THE TIMARU POISONING CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7772, 19 October 1886, Page 5

THE TIMARU POISONING CASE.

CLOSE OF THE CASE FOR THE PRC [.. SECUTION. NOTES AND COMMENTS. the BY TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT. , Chbistohorch, Monday. [ eB l As the end of this remarkable trial draws nea ims the popular interest increases, and early thi morning a crowd gathered in the precinot re of the Court to witness the arrival of the pri ey, soners, and to try and obtain seats or atandin, a a room inside the body of the Court. Thos the only (outside the Press representatives am '~ the legal profession) are admitted wh ; ess produce orders from the sheriff, but so keei ' ea " is the desire for a place that all day long th. etm police and Court officials and the vanou ? 88 cerbernses who guard the door, are pesterec :8 ' with applications for leave to enter ant ? have a peep, the request being ii ?,' many cases backed up by the delioat) ? K offer of a consideration. One who has with 'r e stood many temptations without aur rendering, informs me that five shillings ii eW the average offer, though from ten shilling! to £1 have been offered on several occasions ew To the honour of the officials be it said thej *'" have stood firm throughout. Their buttoni r .°," are untarnished. The prisoners partici • f pated in the excitement of the hour, * as their slightly flushed cheek and attentive a eyes indicated. Miss Houston sat quiet )m throughout, and Hall was not demonstrative, . though hid eye was anxious, and he bit hit ~ nails nervously as the day wore on. , On the Judge taking his seat, Petei . Schonrup, photographer, testified in the box B that he had never heard of antimony being used in his art. His testimony was con' ' firmed by Eden George, who, besides being a J* photographer, is a preparer of plates. Mr. ee Hay elicited from Schourup one very good point, viz., that among the substances used in photography there were some deadly poisons, and that the knowledge that anti- . mony is not used in photography was expert . knowledge. To these gentlemen succeeded '° the unhappy-looking Dr. Syme, who rather surprised his friends by the clearness and decision with which he gave his evidence. ° In reply to Sir R. Stout he laid antimony was a poison, and he was not at all disposed to pronounce the definition of poison an im- * possible feat. " Poison," he said very clearly, ' "Is something which, when introduced . into the body or system by chemical or physiological processes, causes death or pain." He was firm in his opinion that antimony was the poisonous element in ' tartar emetic, and that the term antimony ' was sufficient for all purposes, to include the compounds of antimony as well as the _ metal itself. Mr. Joynt arose with the wrinkles deepening around his eyes. j " You're a Crown expert, that is, you have generally been called by the Crown in medico-legal cases ?" " Yes, I have gener'r ally," replied the witness. Then Mr. Joynt gave one of those impressive sceptical it grunts of his which convey so much. Antimony was fa poison the witness / maintained, and the vapour of antimony was y I poisonous. He was bard-pressed on the j point as to whether the name of the , j innocuous base should be taken to include » the compound. Mr. Joynt pressed the _ I doctor hard, but the latter entrenched himself behind his convictions, and could not be dislodged. After a question or two of reexamination, Sir R Stout announced the case for the prosecution was closed, and Mr Joynt thereupon got up to submit to the court that the indictment was bad, inasmuch as it disclosed no offence. He put this forward as a proposition, but it excited immense interest. The lookers-on caught up the meaning of the learned counsel, and they listened attentively , to the argument which ensued. Everybody , undsrstood that the charge was in some ' danger, and the humblest individual knew that upon the judge's ruling in this matter it depended whether or not a man charged i with an awful crime should walk out of the dock a free man, owing to a flaw, a legal quibble, a verbal distinction ; and people almost heard their own hearts beat In the oppressive stillness. In reply to Mr. Joynt's argument, His Honor said that it was incumbent on counsel for the defence to show that any indictment must describe things in exact technical terms. This counsel was unable to do. All he could do was to cite a number of general maxims from Chitty and others as to the need for precedents in drawing up indictments. The Attorney-General sprang to the defence of the indictment. He held that it was good, and that it was not neces- * sary always to state the instrument of death or attempt to