THE TIMARU POISONING CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 764, 22 October 1886, Page 10

THE TIMARU POISONING CASE.

TRIAL OF THOMAS HALL AND MARGARET HOUSTON.

FOURTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS.

(UNITED PBE3S ASSOCIATION.)

C übistchubch, October 14.

The big case progressed more quistly today, the police evidence, seven witnesses in all, being disposed of, and the examination by the Crown of Professor Black was nearly completed before tbe Court adjourned. Tomorrow the professor will finish his evidence ia chief, and then be in the hands of Mr Joynt to make what he can of him. The story of the arrest, as given by Inspector Broham aud those who accompanied him on his errand to Woodlands, threw some fresh light on the occurrence on that Sunday evening, August 15th, a day of which the accused,, whether innocent or guilty, will foe life have painful recollections. A party of four—lnspector Broham, Detective Kirby, aud Constables Strickland and Egan—walked from the Timaru Police Station to Woodlands. The Inspector had been there several times previously, before Captain Cain’s death, under pit asantec circumstances, and he must have felt the more the unpleasantness of his duty now he was going with a warrant in his pocket'for the arrest of two of the inmates. It came out in evidence to-day that a little ruse was adopted by the police in order to prevent any hitch at the outset. Constable Egan was not well known at Timaru, and he was sent to tbe front door to gain admittance. He was answered by Miss Houston, who, ia reply to his query, said that ivlr Hall was in, and the constable then waved bis bat as a signal for Inspector Broham and Detective Kirby to advance, Constable Strickland having been told off to mount guard at the back of the premisep. Miss Houston appears to have retired after answering the door, for when the Inspector entered he saw her coming ont of the smoking room. The three police officers and tbe two prisoners assembled in the diningroom, and as soon as the charge was stated by the Inspector they both expressed great surprise. Both repeated the word “ Antimony ’’ more than once, aud Miss Houston, turning to Hall, used the expression which was the subject of much cross examination, “Antimony ; why that’s what you’ve got for your photography,” or, “ Oh, you use antimony in photographing." The Inspector and Detective did not agree as to the tone in which these words were uttered, a rather important matter for the defence. Mr Broham asserted that she had said it as if an idea had struck her, and the explanation was satisfactory to herself; while Mr Kerby said the tone was interrogative,, as if she were putting a question to Hall, the latter being evidently the answer Mr Hay wanted. Hall’s reply was : “ Keep quiet, will you, you have nothing to do with the case,” and then he added to the Inspector : “ What shall I say, I suppose a man should be very careful at such a time aud with such a charge made against him.” The Inspector watched Hall’s bands narrowly and saw his determination to put them in his trousers pockets, in one of which was afterwards found a phial containing a few drops of a solution of tartar emetic, and in tbe other pocket a powder of the same poison. The cork was seen dropping from Hall’s pocket, which was wet, while the ends of the packet were opened. Some grains of tartar emetic were found on the floor. It was just when the detective was going to search Hall that the latter seemed to become faint, and Constable Egan was sent for some brandy. . He did not return at once, aud Detective Kirby left the room on a similar errand, leaving Inspector Broham alone with the prisoners. Hall then recoveied himself and thrust both hands into bis pockets. The Inspector seized bis hands, and it was then that Miss Houston, utteiing a cry, ran up and used all her force to try and separate them. The Inspector was not sure whether she seized Hall by the waist or him by the wrist, or whether she pushed both different, ways to get them asuuder, for he was occupied all the time ia holding Hall’s hand, a work rendered more difficult by the circumstance that he had himself a sprained wrist. When Miss Houston heard Detective Kirby coming, in response to the Inspector’s calls, she desisted, and shortly after Constable Egan came in with the brandy. It was remarkable, certainly, that the bottle of ■ the brandy wa3 the verv bottle which Hall had given to Nurse Ellison for Mrs Hall’s injections, and in which Professor Black stated afterward that he had found colchicum in the alkaloid form in such quantities as to leave no doubt of its presence. Hall did not drink, as Mr Broham noticed the cloudy appearance of the spirit, and would not allow him, notwithstanding Hall’s protest that there was nothing the matter with it. It was made clear that there were two corks picked up on the diningroom floor, one found by Detective Kirby, which fitted the phial in Hall’s pocket. .That was the cork Hall tried to kick out of sight under the fender. The other was found by Constable Strickland after he had rejoined his comrade?. The latter had tartar emetic on it, but the bottle to which it belonged had not been found. The search of the premise? was given in detail. The finding of the book, “Taylor oo Poisons’ and more tartar emetic, and a bottle of colchicum wine in Hall’s bedroom, and the various other bottles, &c., which bad been sent to Professor Black for analysis; the subsequent visits to Hall s house by Inspector Broham, tbe taking possession of the vessels, &c., used in connection with the ice, all of which had been analysed and found to contain no antimony ; the discovery of the rags and wood soaked with kerosene in the garret were all detailed. In cross-examination Mr Joynt elicited that Dr Mclntyre was the person who had a-selected number of bottles, of which we have not heard much yet, to send to Professor Black for analysis. It can scarcely be said what use Mr Joynt means to make of Dr Mclntyre in his defence, but he is certainly very persistent in bringing out the facts with regard to him. Detective Kirby, who in the main corroborated the Inspector’s account, did not suffer much, except a little chaff at tbe hands of Mr Joynt. To Mr Hay he gave the gratifying

information that amongst all the bottles, &C., taken from Miss Houston’s room nothing had been found to implicate her. As the learned counsel put it, there were no guilty bottles so far as she was concerned. All her pockets had been cut from her dress, but the detective did not hint that anything suspicious had been found in them. . i

Constable Hicks, the watch-house-keeper, showed that he had watched to soma purpose’ by overhearing a remark of Hall’s to Miss Houston, when he believed they thought he had left the sergeant’s son at the police station. He heard Hall eav to Miss Houston in his ordinary tone ; “ You are all right and will get clear. It is I who am in for it. I cannot get off.’’ He was sure Hall did not Bay, “ There is nothing against you, and you will get clear,” as he had noted down the,words verbatim about twenty minutes after he had heard them.

