The Ardmore Case.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 155, 2 July 1901, Page 2

The Ardmore Case.

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR

TRIAL

The hearing of tlio charge against Enne of having- attempted to poison his wife ;H Arrimorc w.-i.s resumed Iliis morning, before Mr!'. Hutchison, S..M. Mr .1. A. Tole prosecuted, and Mr ISrookiield :i|j|K'Uroil for I lie I defence. TIJI-: CO:\STAJUiI"S KVIDKNCH.

Ltichiu'd Lanigan, constable stationed at L'npakura, deposed Hint on -11111»Clh, I'roin inl'oniiiil ion received he weni 1" Mrs lierger"H place at Ard-

nioiT. Mrs I Sergei1 was Hilling1 on a couch and looked very pale uml appeared lo he suffering greal pain. Jn answer lo a question she said her husband had given her poison. In

reply to a further question Mrs Iscrger said her liusband must have given her stuff out of a bottle in the corner! of the room. Witness Ihen showed her a bottle, and she said she was noi sure if that \v;>* the bottle her Imsband had given her medicine from. Witness then sent for Dv. Dul/.icl, and searched for the oilier bottle outside, bill could not find it. The doctor came at two o'clock, and the accused came in about three o'clock. Witness told accused he had sent Tor Dr. Dal/.iel, and accused said he did not want a doctor and could not pay him. Witness said I hat would be "all right." The doctor then 1o!d accused his wife whs very ill, and asked him it' he gave her anything. Accused said "No." Mrs IJerger then said: "What? Did you not give me medicine?*' Accused replied: "Yes, you took it yourself; 1 did not force you to take, it." Accused appeared to be excited. Accused subsequently said: "I am better away: my wife thinks I am U bad man," and walked towards the station. Witness arrested him at the railway station. When charged with the offence lie said "All right, I'll come." When arrested accused had a cop;? of the book "Phisantrophy" in his possession.

To Mi' I.rook field: When talking with witness accused knew ho was a policeman. Accused answered the questions readily. Accused read something mil of a hook in the house, and witness supposed accused was endeavouring to explain his treatment of his wife. Accused offered to take some of (he medicine in the bottle. THE ANALYST'S EVIDENCE. James Alexander Pond, F.C.S., colonial analyst, deposed to receiving from Constable Lanigan two exhibits, a bottle and a piece of bread; and later, a saucer with stains on it. On these last two exhibits (here was noi trace of poison. As for the bottle: it unquestionably contained tincture of aconite and a solution of oil oft aniseed. Tin; bottle contained four and a half drams of fluid. When he received the bottle, alO drops had ap-j parently been taken from it. Hyj comparison he estimated the strength' of the aconite present to be onefourth to one-half of the strength of the British pharmacopoeia tincture.. By a physical test live drops from the; bottle produced characteristic! results. About the same results he found, produced by two drops of the B.P.j tincture. Up to 1898 the drug had been prepared in a different way to! that in use now, and the present! standard tincture was about 2A times weaker than the standard tincture in. use prior to IS9S. He gave 7 drops toj a fasting fowl, and seeing no eiTectj gave 15 more drops. The symptoms! were loss of muscular power and. trembling, but the bird recovered in| an hour. It was said that aconite] was accumulative in its effect. Aconite tinctures and powders varied | considerably in strength. An authority on the subject said that aconite had a greater effect on human beings than on cats and dogs, in proportion. In ten drops of the medicine in question there would he about three drops of .B.P. tincture of. aconite. There was no chemical antidote for aconite

poisoning. Mr Brookfield here read a passage from the book on "Physianthrophy" on the preparation of aconite, which witness characterised as nonsense. His Worship: Mr Wormall is in Court, Mr Pond: you had better be careful. Continuing, witness said the effect of aconite on people was very varied. He was rather doubtful if the symptoms in this case aud the speedy recovery were rather exaggerated though the symptoms were those of aconite poisoning-. Tie thought a dose or repeated doses oC the medicine would produce an effect in a lesser degree than that described by Mrs Berger. To ills Worship: Aconite tincture came within the Poisons Act. To Mr Brookfield: The book on "Physinnthropy" accompanied by the medicine might be dangerous in the hands of unskilful men. The B.P. dose was from 5 to 15 drops, but it had to be administered carefully. People were warned (.0 be very careful in repeating doses. A tincture of the strength of the medicine in question, given in large repeated doses would, he considered, be dangerous. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. His Worship asked Mr. Tole if he considered the whole of the facts disclosed' consistent with the hypothesis that accused was an ignorant man, who, misled by Wormoll, acted in good faith in giving his wife the medicine.

Mr. Tolesaid he thought the facts were not consistent with such a hypothesis. He submitted that the question of intent was one for a jury. As for a motive, there was "Hose," in Fiji. Mr. Brookfield said he proposed to call accused as a witness, but His Worship said that the evidence offerer! hy accused could not, influence him in his decision. Mr. Brookfield then stated that his client would reserve his defence.

His Worship said he agreed with Mr. Tole that the question of intent was one for a jury. Accused would therefore be committed to take his trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed in two sureties of £100 each.