus record d. Tho female 1 r soner, after tuzzling her brains n-r a whi» , seemed to think thai photography was the orly thing for which actimony was u^ed. Hail eaid no must be very careful under the circumstances what hn soid. The prison, r Hall also h. d stand that he had mv.de a mixture of nitre a'tar emetic, i nd ttrainonium seeds foi a-j'liiiKi. Tht n ihore was the evjeei.ee of a cnemi-t on the subjtct. and his reer.m menraticn to p; holier to us-: it, yet they were to d by tho At-orr.ey General to put thisasi ie bt cause no cigitet'ts were found with tnis mixtire in them Th n they i-ad this In evidence, ihit Hull was ia ihe hsbitof buying drugs atd dabbling in chemi'els. He had things it. packets and botaes, ma appeared tc have bein in the habit of making use of thin-.. Tno queition for them was w.ieth. r. because he v as bu> Ing these oftemi als, h i bctieht them to aum nlster them to his wifo. and aid so admiuts or. Ths AttO'DOy-Ucnrr.J had so put it to tbem that the insurance ol Woodlands in the name of Cain's execut rs was a link In the chain again-it them Now the evidence was that Hall had takt v the insurance of the office where it waß insured fur a urger sum, and had put it into tho Imperial Office at a 1. sser sum. Had the charge been o; ar.-on, no moreexculpatorv evidence could have been given The Crown, hbwevn, had evolved a theory of its own to the i It' ct that Hall inten ded to set lite :o the houso aid to burn his wife's bjdy and all record of hia guilt. Now ho (Mr Joynt) Intendtd briefly to refer to the evidence. (The learned Coui Bel then dealt with evidence of various witnesses cill'd for tha Crown on this point). Wee trey satisfied that any addition v-as made to tho rags in tho garrett fi om the month ot May up tc tne tin c bf arrest Much legs, that thoy wete put t ree by Hal). He submittt d that they corld not. Then wouln a man who wished to set fire to a heme quickly put a lot ot rags into a bag I He;subinitted not ihat tho evidence for one moment led up to the tecs thst the rags were soaked in kcro ono as stated by the Crown. He sub mitted that it had not for a moment. Kb by was close to the little gar-et coor on the night of the arrest, but ho smelt nothing. Inspector Broham looked in, but ttuet nothing. Then Mary Hotson could not say that she smelt anything when she wont into tho little bediojm alono to the garret door. Could thoy bo ievc that fidhly saturated keroset 0 tags wero then preset t ? On ihe following Friday Mr Inept ctor nroham went into tho ro.nn, and then ho got a strong smell of keroseno. Mrs Hamersley went into the room on the Wednesday and got tho smell of kerosene; but did thsy believo all this was there on the Friday ! Hn said that ihey could not, and the evidence proved that they could not be. as tho rags would be far more strongly saturated with ksrosine on Sunday than on the Wednesday or triday. So far, therefore, fri m tbe evidence boing cogent that Ha 1 attempted 11 burn down tho house, ho said it wasdtcidedlj opposed to tho prosump lion that ho did so. They were asked by ihe Attorney General to believe that the tea taken by Mrs Hamersley was poisoned. Now, he asked tbem to believe that this was not co. If Mra liHioerslcy'a evidence wap tn be relied on. Hall was trying to poison his wife pome time before the child waa born trj ing to kill the gooe that laid the golden egg. 'lis wh 'lo evidence as reg-.rcs that cup of tea was bused on the assutuptioj that Mi s Hami rsloy was sick. Now, it migiit huvs beeuu bil iocs headache, ard tht, hea:laehe bud gone, but the bile still remained, li might hay.- been tint the tei, without milk ami sugar, mUht upset her; but it did not occur either to Mis Hah nor Mis HimerjU-y that tic tea had anything to do with i. until after the arrest. Possibly the casting about for evidence against tho unfortunate girl might havo tended to this, because not a word h-d been paid about it at the timo It was quite possible Out tea without milk and sugar might havo upset the stomach, but they had the fact thnt tor months Mis Hamersley thought nottii'g of it, and he did not think they would for one moment accept her idea. Then they had Nurse Kliisou's statement that antimony was bitter, yet thoy found that Mrs Hamersley did not notice any bitterness, but there was a stranger thing than this, The child waß roc born therefore for iho p isoner to have attempted to poison his wife would havo been to deprive himself of a chance Income arising from the birth of tho child. Then as to the oysters. His learned friend had a' sorted that the oysters were poisoned, but ho -Mr Joynt) said i- was a most recslesn assertion, Coundoa only on tho sickness of Mrs Ha 1. Nurse Klli,oii stated that Mrs Hall was fri qu■ ntly sick without taking anything more than that, the