murder. Had he alleged antimony and proved arsenic, the charge , would have been valid. Poisoning by antimony was a popular term, and he knew of no law which forbade an indictment being couched in popular language. He referred to the old forms, and strengthened his case by saying that in the United States' Court the old liberally-worded forms were adhered to. In the end the Judge decided againßt Mr. Joynt, and declined to reserve the point, though he promised to consider it. Sir. R. Stout then observed that he should probably ask leave to amend the faulty indictment, bat Mr. Joynt expressed his intention to combat it. Something like a sigh of relief went round when it was perceived that no miscarriage of justice was likely to occur through a mere verbal flaw. This point settled, there was a pause ; then Mr. Hay rose, and called Dr. Keyworth, a respectable, courteous, preciselooking gentleman, who had known Miss Houston from her birth, and was well acquainted with her and her family. She had come to New Zealand by his advice. He knew her to be a skilful nurse, faithful in the discharge of her duties, kind, correct, and cheerful in demeanour. Physic was followed by Divinity, when Dr. Keywortb was succeeded by the Rev. Mr. West. This rather lowering-looking gentleman deposed that she had lived in his house, and was always frank, modest, and industrious. Hrs. Hermanson, matron of the Wellington Hospital, bore emphatic testimony to the character of the female prisoner, who was the last person in the world likely to be concerned in an attempt to take life. The crowning testimony • in this direction was that given by Mr. , Matthias, in whose house Miss Houston had lived as companion and nurse to his wife. This gentleman spoke most earnestly of the i absolute blamelessness and goodness of the i girl. Mr. Hay's last weapon of defence ! was Dr. Guthrie's evidence, That practi- j tioner placed it beyond doubt that Miss i Houston's relations with Hall had been en- < tirely innocent, This brought us to the luncheon adjourn- i ment, after which Sir R. Stoat's right of • reply came up for discussion. The Attorney- i General said he was not so anxious to exer- - cise the right in that case as to not establish j a precedent by waiving his right. After i discussion the right of replying being estab- ( lished, Sir R. Stout consented not to use it, i and proceeded to Bum up the evidence for i the Crown. This he did in a masterly j speech, as marked in its moderation as was i his opening address. Dealing first with the i female prisoner he expressed no desire to i press a charge against her, but commented t on her familiarity with Hall, and the probability of her being privy to his secret, t the more so as she made his bed, and saw I the poison and books on poison in his i room, and was a nurse accustomed to i medicine. Parsing to the case of the male * prisoner, the Attorney-General set forth the c position and motive of the accused, the deli- a cate state of his wife's health at the time he > was heavily insuring her life, hia apparent t kindness of manner towards his wife (all v part of his plot), his conduct on arrest, and a his observations to the police, and in the t police office to Houston, his deep-laid t design to murder his wife and then destroy r all trace of his crime by fire. In con- I eluding a speech of great strength and r power, he paid a tribute to the charaoter of Dr. Mclntyre, to whose courage and energy they were indebted for the discovery of this t plot in time to save the wife. The speech had no rhetorical flights, but s it produced something more than sensation. 1 It had so bristled with facts of a damning 1 nature that the minds of the listeners were o subjected to a painful experience. They o felt as men who have looked on a horrid f scene, for throughout the earnest language I, of the prosecuting counsel they saw clearly k the awful tragedy that was going on in the ? quiet' country house, where their victim had a lived through her girlhood, whence she had h gone forth to link her fortunes with the man v who now stood charged with attempting to o murder her; where some time her aged si father died, and where she herself had been b sick unto death, and been drawn back by ti timely aid from " the jaws of death;" p where also her child had been born (the e pledge of affection), and whore it had been c forced upon her that the man who had vowed y to protect and cherish her had been daily fi