Constables’ Strickland and Egan gave corroborative evidence as to the circumstances of the arrest, and Constable Daly, of how he had carefully delivered a box full of bottles, etc., to Professor Black. He created some amusement by describing the manner in which he had sealed the packet by pressing the hot wax with his fiagers. Constable Cassv spoke as to the and kerosene in the garret. Professor Black was then called. He told in clear and unmistakable language the result of his analysis—how he had found tartar emetic, which contains about 38 per cent of antimony, in the ice-water from the cup, in the phial taken- from Hall’s pfccket, inthe pockets themselves, in the vomit and, urine, and the various packets submitted to him. Dr Ogston aud himself had together analysed the brandy used for injections, and had found colchicum—tbe alkaloid principle of colchicum with very Btrongly marked results, in such quantities as to leave not the slightest doubt that colchicum was ipresent. He had found no antimony in the colander, the jug, and flannel, &c., used in connection with the ice. The case will be resumed to-morrow. *

THE RIGHT OF REPLY. Mr Joynt ia evidently very anxious to have the last word to the jury, and to-day there was another discussion as to the AttorneyGeneral’s right of reply. Mr Joynt said that the Attorney-General having told him that he intended to claim his right, he had made up bis mind to ask certain questions and t> get in certain evidence. “In fact,” he said, “ I don’t care what evidence I get in now." He enlarged on this claim of right as a great disadvantage, till the Judge reminded him that he had never decided that he would allow the Attorney-General the right, havin'g only said “as at present advised.” Mr Joynt said he knew that any mere opinion of an individual like himself must be considered very little, but he would venture to say, as au individual, that anything more grossly unfair, especially in a case of life and death, than this practice of reply, he could not imagine. To this the Judge said, “But you know very well how to make dexterous use of that.” “ But my learned friend, coming after me,” retorted Mr Joynt, “knows very well, how to destroy all my dexterous use.” The Attorney-General then explained that in saying he could claim the right of reply he, like his Honor, had used the words “as at present advised.” His Honor remarked that thequestion had not yet been fully argued; and Mr Joynt said something about referring to it again on the following day. The general impression is that the case will extend over the greater part of next week. Considerable interest is taken in the crossexamination of the witneseei for the Crown, bat the culminating point in the interest will be when the case for the defence of the male prisoner is opened by Mr Joynt. It is reported that the line adopted will be of a somewhat sensational character.

FIFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. Chbistchuech, October 15. This morning the examination of Professor Black by the Attorney General was resumed. He said : On September 16 he received six bottles. , The first was the notable exhibit Gl; which contained brandy with colchicum, and the others were vomit, &c. There , was also the packet of asthma cigarettes found in Hall’s bedroom. In these, the Professor said, of antimony he found none, but he could not swear there might not be a trace. They were examined jointly by himself and Dr Ogston, and by different processes. He described the series of tests which bad baen made of the the liquid and other substances which had - passed from Mr 3 Hall from August 12th to September 13, showing that antimony was decidedly preseut in the evacuations of the earlier dates immediately before and after the arreßt. Later, on August 20th, the urine showed a trace of antimony, while on September 12th the Professor found what he would take to be a trace, but he was not prepared to swear that antimony was present. The latter analyses were made to ascertain how long antimony remained in the system. Professor Black also told how two of the bottles sent by Dr Mclntyre before the case had developed beyond the suspicion stage had gone astray, apparently [because the delivery at Dune-'in was smarter than the postal. “ People are in the habit,” said the Professor, “of sending me things from all parts of the Colonv to analyse,' and in consequence of this he had become chary of taking in packete, so when the carrier demanded la Professor Black gave bim the choice of leaving his packet on the chance of getting the shilling some other day, or taking it away. The carrier preferred to keep his hold on the packet, and did so till the arrival oE Dr Mclntyre’s letter explained the matter, and the police looked up the missing box. Mr Joynt considered it necessary, as part cf his defence, to draw from Professor Black the details of the analys js, especially those applied to the phial found in Hall’s possession, and the other articles secured by the police on the night of the arrest. The Professor gave a clear account of the laboratory work done by himself, Dr Ogston assisting in all the more impoitant instances. The Professor objected to the use of . the term “poison,” It was a stupid term, be said, not used by scientific men ; one could not draw the line between poisons and non-poisons. Poison was a vulgar term. “ What do you mean by the term poison, which we vulgar people use,” said Mr Joynt. The Professor retorted gravely and decidedly that he was not going to be misun-

derslood. He did not mean that Mr Joynt was vulgar, but that poison was common and not a scientific term.

“But,” said Mr Joynt, “the Legislature have uEed the term.