nurse s.idMrsiiaillrequenUj boeai caickioihoni^ht. Now, of ilselt. waß it evidencj which a jury oven of children could accept, thai becaußO Mrs Hall se d the oysters wore poisoned that ihiy woro to in reality? He said it was childish tcr the Crown to rely on iv h evidODceas this. They wereto'.d that antimony was a bitter acid matter, involving cjnstriet'O i of the throat, jot tht y were told that Mrs Hall nto four 03 sters snd enjoyed them. Now, could they havo been lmprocuated with colchicum wine ? It was colchicum dissolved iv wine and so one could eat ojßters flavour.d with wire without remarkiuK on the peculiarity of the taste which would bo sure to result th-. rcfrom. They were asked to believo that the symptoms they had heard detailed had arisen from Mrs Hall eating the four oysters which she had s i much erjoved. Now, lot them go back to ihe quesiou of th^ administering o* palscn. It they asked him why Hall purchased these poisens, ho could not tell them, excel t that ho waa continually dabbling in them. Now tho symptom w hioh Mrs Hall suffered were do cribed by the medical men as not indicative of any known disease, but were indicative of poisoning by antimony. Well, when they came to b? cr;isscxamined what a lamentable failure they wero. They admitted that in diseases the symptoms might ocour, and that complication of disorders might exist. They admitted that constriction ot the throat ttight follow on bile If the bile was concentrated. Then they had evidence that sometimes Mrs Hall had this constriction, and

sometime? not. So far as the srtmrt,,., wera concerned, he did rot think rtS? 1*?1 much in them. He (Mr Joyni) haS L? li attention to a passage on ''Taylor," i n cqld clammy perspiration was Btated as mil . .hosymptoms of clirehic Kntlmonialnoiw f whereas Dr. Mclutyro had said Mrs Hallffi?' v.as dry, and that iho skin wns peolinir nH m he put it to them that thoy conlfl^ rely on tho Sjmptcms. Then they W „S„ tiid thut they mmt assume it ?? a fact that antimony hart neon administnrna but what that analysis did not do was thatn, ' did not produce the metal itself, this they ono?J to have done. There wai no difficulty in r, duclng tartar emetic back to a state of antt mr ny. It was perfectly Bimple to be done ami this is what they shoula havo done. But'wliij had they done ? Simply produced a certain number of prstty colours, and said: -'Herß 1 antimony." D a

Mr Joynt then went into quote from the evl dence of. Professr Black upon the point of th» analyßi?. 'Iheietts produced twice as mm? colours a>- the rainbow, and yet they were askprt ■o believe that antimony was present. Hb asked ihe jury not to believe thS« tests. The expett could. If they had -o wit-heL produced the metal antimony Why did they not do so? What did they find) Thst Profeti'or Back and Dr. Ogston had nn rcirect forTaylor, ardyet the Atioiney.Q B Deral in opening had stated that Tailor waß looked .n as tt c best «uthority en the administration ' ,A poisons and their lymptoms. It waa n "? contended that chemist Pcience was infallible or ihat it was n;t unde going mutation? thert-fore he eaid It was by nn means a strange straining of posFibilitles when ■ he Hit U to them that the teats which wern to-day r. garded as thoroughly reliable would be ooked upon as not so. If tbey wished to irove antimony as being presont to the iurv they ought to have produced the metal The only point on which the Crown thou Sit they had i ro; f that Hall administered poison to his wile was the 15th August; and he would ask the jury to r.feno the evidence of Nurse Ellison to consider the question. The Attorney-Goners! had said that ou the Sunday morning Hal had put poißon with the ice ; that lie had given thio « ater t) It's wife to drink ; and that had it not been for the largoquantity of antimony admmi ß . tered, which made her eject it, ho would have been tried for the murder of his wife. Now let them go through the details. The lady was ill in bed, the jug of ice water was on a table by her side, and in tho cup was Boma ico water which the nurse gave her to wethar lips'on the Sunday morning tho nurse had nut the cup on the dres-ing-table where it re mained. (Mr Joynt here nuoted from the eyi dence of the nurse). The Attorney-General had »aid that Hall had given his wife poisoned lei water, but would sho not have complained wh«n • all was in tho room. The Attorney-General's theory was thut Hall came Into tho room with a phial of tartar emetto. diluted, nnd Hut. ho poured this into the oun a^d she drank i\ How could the evlderee bear that construction. He 6nii it would not Mrs Hall would not require tha ice water at all becanse sho had the jug with ice on the ton close by and the cup was out of her reach. Tho evidence waß that she complained to her her