soothing her with one hand while conveying * poison to her lips with the other, and was crowning his hellish work with pre* . parations for a fire which would have burned away all trace of the crime, and its victim. All this came up powerfully in the minds of the listeners, and there was a painful silence when Sir Robert Stout sat down. The prisoners sat still—Miss Houston downoast, Hall fidgety, discomforted, and • furtive. , Mr. Joynt rose to address the jury for ( the defence, He proposed calling no witJ nesses, but would go over the various points ' I of the case exhaustively. His address, ; which commenced about a quarter to four, i lasted till ten minutes past five, and was an exceedingly able speech. Not a flaw, t not a weak spot, not a missing link in the evidence escaped him, and he fought gallantly a losing battle. The Court became densely crowded, for it was understood that the end was at hand, but the most attentive stillness prevailed. Pausing a little after five o'clook, Mr. Joynt asked His Honor when he should adjourn the Court, and the learned Judge, after consulting counsel and the jury, decided to adjourn till to-morrow morning, when Mr. Joynt might resume his address. This met the views of all parties. The jurymen looked jaded and headachy, the judge looked tired, and the lawyers had had enough of it. As for the poor hacks of the —well, they were quite used up. To-morrow morning the defence will draw to a close, and probably His Honor's summing up, and it may be expected the jury : will deliver their verdict the same night. The time is an anxious one for the prisoners, though to judge by the new light in Miss Houston's eyes, and the flush on her cheek, and the smile that begins to lurk in the corner of her mouth, that young woman regards her acquittal as a foregone conclusion. To Hall this will be a night of wretchedness and suspense. I saw him look anxiously and miserably after her as she left the dock before him, but I never saw a glance of her eye in his direction. She had done with him. Whether she was dupe or accomplice she is neither now. To-morrow night I shall, most likely be able to tell you the curtain has dropped, and the lights are turned out, and the theatre emptied. [BST TELEGRAPH.—PRKSS ASSOCIATION.] THE EVIDENCE. The proceedings commenced this morning by the Attorney-General calling two photographers, Peter Schourup and Eden George, both of whom deposed that no preparation of antimony was used in photography. Dr. W. A. Symes was called as an expert, and stated that antimony was a poison. He described the action of antimony on the system, and said he would expect to find it in the liver, kidneys, vomit, excreta, and urine. In tartar emetic antimony was the poisonous element. If a person died of taking tartar emetic it would be correct to say he had been poisoned with antimony. He did not agree with Professor Black that poison was a vulgar term. Antimony, according to its primary meaning, was a poison, but the metal itself he did not think would be poisonous, unless inhaled in a state of vapour; If a person were poisoned by nitrate of silver, he would not consider it correct to say he was poisoned by a poison called silver. This answer gave Mr. Joynt some hope, but the doctor crushed it by rejoining that though nitrate of silver was poisonous, he considered the poisoning would be due more to the nitric acid than to the silver. The Attorney-General having announced that the case for the Crown was closed, Mr. Joynt submitted that the indictment disclosed no offence. Hall and Houston were charged with administering a certain deadly poison called antimony, and antimony should be used in its primary sense, that of a metal. The expert evidence, he contended, showed that antimony was not a poison. What was spoken of as a deadly poison had been shown to be something entirely innocuous. He went on to contend that in an indictment for poisoning the poison should be scientifically described. If ' the poison meant was tartar emetic, the expert evidence of Professors Black and Ogston was that the poisonous substance ' thereon was oxide of antimony, and this was < a different substance than antimony. It 1 could be no more described as antimony than ] nitrate of silver could be called silver. In i the Poisons Act, 1871, tartar emetic was < mentioned, but not antimony. He quoted 1 the dictionary definition to show that anti- I mony was a metal. This was also clear i from the evidence. It was therefore am- 1 bignous to apply the word to anything else, i The term in the indictment was vague and i uncertain as well as being too general. Dr. t Symes had said it would be equally true to t speak of any of the combinations of anti- f mony, as well as the oxide of antimony, so i that if a person was charged with poisoning c another by antimony, and is acquitted or t convicted, he has no possible means of plead- 1 ing a former trial for poisoning by oxide, a His Honor: The test would be, was he c in jeopardy with regard to any form