The Professor still stuck to his point—- •* You can’t, draw the line. How do you do with whiskey V\ - •* I don’t do anything with it. What do you do with it ?” good-humoredly replied Mr Joynt, amidst the laughter that followed. Professor Black was at cross-purpdses with Mr Joynt with regard to “Taylor on Poisons,” an authority the learned counsel frequently referred to He said that if Taylor was alive now he would not be thought much M amongst chemists ; and a person quoting ou Poisons ” in an assembly of chemists would be laughed at. When further pressed for a definition of poison, Professor Black said by the word poison I understand _ something which is destructive to life or injurious to health. Mr Joynt : “If taken into the system J . Witness : “ That is important. You lir'ght swallow a sword or a knife, and that would not he a poison. I cannot define poison at all. I think antimony is not poisonous except as a vapor ; for this reason, that there is nothing to be dissolved. There is nothing to dissolve it in the stomach, and nothing could be absorbed. It is one of (hose chemicals which, in a metallic state, would not be acted upon. It would probably pass through the stomach. Tartar emetic contains five elements, two of which are metals, potassium, and antimony, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygeD. These are not all noxious. Potassium is extremely noxious—it would blow you up.’’ Mr Joynt : “You are blowing me up. Witness : “ It would create a flame in your stomach. Tartar emetic is a poisonous Bobstance. The oxide of antimony is the substance to which it owes its poisonous character. There are three oxides of antimony. That in tartar emetic may be produced in any one of. several ways. In all the urines, vomit, and Pieces, we simply found that antimony was present, without reference to the mode of combination. In the case of the other we found antimony present as in tartar emetic. We tested lor potassium and found it. I have not detailed how I did so. The tests were not such as to indicate that the antimony had besn administered ip a metallic form. They wdre adverse to any such conclusion. Silver and iron are metallic substances inactive in the stomach. In combination, poisonous substances are produced from them. Cross-examined by Mr Hay : “ I think I have told you all the substances we examined. Oh, yes, we examined other pockets besides exhibit B. I received some pockets from Timaru by one of the constables. We found no poison of any kind.” Mr Hay : “ I was referring to the pockets cut from Miss Houston’s dresses." Mr Joynt: “You found no metal of any kind in the pockets.” Witness : “ No.” His Honor : “ They never made a suggestion that there was. It was not opened.’’ Re-examined : It is a very common expression to say the “poison” antimony. One name for it would be tartarated antimony or tartarised antimony. If told to look for the poison antimony I should understand tartarated antimony or a chloride of antimony, or some other sort of compounds. I would not dream of looking for.antimony in its metallic state. It is called tartar emetic on account of its action in the stomach, and because it is made by digesting oxide of antimony with what is commonly called cream of tartar. I should understand by the phrase “ poisoned by antimony,” poisoned not by the metal, but by one of the compounds. Tartar emetic itself is not a scientific name. It is a, popular phrase to say that a person is poisoned by antimony. Regarding all these tests and the results, I have no doubt whatever that antimony was present. Sir Robert Stout said he might possibly ask to amend the indictment by inserting the words “ tartarate of” before “ antimony.” Mr Joynt said he might possibly object. Dr Francis Ogston, M.D., lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Otago University,who had studied the science of poisons at Paris, Vienna, and Prague, described the symptoms of poisoning by antimony, and said that Mrs Hall s symptoms were characteristic of taking an irritant poison such aB antimony. Colchicum taken in sufficient quantity would produce similar symptoms. He described especially the test he had made of the ice-water, which he found contained an immense quantity of antimony. The quantity was so large that it would cause intense sickness, and probably save life ; while if it had been less it would have been more deadly. By the largeness of the dose the patient got rid of it. If the brandy containing the colchicum had been injected when Mrs Hall was in the low state Dr Mclntyre described, the result would probably have been fatal iu a few hours. He had never hrard of colchicum being used as an appetiser as Hall had Baid he used it* Antimony was not much used now in medical practice. He never heard of antimony being l used in cigarettea for asthma. He was a doctor of medicine, and had practised his profession _ for . fourteen years, and did not think it possible that antimony used in any form with cigarettes would have any beneficial effects in asthma. He had tried several experiments with antimony in cigarettes since this'case begun, and the result had confirmed his previous opinion. He did not think that antimony could be inhaled in smoke. Since Hall’s arrest no morphia injections had been given, and be had suffered no injurious effects from the want of it. The doctor did cot think Hall could have previously been suffering from morphia poisoniDg. The sudden cessation of the use of morphia woiild cause injurious effects. Would not expect a patient suffering from gastro-enteritis to be nearly well at one time and very ill at another. Would not expect intermissions or sudden recovery. An irritant poison produced gastro-enteritis. Had not much regard for Taylor as a chemist. It was correct to say that antimony was. a poism. Though the metal itself might not be poieonous, it was usual to apply the name of a metal to its salts in> this respect, and to speak of poisoning by antimony, poisoniDg by lead, &c. Could not say whether, if the metal itself were eaten, it would act as a poison. If one asked an ordinary chemist for antimony, he would give tartar emetic, which was used in medical doses for asthma. Coaid not say what particular compound

of antimony was in the urine and vomitColchicum' was a medicine for gout. It might be used for sciatica. Never heard of its being used as an appetiser. Could not say there wss sufficient colchicum in the brandy analysed to destroy life. It would probably have killed Mrs Hall in the weak state described. Could not say how much brandy would be given in a nourishing injection. Every doctor bad bis own standard of stimulant. The injection of half a wineglassful might have created such a depression as to occasion death. A person in the habit of takiDg morphia would Buffer at least for a week or a fortnight after leaving it cff. Mr Hay did not cross-examine. To the Attorney-General : Looked upon antimony as a generic name in speaking of the metal. Would not quarrel with Taylor when he used the term metallic antimony. The symptoms referred to in Taylor by Mr Joynt were as applicable to small doses given at intervals to healthy persons.