husband when he came in, and ha submitted that it anything had been given to her by him when he was present she would not havo dono this. That was the evidence so far of tho admini-tration of poison by Halltohla wife, on lath August, as laid in the indictment I'no At oiney-Goneral wished them to believe that Hall administered a very large doße of poi-on to his wife, and that it was only by her throwing it off that she was Bayed. Now unfortunately for this theory, the evidence of tho nurse was that Mrs Hall did not throw eff any larpe amount. On the contrary, sho throw off so little that she had to mix it with another portion which she throw off later on. It was marvellous that Mrs Hall ■iad not been put into tho witness-box to speak as to what actually did take plaoa, Tho Attorney-General had gravely informed them that he wanted to call as »ltness everyone who could speak to any of the facts. There was only one person except the prisoner (and his mouth was closed) who could speak o the facts from beginning to end, and that person had not been i a'led. The law was that where a htttbind had done a wrong to hia wife she was a perfectly competent \litms3. The Attorney-General: Xi hor for or against Mr Joynt said had he put Mrs Hall in to the witness box, his learned friend would have objected. He submitted that it was inoumbenton the Crown to call Mrs Hall, who would, of course, have been compelled to give evidence ia the interest of justice. It was theduty of the Crown to put that lady in the witness box, and allow her to tell her own story from beginning to eni Was there anything to show that she would be an unwilling witness. From the glimpse of her mind that they had had, it seemed that she was most anxious to trace out this crime which she believed to have been committed against her. They found it was Mrs Hell who suggested the idea about the oysters being poisoned, In , conversation with Mrs Hamersley it was she who had evolved from her inner conscience the cup of poisoned tea, and it was she who had got Mrs Hammerslcy to look for the flask which waa suppr sed to contain poisoned brandy, butwhicb, fortunately for tho female prisoner could not I have been, because the flask was found and if it hail contained poison it would have been pro- : iluced at the trial. Mrs Hall was anxious to trace j this crime io its proper source, and he asked the jury to say whether in the interests of the Crown — that meant in the intorus of public justice and t of the prisoner. She ought ;not to have been ' called. Another circumstance with regard to the ice water was not satisfactory, and it waa this. When given by Mrs Ellison to these doctors it had a glass stopper, while now it hafl a cork I Another curious circumstance was that Dr hovegrove had not been called. Not only; was he. one of the consultants on the 12th,. but the senior consultant. As the Crown | had made their examination so ci-;; haustive they should have called all witnesses who knew anything whatever about the case. With regard to the colchicum, the I evidence showed that colchicum had not been ' administered, so it could not be taken intt)! account except as to intention. If Hall had;l attempted to poison the brandy would he have I persistently denied its impurity and then" offer to drink somo of it himself. His acta in so doing was sufficient to make- lis Jury infer that he did not TOWn I it " for an injection as the Cram sSupgested then it was a pure assumption on tha pari of the Attorney-General that the wine had been poisoned at all. The defence was that it had been severally tampered with either by .lalop or otherwise with a view to breaking the § servant, Mary Hassen, off drinking wine. There ' was evidence that Mrs Hall suspected this girl 0f:: drinking wine and there was colour for believing that Hall too suspected it. Approaching the - mutter es Son of sense was Halls conduct with r < regard to the wine such as to lead them to say that the decanter had been placed there fortha. deliberate purpose of poisoning his wife.: .Surely if there had been anything of a guilty 1 nature pertaining to the decanter Hall wonla . not have spoken through the telephone, nam- I ing Miss Houston in the presence of a J.P. Such conduct was clearly contrary, to j the idea of a guilty man. (At this stage, 10.i.0 p.m.) Mr Joynt said he would be fromanhour to an hour and a half yet before completing his address, and the Court adjourned till tea o'clock next day. Mr Joynt is certainly making the best of his case, and he speaks in goodatylei His suggestion as to the tests was however*,;, bold one, nnd the conduct of the jur^ at thia' stuge showed that he had not suceededinbreak ? ng down the expert testimony on that point. : j To-day's (Tuesday) proceedinns are \given 6* • our 2nd pane.