of c antimony, 8 Mr, Joynt: I contend that the Attorney- i General means oxide of antimony. t His Honor In the evidence, but not in c the indictment. The whole question is does a the word antimony apply to a case of this 1 sort. If the indictment is good there is t sufficient to answer a subsequent indictment i with regard to any form of antimony. ti Mr. Joynt cited Vol. 1, of Chitty's s Criminal Law, 168, to insist upon the b necessity that the accused should know h what cause he was charged with, so as to be s ible to meet a subsequent indictment of a I similar nature. f: His Honor would not stop the case but to svould take the authority on the other side. v Sir Robert Stout contended that it was o lot necessary to specify the poison. It a vould have been sufficient to have said a 'poison unknown." He would go farther, a md show that to allege antimony and w irove arsenic was sufficient. It had ji teen held that if the kind of death £ >y one kind of poison were specified, ti ,nd you proved another, that was sufficient, ci n " Coke's Institutes," third par., ch. 62, D here was Sir Thomas Overbury'a case. It ol ras resolved that the proof of any other d: toison was sufficient. So here the substance a f the indictment was not the poison, but T rhether an attempt to poison had been of lade. He cited a number of other cases ji 0 show that the real question was, did the w ccused administer poison with intent to le -ill- If the antimony was the poisonous tr. ngredient that was sufficient. The doctors fa 11 averred that such was the case. He would B 0 further, and take Pritchard's case. Mr. n< oynt's proposition was that the word anti* at aony was too general, because it included w arious forms of poison, but he submitted la hat in all those forms the poisonous thing hi tm antimony. That was what was looked tl )r in the analysis. As to what that was n< nixed with was of no consequence. He Ti abmitted that the Crown had proved what be ras averred in the indictment. All that the or idictment need have stated was the popular b] hrase. There was no need for the chemical al arms, otherwise tartar emetic itself would th ot be correct, as that was not the chemical pc ame. If the antimony were not present in lere would be no poison. cu Mr. Joynt having replied, His Honor held bj lat there was no distinction as contended by be Ir. Joynt. As at present advised he was pr itisfied there was nothing to make the ju idictment bad ; that on the face of it there qi 'as not a variance, and that there was evi- ic< enoe to show an attempt to kill by poison, th r»d that that poison was antimony. He W •ould not say at once whether or not he ar: •ould reserve the point at present. There in as sufficient to go to the jury. If he here- so iter considered the question one that ought Cc > be reserved, he was not prepared to say he lat the question of amending the indict- co: ient was not arguable. After argument, m! is Honor said he would at present refuse to hi! tserve the point. w l Mr. Joynt called no evidence. Th Mr. Hay called witnesses as to Mr. Eons- soi tn'a character. ha Dr. Keyworth, examined by Mr. Hay, coi dd: I have known Miss Houston all her wa fe. I was present at her birth in Birming- sb im. I was the ordinary medical attendant po : her family there; I was so until the spring no 1 1881. I was so for thirty years. Her in ther is the representative of one of the sic rgeßt of the Burton breweries. I have Hi nown Miss Houston since she came out to shi ew Zealand. She came out at my advice su< id by my sanction to Wellington. I saw m< it frequently at Wellington, and until she to ent to Timaru. I have had opportunities nei forming an opinion as to her character. I evi w her frequently nursing her mother and mc others and sister. I saw her frequently at to e house of business in which she was em« wa oyed. Her conduct was irreproachable in ch; •ery respect, and kindly. She was a fro leerful, bright girl, not gay, such a girl as ha< in would expect to find in a Scotch, grave pe< mily. (Her family was a Sootvb, grave one. 1 Th