Mrs Hamersley' deposed to drinking a cup of tea at Hall’s house shortly before Mrs Hall’s confinement, and being seized with violent retching and vomiting just after. She believed either Hall or Houston said it was Mrs Hall's tea, but on cross-examination she was not sure from memory that i.t was one of the accused who had used the expression. When at Woodlands after the arrest she found a tin of kerosene in a garret. She went at IMrsHall s request to the garret to look for a flask of brandy that was supposed to contain poison—the flask Miss Houston took wbtn Mrs Hall went for a drive. Mrs Ellison was collecting bottles for Dr Mclntyre that evening, but she did not sse her get any. Mr Joynt : Why did you say the flask was supposed to contain poison ? Witness : All the bottles were at that time supposed to contain poison. He found the flask in Hall’s bedroom. Did not know what became of it. Did not think she ascribed the sickness to drinkiog the cup of tea till after the arrest. Mr Hay : The cup 3 on the tray were all similar iu pattern. Wm. Gunn, chemist, deposed to selling Hall two drachma of tartar emetic on June 18, and two more on June 25, and eight fluid ounces of colchcium wine between July 5 and August 11. Hall told him he wanted the antimony to use in cigarettes. Detective. Kirby got some bottles from him after the arrest. He was sure they were clean. (These were the bottles used to contain some exhibits.) To Mr Perry : Had known Hall a long time, and knew he suffered from asthma and sciatica. Tartar emetic was an expectorant in very small doses. It was for the doctors to say whether they would prescribe it or not. By very small doses he meant the sixteenth or half of a grain. C. W. Eichbaum, another chemist, repeated his evidence in the Court below with regard to selling Hall antimony and antimonial wine, stramonium seed, nitrate of potash in June and August, colchicum wine in July, and atropia previously. To. Mr Perry : Hall had purchased morphia frequently. B=lieved he injected it for sciatica.

William Salek, assistant to Mr Watkins, chemist, deposed to the sale to Hall of more colchicum wine, showing that from the three chemists Hall had purchased 14 ounces of the drug in about a month. P. W. HuttoD, bookseller, deposed to selling Hall “ Taylor on Poisons ” in June, 1885. The book was produced, and bore the date in Hall’s handwriting “ Dunedin, 1882.” He also bought “ Headland’s Action of Medicines,” and returned it, only the page 3 referring to antimony and neurotics, and partly to astringents, were cut. Hall paid for “ Taylor on Poisons ” at the time, though he had an account.

Mr Joynt provoked some laughter by his cross-examination. The witness said he had some disagreement with Hall about paying an account of.. Mrs Newton’s. Hall said something which he would be afraid to repeat, as it might be contempt of Court. •“ What was it ? ’ said Mr Joynt. “He said ‘ d—— the ladies,’ ” replied the witness.

“ I suppose you never use such an expression,’ 7 said Mr Joynt. “ I should hope not,” replied Mr Hutton. “You are a married man,” said the counsel. “Yes,” said Mr Hutton. “ So I should think,” said Mr Joynt.

Thomas Farrell, bookseller, deposed to selling Hall two dictionaries of domestic medicine on July 23. He was not croS3examined.

Martha Cotter, wife of Edward Cotter, gaoler at Timaru, deposed that on Thursday, after the accused were arrested, Mis Houston wrote a letter and gave it to witness to send to Mr Hall. She wrote another letter on the back of the envelope, and asked witness if she would not mind giviog it to Mr Hall. It was not covered up at all. Witness took it to her husband's private office and gave it to him. The letter began “My dear Tommy Dodd,” and was signed “ Ever yours, Megrum.” To Mr Hay : Merely glanced at the writing. Did not read it carefully. Did not remember that any mention was made- of a letter having, been received from Mrs Hall. A remark about the weather was in a sort of postscript. The name “ Kitty ” was mentioned in the letter. \

Edward Cotter, gaoler at Timaru at. the time the F r i ßonerß were in the gaol, received the letters from his wife. Kept a letter addressed to the accused (Hall) for a few days. Showed it to Mr How ley, Clerk to the Court, and then destroyed it. §He remembered its contents to be, “Dear young Dodd, I should very much li-ke tosee you. %I have not asked them, as it is against the rules, although they are very kind. They must do their duty. What dreadful weather ! If it don’t clear up we must build another ark. Ever yours, Megrums.” “ I have been writing to Kitty this afternoon,” was in a postscript. To Mr Hay : Witness was a pretty old police officer. Could not fay why he destroyed the letter. Did not think the letter important till afterwards. Mias Houston might have received a letter from Mrs Hall. Did not remember. The letter produced by Mr Hay appeared to be ia Mrs Hall’s handwriting, but witness did not remember receiving a letter for Houston. He received many letters from Mrs Hall about that time.