ing There was nothing in the least frivolous i ind her disposition. She was truthful. re* To His Honor : I know nothing as to he we want of good feeding or cruelty. md The Rev. W. H. West, Mrs. Hermansor ' in George Mathiers, and Dr. Guthrie, of Christ is a church, also gave evidence. Jjj SIR R. STOUT' 3 CLOSING SPEECH. in( j The Attorney-General in summing up fc the Crown said the jury was aware that th f or case divided itself into two branches, as i r jj.. affected the two accused. Taking the first ag the case of Miss Houston, he thought i lgg right to say, on behalf of the prisoners, a ur well as against them, are the facts consisten ?a with guilt ? are they consistent with innc w cence ? If the jury thought them equal! Ip consistent with either guilt or innocence ,jj t then they must give a verdict of acquittal me He wished to strain nothing against th iat prisoners, for he felt that was th j ve imperative duty of the prosecution. H er admitted at once that the case against Mis 10r Hour' n was not like that against Hall ;Q0 thougti if the jury found she had aided Hall n( j and was conscious of what Hall was doing )W they must bring her in as an accessor jig before the fact. Coming to the oysters 3 g these had been brought to the house on Jum lV " 25th and 26th. The first given by the nursi *' B did Mrs. Hall good. On June 26th th. , or oysters were brought in for dinner, and sorw l to were taken by Miss Houston and Hall, anc after removal from the diningroom by th< lW boy and Mary Hassen, who suffered no il n _ effects. Considering the effect upon Mrs. Hal ry of the four oysters they must have been poi. t / soned, and poisoned by either the male or the B * female accused. If the jury came to th< 8 g conclusion that Hall poisoned them, ther they would have to say if Hall could do at without Miss Houston's knowledge. Mist 3 „ Houston had brought them into the bedroom, Q | The jury would remember that he had 0 j expressed the opinion that there was nc ,k criminal familiarity between Hall and ,f£ Houston, but they were on very friendly oe terms. The lacing of her stays, and the ie fact of Hall coming into her bedroom, were n _ facts considerably at variance with her .j training, as detailed by Dr. Key worth. The r- i ur would remember that, according to the ){ evidence, she was in the habit of making Hall's bed. Now, Miss Houston must have seen Taylor's work, that was on the dressingtable, and having her experience as a nurse, how was it she volunteered an excuse for g Hall, and an excuse which Hall nover made )„ himself. And then as to the poisoned wine in being found, why did not Miss Houston say, 3 . "Oh! She might have taken some of the j. poisoned." There was also the question of the writing to Dr. Stackpool, and volunteeri t ing to give the medicine. Dr. Staokpool was e very positive that he had not told her to e relieve the nurse. Then, if Mr. Broham it was to be believed, Hall said he alone had d anything to do with this. A sharp, intellie gent girl would have seen that this was a g confession of guilt. Then Constable Hicks e stated that Hall said, " You are quite safe,' 1 d etc., so that before she wrote the letter to u Hall she had heard him confess that he could g not possibly get off. Yet this girl of good t character thought proper to communicate 0 with a man guilty of so diabolical a crime. if It might be said that Hall had said she was v not guilty. The jury could, of course, t consider this, but it might mean, "Keep a any knowledge you have from the police, t because you are perfectly safe." Both y these statements might be used both a for and against the female prisoner, i The terms on which the two were living e must be considered. There was also her conduct in endeavouring to 'assist Hall in i getting rid of a proof of his guilt. This . was no sudden impulse, because she desisted [. immediately she heard the footsteps of the e constable approaching. He (the Attorneyj General) again cautioned the jury that if the i facts were consistent with Miss Houston's % innocence they should acquit her. He did . not wish to forget the good character she % had previously held. Hall might have j overawed her, and induced her to wink at 1 his doings, but this was for the jury to fully 1 consider. He would say no more about her, 3 but pass on to the caso of the prisoner Hall, f The firm's position, his own position of hope--5 less insolvency had been proved, so also I that be had recourse to forgery. Then as 3 to the motive with which the crimes i seemed to have been planned. One insurance i for £3000 had been effected for the large i premium of £82 a year the other policy i was only for seven years, the premium being i only £38 per annum. The prisoner told L Davidson in August that his wife was. getting better, yet he knew she was rapidly getting 1 worse. The gain to him by his wife's death bad been proved to Be £9000, £10, COO, or £12,000. Coming now to Hall's behaviour , in cross-examination it had been brought out that he was anxious for his wife and was kind i to her, but the man who could be guilty of forgery could surely be capable of hypocrisy. • A man capable of planning his plan would be capable of so conducting himself as to appear ' to the public as kind to his wife. Of course Hall had not ventured to object to a consultation, for such objection would have at i once aroused suspicion. Mrs. Ellison had certainly