The Attorney-General 6aid he had seventeen more witnesses to call, but he added they

were “ short ones,” and he hoped to finish the examination of witnesses to-morrow.

SIXTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. Christchurch, October 16.

The hope entertained that by making a beginning on Monday the case would be finished aud the jury spared the inconvenience of being locked up on Sunday baß not been realised. When the Court adjourned at halfpast 5 this evening, there still remained three or four witnesses to be examined for the Crown (chiefly, it is believed, for the purpose of proving that antimony is not used in photography), and Mr Joynt spoke of taking a whole day to address the jury. It has not yet been definitely stated that the defence will call no witnesses, but it is improbable they will do so. However this may be, it is almost a certainty that thev Attorney-General will insist on his right of reply. Sir Robert Stout said he did not intend to make a loDg speech, but experience shows that iatention and practice are not always in harmony with regard to the length of speeches. The Judge’s summing up will no doubt ba a loDg one, and, considering all things, the case will probably last till the middle of the week. The prisoners appeared at times even cheerful, and sometimes smiled at the humor of Mr Joynt, who generally contrives to raise a laugh before he has finished cross examining a witness. The possibility of picking a flaw in the indictment is evidently one of the hopes of the defence. The accused are charged with administering a certain deadly poison called antimony, and Pro’essors Black and Ogston both gave the opinion that the metal antimony is not a poison. It is true Professor Ogston said that antimony was a generic name for the compounds of antimony, which are poisonous, but there is room for two opinions as to the meaning of the word, and the defenco will no\ doubt make the most of this for their benefit. His Honor said that, as at present advised, assuming that tartar emetic is vulgarly known as antimony, that wou'd be sufficient for the purposes of the indictment. The witnesses examined to-day, a digest of whose, evidence is given below, include Drs Hogg and Stacpoole, Messrs Howley and Weels, who were not examine! in the Court below. Dr Richard Bowen Hogg, examined by the Attorney-General, depose! that he was surgeon of Timaru gaol. Saw Hall in gaol first on August 17, aud off and on till August 27. He knew the effect of morphia, and would say that Hall was not suffering from the effects of that on August 15. Before the arrest Hall appeared to be in good health. Had known Hall about seven years altogether. If a person had been in the habit of takiDg much morphia, and suddenly ceased, he would expect great restlessness within 24 hours, also loss of appetite, inability to sleep, probably a sinking feeling, and it might be vomiting and purging. Morphia was not prescribed for Hall in the gaol, but on August 16 a preparation of opium was prescribed for a tendency to diarrbee* by Dc Lovegrove, during witness’ absence. Hall recovered. He told witness he was much better on August 17._ During the next fortnight witness prescribed sleepiog draughts for Hall. There was no difference between him and other prisoners, except that ha was mentally distressed, but, compared with Miss Houston’s, his health was good. His Honor read to the witness from his notes Mrs Hall’s symptoms as described by Dr Mclntyre, and witness said, taking the symptoms as a whole, he did not know of any disease to which ihey could be attributed. He attributed them to irritant poisoning, as by antimony, arsenic, or colchicum. It was usual to use the phrase poisoniDg by antimony. He knew the book on medicine and toxicology by Woodman and Liddy. It was recognised in the profession as a good book, and he would not be surprised that the book spoke of poisoning by antimony. It was usual to use ths expression respecting preparations of antimony, as it was usual to speak of poisoniDg by lead or. arsenic. Wffien f peaking of the metal, it was usual to call it metallic antimony. To Mr Joynt : Witness first attended Hall in gaol on account of diarrbee *. l)id not prescribe for him, as he had already been prescribed for by Dr Lovegrove, who ordered an astringent mixture containing opium. The medicine would last forty-eight hours if given regularly. The sleeping draught witness prescribed contained bromide of potassium, chloral, hydrate tincture of digitalis, and syrup of orange water. The gaoler had charge of the mixture, containing twenty-four doses, and Hall was to have a dose every night if he felt sleepless. He had attended Hall privately a long time ago for asthma. It was rumortd that he was in the habit of using morphia hypodermically. Believed Hall took his food fairly well while in gaol. There may have been a day or two when he did not take it so well as he did latterly. Had had no personal experience of antimonial poisoning or any sort of "irritant poisoning. Mrs Hall’s pain at the pit of the stomach and vomiting might be attributable to inflammation of the stomach, but the intermission was not attributable to gastritis. There would be similar symptom*, but not intermittent in gastro-enteritis, but the constrictkn of the throat, if it occurred, would pass off directly. Purging was hot inconsistent with the gastroenteritis. There might be bile in dysentery. If a patient had a complication of ailments, which was not a common thinsr, there might be complication of symptoms. Did not know any natural disorder which would include all Mrs Hall’s symptoms. He had consulted Mfoodman and Liddy’s book occasionally, but had not read up antimony in it. If a person were poisoned by one of the salts of antimony, one medical man might say to another there wa3 poisoning by antimony. Poisoniug by any of the antimonial salts would be properly expressed as poisoning by antimony. To Mr Hay : Had attended Mrs Hall with Dr Mclntyre in November last, when she had vomited. The history given to him was that she had been eating some tinned fish which had disagreed with her. The At'o nsy-General : Who told you it was the tinned fish ? Dr Hogg : Hall, the prisoner. In re-examination by the Attorney-General, witness said that if he gave a patient a mixture composed of harmless ingredients mixed with arsenic, and the patient died, witness would say he had been poisoned by arsenic. Dr Stacpoole of Waimate said he was called in consultation with Dr Mclntyre, on Mrs Hall, on July 28th. He was a friend of the