shown no bias against Hall. She said that Hall had told her to be careful to wash everything after she had given anything to Mrs. Hall ; in fact that all record of what had been given should be obliterated as far as the vessels were concerned. Practically only two examinations of what passed from Mrs. Hall were known to Hall. After the first he must have laughed at the doctors for being so completely off the scent. He was careful to ask what had been found. The only other examination he knew of was that after the third consultation, when it would be noticed Hall showed great anxiety to make friends with Dr. Drew, asking him to dinner, and offering to walk home with him. All these facts, no doubt the other side would say, showed hie anxiety about the health of his wife ; but did it not also prove bis anxiety to find out whether anything had been discovered? ' Now he would come to the poisoned wine. Did the jury believe this was done to prevent Mary Hassen drinking ? The evidence showed that all the wines were locked in the cupboard, and that Hall had the keys. Did the jury believe that, instead of getting rid of a drunken servant by discharging her, he preferred teaching her a lesson by putting jalap into the wine. The evidence showed that Mary Hassen was of a temperate character. He asked ■ the jury to believe that all this story about the wine was not true, and that the wine was left out to poison Mrs. hall. The next thing to be considered was the undoubted fact that Mrs. Hall was being poisoned. ' But who poisoned Mrs. Hall? All those ' near Mrs. Hall had been called except the : atjused. Against one of these (Hall) there was proof that he had purchased poison in I large quantities. He had pretended that ( he used antimony for cigarettes, but i the cigarettes had been examined, and < no antimony could be found in them. ' The doctors believed that Mrs, Hall was ' being poisoned in her food, and, so 1 ordered that she should take nothing but ice > by her mouth, and that she should be kept < alive by injections. They did not believe < they were dealing with an adept who would E poison the injection. Yet the brandy to be ' injected was found to be poisoned by colchi- 1 cum, and that brandy was given to the nurse c by Hall, who had not used antimony here < because he knew that in brandy it would ;! precipitate in a white powder. He asked the 4 jury to believe that Hall had put a large " quantity of the tartar emetic in the cup of 1 ice water. Fortunately the dose was so large b that Mrs Hall's stomach rejeoted it. j Why was Hall on the Sunday of his « arrest carrying powdered tartar emetio d in one pooket, and tartar emetic dis- c solved in a phial in the other pocket? 'J Coming now to the incidents of the arrest ; v he had pretended to be sick so as to get the i constable out of the room so that he could c make away with the damaging evidence in a his pocket. He made two statements, that c whaeover he had done was his own doing, t That was a confession that he had done e something. So also in Hicks' presence he t had said he could not get off. Were these f confessions to count for nothing? There r was the evidence of Mrs. Hammersley, I showing beyond doubt that the tea was o poisoned. She did Hot say who told her v not to take tea—Hall or Houston —but fc in any case the tea made the lady very J sick. A good deal had been said about a Hall's injections of morphia. The evidence b showed no mental effects caused by the 1 sudden cessation of the habitual use of F morphia. Were the jury to say that he was V to be aoquitted because his moral conscious- c ness was dulled ? On the whole, the h evidence showed that Hall had premeditated v murder for months. He might have decided t< to wait till the child was born, but there t! was no getting over the facts that he pur- h chased poison largely, that Mrs. Hall suffered 1 from poisoning with this poison,and that Hall a had made such arrangements as secured his b pecuniary gain on the death of his wife, g Then as to the pUn for burning down the tl

in building. What had the prisoner done ? £ had purchased kerosene, and had it sent to tl her office. No doubt he had taken it harae and up I the garret only approaohable by himself. A on, the train was laid for the destruction < iat> every proof as soon as his wife was deal As the executor of the late Captain Cain 1 r makes Wilson insure the building an ' furniture, he himself insuring his ow *° r furniture, so that he could lose nothing b *~J the fire. If the witnesses were to I ' *■ believed the jury must believe that tr .» poisoning had been deliberately plannec 16 There were Headland's books with onl M certain pages out, Taylor's with the nam ont and date of " 1882 " and " Dunedin," thoug °°" bought in Timaru in 18S5. Through tfc "y study of these books Mall no doubt laid h ce » plans. When arrested he did not protei '*■• his innocence, and gave no excuse fc [° e having the drugs. He admitted thi e no one else had anything to do wit " 6 it. The jury could come to no otht 188 conclusion than that Hall had deliberatel Y*» planned the poisoning. So far as th "'• witnesses were concerned, they had testifie 'Kk. frankly. Dr. Mclntyre had throughou irv - acted as an honourable and courageous ma rs » should do under special and difficult circuit ine stances. The case was now in the jury' " e hands. He had not gone into details, bo '"° had pointed out the salient points. If th m * jury could say that the ice water, etc. " d could be explained on any theory of innc .* oence, they should acquit, otherwise t 111 acquit the accused would be inflicting a " blow on the administration of justice in th M" colony, from which it could never reoover £ e He had every confidence in the result. en SPEECH FOR THE DEFENCE, so Mr. Joynt wished he could promise t [as successfully emulate the terseness of th m, Attorney-General. He would have to asl ad the jury to bear with him at considerabl] no greater length. The Attorney-General ha! id had an opportunity of addressing the jury ly but he (Mr. Joynt) had now the first chanci he of commenting on the evidence. At the sami re time he would be careful not to weary thi er jury by reading any part of the evidence. Hi be asked the jury if possible to cast off their mindi be anything like impressions unfavourable to hii ig client which might have been forced upoi ve them, by the way in Which it had beer g- brought before the public. He must say, e, that while satisfied with the personnel oi or the jury, he must beg them to judge by le the evidence alone, and not to be influenced ie by any prejudice from anything heard v, outside, either to this case or to any other, ie There was one matter which he thought it of moat deplorable should have come before r- the public on the eve of his trial, is His Honor : I quite agree with you— to its being reported, not its being done, m Mr. Joynt: This was done at such a time, id and under such circumstances, as could not i- be otherwise than most prejudicial to the a prisoner. It was, therefore, all the more C 8 important that the jury should force from »' them all impressions thus caused. As to the ;o female prisoner, he was glad that she was to d be defended by another gentleman, as his d feelingsnot having the cool temper of a ;e Caledonian— would consist so much of indig3. nation, that he could not do the case that [3 justice which the greater calmness of his 3( learned friend would ensure, tie would p first call attention to the indictment. ) ( Of all the indictments he had ever seen h on such a charge this was the most h utterly meagre, shallow, and unsatisfactory », and he would remind the jury that they g were bound to go by the indictment. The x indictment did not say that between certain Q dates poison had been administered at a various times, but charged one act alone, d To that alone the Crown was confined. All e the other acts shown in the evidence were _ admissible only to show motive and intention, e He submitted that the jury must confine a themselves to the charge as laid, "That on i August 15th the prisoners, or either of them, 0 administered the poison." a His Honor : I cannot agree with that, t They could prove administering at any time y up to that date. The jury could select any ) one of the acts. It was not necessary to , prove the date as laid. Mr. Joynt contended that the only act 3 that could be referred to was that laids His Honor would tell the jury that it 3 would be enough if they were satisfied of 3 any one act, and that the other acts were 3 only necessary to prove intention. He did j not wish to embarrass Mr Joynt. jr Mr Joynt oontinued speaking at great 1 length. He submitted that neither the firm » of Hall and Meason, nor Hall privately, t were indebted to the bank for any amount i not secured. Of course the firm fell when - the financial partner was in the dock under a ; charge of attempted murder. It was not ; clear that Hall had committed forgeries. I The banker only believed that Hall had f brought the document said to be forged, and the jury had heard no evidence in defence. , The Crown also asked the jury to believe • that Hall had endeavoured to poison his wife , before her child was born, when he would thereby clearly have lost the inheritance that would have passed to the child under Captain , Cain's will. It was natural that persons , would be excited when so serious a charge as , attempted murder was made against them, and it was not fair to