Hall family. He examined Mrs Hall, and was told her symptoms by herself. Found no organic disease present, but she had an abscess in the breast at the time. Witness thought there was considerable want of blood, that the brain was exhausted, and that vomiting arose from loss of nervous power. Witness stayed, at Hall’s house all night. Saw Miss Houston, but gave her no directions about the medicine. It would not have been professional for him to have given direction*, aa Dr Mclntyre was in charge of the patient. It was false that he had told Miss Houston to give the medicines. To Mr Joynt : Hall behaved as a husband might be expected to do under the circumstances. Witness had heea telegraphed for by Dr Mclntyre, and also by Hall. To Mr. Hay : He did not say anything specifically to’Miss Houston that she was to administer the powders, but she might have construed it so when he was speaking to several persons in the dining-room. He knew Mrs Ellison was the nurse, smd he would have been most careful not to have interfered with the nurse, for he knew nurses’ tempers in general. When the inflammation of Mrs Hall’s breast was acute it might increase the vomiting. Had known a good vomit to relieve inflammation. Had given small doses (about a grain) of the much- dispised tartar emetic to pro luce vomiting. Thomas Howley, Clerk of the Court at Timaru, said he knew Hall, who was a member of the South Canterbury Harriers, with which he was out the day before his arrest. Saw Hall at the Club billiaid room playingat pool that day. He seemed in good spirits, and left about half-past 6. He remembered Mr Cotter, the gaoler at Timaru, showing him a letter shortly after the arrest ; it began—- “ My dear Tommy Dodd,” and concluded—- « E,ver yours, Megrims.” Witness deposed to the care takeD of the exhibits that were left in his charge and kept in a strong room at the Timaru Court-house till they were sent to Christchurch. To Mr Hay : Had not seen Hall sing “ Tommy Dodd ” in character. Did not know that it was his stock or “ star ” song. Edward George Kerr, proprietor of the South Canterbury Times, deposed that on August 5 he was in Hall’s office. Hall telephoned to his house aud asked “Megrims” to put away a decanter of wine left in her room. Hall explained that he had doctored it with some stuff from the chemist’s over the way to (catch a servant. To Mr Joynt : Hall was fidgettiog about at the time, but he usually bad a fidgetty manner. It v did not seem to witness that there was anything specially guilty about the circumstance. Benjamin Edward Hibbard, storekeeper, Timaru, and Thomas Peters and Andrew Avison, two of his employes deposed to the sale of a tin of kerosene to Hall on August 2. The tin wa3 sent to his office wrapped up in brown paper, instead of beum sent to his house as was usually done. Mr Hibbard, cross-ex-amined by Mr Joynt. said that Hall used to lodge at his father’d house at one time. Believed he used morphia for injections for sciatica. Usually there was a case of kerosene a month sent to Hall’s in winter. Witness sold Hall a patent “ air-lamp,” which would consume a little more kerosene than an ordinary lamp. Charles Aloysins Wilson remembered Avison leaving a parcel like a tin of kerosene, done up. in paper, at Hall’s office. Kerosene was not commonly U3ed in the office. Hall insured his furniture, aud effects at Woodlands in the Imperial Company for £6OO, and the insured house for £575 in favor of Captain Cain’s executors. Hall was not cne of the executors. James Forbes, plumber, and Dennis Wren had been in the garret at Woodlands, but had never seen more than a hucketiul of rubbish Jeanie Turnbull, domestic servant, Dunedin, was employed by Hall from November, 1885, till May last, at Compstall, Hall’s former residence, and Woodlands. Hall and Miss Houston appeared to be very friendly. Heard him call her Megrims openly before his wife, and she,called him Tom, but not always. Had seen Hall go to Miss Houston’s bedroom at Woodlands, in the evening, after dinner, while Mrs Hall was ill. From all she saw, he might have left the room immediately. Hall went to Miss Houston’s room at Compstall in the morning when Mrs Hall was not up. He knocked at the door, and then opened the door and went in. Mrs Hall could have heard him knocking had she been awake. This occurred twice or thrice. To Mr Joynt : Mrs Hall used to call Houston Meg aad Miss Houston. Hall used to call bar Megrims and Miss Houston. Never quarrelled with Miss Houston. Was good friends with her. Once Miss Houston locked the dairy up. His Honor : Any cats about ? Witness : It was to keep us from getting the cream. Miss Houston took charge of the dairy at Woodlands, and kept the key. Wit-, ness only got skim milk till she spoke to Mr Hall, when she got new milk. Mr Joynt : Who milked the cow ? Witness : The boy Wilson. Mr Joynt : Could you not manage to get a mug from him on the quiet ? Laughter followed, aud witness’ reply (was not audible. The crovs-examination was continued, aud, iu reply to further questions, witness said that Hall and Mrs Hall Dever quarrelled, and feemed to live happily together. Mrs Hall could have heard Hall and Miss Houston taking together in the latter s room. Mi 3 Hall was in her room suffering from a cold; Hall was speaking to Miss Houston in a loud voice for about a minute. To Mr Hay : There was no key to the door of Miss Houston’s room. Mrs Hall as well as Miss Houston wore a dressing-gown in the morning. Never knew Miss Houston do any cooking. Hall did not call her Megrims when she first came. Had not heard Hall siog “ Tommy Dodd,” though she would know the soDg if she heard it. Mary HasseD, a domestic servant, at present employed by Mrs Hall, had been at Woodlands, since May last. Was the only domestic servant at the time of the arrest. Never put anything into the garret, or saw anyone else put anything in. Found a tin of kerosene thereafter the arrest. Nuree Ellison used to look after Mrs Hall at night. In the morning Miss Houston brought her a cup of tea. Hall generally took bread first to her, sometimes Miss Houston. Never heard Miss Houston call Hall Tom. Heard him call her Megrims. The food for Mrs Hall was cooked in a white enamelled saucepan. About

a week after the child was born, some oysters were brought on two days—June 25 aud 26. The oysters were opened by the fishmonger. Witness and the boy, John Wilson, ate some, and felt no ill effects. On tli* second night Hall took Miss Houston to the Volunteer ball.. Remembered Miss Houston dressing for the ball. She came into the dining-room and asked Hall to tighten her stays. Had seen Hall go into Miss Houston’s room. Saw her go into his room ia a dressing gown between 7 and 8 a.tn. Sihe had no tea with her. Remembered answering the telephone about a week before the arrest, and hearing Hall’s voice she believed sayinj, “Is that you Megrims ?” Witness replied no, and weut and fetched Miss Houston. Never remembered drinking wne or spirits in Hall’s house, except one glass given by Mrs Ellison, and another by Mrs Hall when the baby was christened.

To Mr Joynt : Smelt no kerosene in the garret on the night of the airest when witness was in the adjoining room. Mrs Hall reminded witness of the oysters since the case in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Did not know the day of the month to-day, yet remembered it was June 25th and 26th when the oysters came. Miss Houst >n was a girl of a very bold manner, and witness never thought much of her. Heard that Miss Houston had said that witness drank. That did not help witness to think better of her.

Henry John LeCren. deposed that he had formerly employed Mary HasseD, and was going on to give evidence as to her good character when Mr Joynt objected that evidence as to the character of a witness was not admissible. ’

The Attorney-General only tecderel the evidence. He did not press it, and his Honor ruled it inadmissible.

Thomas Wells, billiard-marker at the South Canterbury Billiard Club, of which Hall was a member, said that Halt was a pretty constant attendant. He was there on the Wednesday before his arrest from 6.10 to 6.30, and wa3 playing again the some night from 10..30 till the room closed at 11 o’clock. On the Thursday before the arrest he was playing pool. Witness saw him put a 2oz phial into the fire. He did not put it in in an ordinary .way, but shoved it well in. The cork flew, and someone asked what he had there. Hall said “it was one of Mr Wakefield’s sleeping draughts.” The Court adjourned at 5 p.m. to 10 a.m. on Monday, Every evening, as the accused leave the courthouse, a large crowd watches their departure, but as they are driven away in covered cabs the majority of the sightseers are disappointed. A few groans are usually given as the prisoners come out of the Court, and this evening the police had to exert themselves to keep back some members of the crowd more anxious than the rest, who crushed against the eab which Miss Houston, was entering. ; - ' .

SEVENTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. Christchurch, October 18.