judge them by words they said at euch a time. Miss Houston's and Hall's expressions at the time might be explained. It had not been proved that Hall had not used antimony for cigarettes. He was the only person who, probably, could say he had so used it. But his mouth was closed. He ridiculed the idea that there was anything like proof that Hall had intended to burn down his house. Was it likely a man intending to burn down a place would leave things soaked with kerosene in a bag ? Would he not spread them about ? Neither Broham nor Kirby on the night of the arrest smelt any kerosene, though they put their heads into the garret ; nor Mary Hassen. who was close to the garret door. It was not found till towards the end of the week after the arrest, and he asked them to believe that it was not Hall who had put the kerosene there. As to Mrs. Hamersley's sickness after drinking the tea, it had never occurred to her to suspect her sickness was caused by the tea till after the arrest, when people were casting about for evidence against the accused. It was childish reasoning to say that because Mrs. Hall was sick the night after eating oysters that therefore they were poisoned. The bitter taste of the antimony would have been detected by Mrs. Hall had the poison been there; and would any person have been such a fool as to have used that poison. He said frankly he had not the least idea what Hall purchased tartar emetic and colchioum wine for. The evidence did not show, but they found that Hall had been dabbling in poisons generally. As to Mrs. Hall's symptoms, the medical evidence he submitted was consistent with the fact that she was suffering from gastritis or ' gastroenteritis. He attacked the experts' ; evidence, and wanted to know if anti- ■ mony was present why the chemists had ' not extraoted the metal. They had told us that they got all the colours of the ' rainbow, and the jury were asked to believe ! that showed the presence of antimony. One . of the tests of Professor Black had discour- ' aged himself, and he did not rely entirely on ( any one of them separately. Professor Black I had said that Taylor, a celebrated chemist .{ of 40 years ago, would be laughed at by J chemists now, and probably Professors Black and Ogston would themselves be laughed at ' 40 years hence. Chemistry was a progressive * '< science, and perhaps these tests that were re- ( • lied on now would not be considered conclu- ' Hive in a few years' time. It was for tho ' jury to say whether they were satisfied ? with the expert evidence as conclusive evi- ' dence of the presence of antimony in what I came from Mrs. Hall and in the ice-water. The learned counsel convassed the evidence with reference to the administration of the ice-water from the cup to Mrs. Hall. The contents of the jug, which was in the room j at the time, had not been analysed, for the ] contents might have been changed before j the jug was given to the police. The c evidence was entirely adverse to the conten- j tion of the Crown that Mrs. Hall had drank from the cup in the presence of Hall. It was c remarked that the Crown had not called Mrs. t Hall, and he contended it was incumbent D on the Crown to have put Mrs Hall in the t witness-box to tell her own story from u beginning to end. The glimpse they got of fc Mrs. Hall's mind shows that she was most ambitious to trace out this crime which she believed had been committed against herself, r The Crown were to blame for not having „ produced Mrs. Hall. Her health did not tl prevent it, and she was the only person who f, could tell what actually took place between i herself and husband on the Sunday morning „ when it was alleged the poison was administered. It was another curious circumstance that Dr. Lovegrove was not called, though s ; he was senior consultant on August 12. The evidence showed that colchicnm was not +, administered. If Hall had poisoned the brandy would he have attempted to drink a glass of it on the night of the arrest, when the inspector prevented him, Again, tha |j

jury were asked to believe that Hall bad poisoned a decanter of wine for his wife to drink. It was a pure assumption on the Attorney-General's part that the wine referred to in Hall's conversation with Kerr was poisoned at all. Hall might have got plenty of other things from the chemist besides antimony, and though it was not proved that the servant was addicted to drink it, it was proved that she was suspected by Mr*. Hall, and it was reasonable to suppose Hall suspected her- Hallos conduct in mentioning this openly to a justice of the peace was consistent with his innocence, and should be taken into account by the jury, The learned counsel's address was not concluded when the Court adjourned.