In the poisoning case the trial is drawing to a close. The caße for the Crown closed this morning, and the speeches were commenced this afternoon. The Attorney-General has waived his right of reply, so that there will be one speech less to occupy the Court, and Mr Joynt had got about half through his addres- when the Court adjourned at 5.20 p.m. He says he will take about another hour to-morrow. Mr Hay wili follow. His Honor will no doubt give an exhaustive summing up, and then the patient and long-suffering jurors will have the case left with them to perform their last duty of finding a verdict. The Court was crowded thi3 morning when the accused took their accustomed seats in the dock, and the proceedings commenced. The Attorney-General called two photographers, Peter Scbourup and Eden George, both of whom deposed that no preparation of antimony was used in photography. In answer to Mr Hay, Mr Schourup said that a large number of chemicals and deadly poisons were used in photography, and the non-use of antimony was a matter of expert knowledge. W. A. Symes was called as an expert, and stated that antimony was a-'poison, and he defined a poison to be any substance which, when introduced into the system, endangers life by its chemical or physiological action on the organs of the body. He described the action of antimony on the system, and said he would expect to find it in the liver, kidneys, vomi l -, excreta, and uriae. In tartar emetic antimony was the poisonous cem6nt, and if a person died of taking tartar emetic it would be correct to say lie had been poisoned with antimony. This witness had apparently been called by the Crown in anticipation of Mr Joynt’s attack on the wording ot the indictment. Mr Joynt subjected the witness to a long cross-questioning, in which he chaffed -him with reference to his unsuccessful endeavors to abate a smell at a bone manure factory of which the doctor had the managemeat, and when the witness hesitated* a little in answering a question the learned counsel put him on his metal, as an expert, by wanting to know if be could not “ make a shot at it,.’-, or inquiring-“ are you speaking as a scientist or merely as one of the vulgar public. The doctor, however, came out of the ordeal very well. He admitted that he was as a rule retained by the Crown as an expert witness. He did not agree with Professor Black that “ poison ” was a vulgar term. Antimony, according to its primary meaning, was a pt-isoD, but the metal itself he did not think would be poisonous unless inhaled in a state of vapor. If a person were poisoned by nitrate of silver he would Dot consider it would be correct to say he waß poisoned by a poison called silver. This answer gave Mr Joynt Eome hope, but the doctor crushed it bv rejoining that, though nitrate of silver was poisonous, he considered the poisoning would be dus more to the nitric acid than the silver. The physiological action of a poison, the doctor said, was the effect produced oj the functions of the body, as the action directly produced by morphia. The therapeutical action of drugs was the way they acted on the body in reference to disease. The chemical} action of poisons meant altering the chemical constitution of the substance with which they come in contact, as the action on the coats of the stomach by corrosive. sublimate. Mechanical action would be the influence of the poison on a substance without altering ita physical constitution, such a 3 would be produced if a person swallowed a pint of powdered glas3. 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 o£ a metal. The .expert evidence, he contended, showed that antimony was not a poison. What was spoken of as a deadly poison h*d bean shown to be something entirely innocuous. He went on X 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 Professor Black and X>r Ogston was that the poisonous substance theiein was cxide of antimony, and this was a different substance from antimony. It could no more be described as antimony than nitrate of silver could be called silver. In the Poiaons Act, 1871, tarter emetic was mentioned, bat not antimony. He quoted the dictionary definition to show that antimony was a metal. This was also clear from the evidence. It was therefore ambiguous to apply the word to any thing else. If it was true that it was also proper to call a salt of the metal antimony, the term in the indictmeut was vague and uncertain, as being too general. Hr Symes had said that it would be equally Irue to speak of any of the combinations as antimony as well as the oxide of antimony, so that if a person were charged with poisoning another by antimonv, and were acquitted or convicted, he hud no possible means of pleading a former trial for poisoning by the oxide. His Honor : The test would be, was he in jeopardy with regard to any form of antimony. Mr Joynt : I contend that the AttorneyGeueral means oxide of antimony. His Honor : In the evidence, but nor, in the indictment. The whole question is. doss the word antimony apply to the tort ? If the indictment is good there is sufficient to answer a subsequent indictment with regard to any form of aut.imouy. Mr Joynt cited vol. 2, Chifcfcy’s Criminal Haw, 168, to insist upon the necessity that the accused should know what crime ha was charged with, so as to be able to meet a subsequent indictment of a similar nature. jdis Honor would not stop the case, but would take the authority on the other side. Sir Soberfc Stout contended that it was not necessary to specify the poison. Is w- uld have been sufficie'ut to have said “ poison unknown.” He would go further, arid show that to allege antimony and prove arsenic was sufficient. It had been held that if the kind of death by one sort of poison were specified and you proved another, that was sufficient. In Coke’s Institutes, third passage, cb. 62, there was Sir Thomas Ovs-rbury’s case. It was then resolved tba", the proof of any other poison was sufficient ; so here, the substance of the indictment was not the pison, but whether there had been an attempt to poison. He cited a number of other cases to x show that the' real- question \ was, Did . the acoused administer poison with intent to ’ kill ? If the antimony was the. poisonous ingredient that was sufficient. Tne doctors all avowed that such was the case. Mr Joynt’s proposition was that the word antimony was too general, because it included various forms of poison ; but he submitted that in all those forms the poisonous thing was antimony. That was what was looked for iu the analysis. As to what that was mixed with was of no cousequence. He submitted that the Crown had proved what was averred in the indictment. Ail that the indictment need have stated was the popular phrase. There was no need for toe chemical terms, otherwise tartar emetic ’’ itself would not be correct, as that was not the chemical name. If the antimony were not present there would be no poison. Mr Joyct having replied, hl3 Honor held that there was a distinction s\3 contended by Mr Joynt. A 3 at present advised he was satisfied that there was nothing to make the indictment bad; that on the face of it there wa3 not a variance, and that there was evidence to show an attempt to kill by poison, and that that poison was antimony. He would not say at once whether or not he would reserve the point. At present there was sufficient to go to the jury. IE he hereafter considered the question one that ought to be reserved, he was not prepared to say that the question of amending the indictment was not arguable. After argument, his Honor said he would not

say be would at preseat refuse to reserve the point. Mr JoyDt called no evidence. Mr Hay called witnesses as to Miss Houston’s character.

l>r. Key worth, examined by Mr Hay, said : lam a surgeon. I have been at Napier during the last twenty-one months. I am a Doctor of Medicine of HondoD, and was at one time Professor of Physiology at Birmingham. I have known Misß Houston ail her life, and was present at her birth in Birmingham. -• I was the ordinary medical attendant of family there. I was so until the spring of 1881. I was so for 80 years. Her father was the representative of ona of the largest Burton Breweries. I have known Mis 3 Houston since she came out to New Zealand. She came out at my advice and by my sanction to Wellington. I saw her frequently at Wellington and until she went to Tima.ru. I have had opportunities of forming opinions as to her character. - ■ ■-. V

Eis Honor : That is to say, the estimation in which she is held by others. • Witness : I saw her frequently nursmg her mother and brothers and sisters. I saw her frequently la the house of business in which the was employed. Her conduct was irreproachable in every respect,'and kindly. She was a cheerful, bright girl—not gay ; such a girl as you would expect to find in a Scotch grave family. Her family was a Scotch grave one. Theie was nothing in the least frivolous in her disposition. She was truthful. To His Honor : I know nothing as to her want of good feeling or cruelty. The Kev W. H. West, who had known Miss Houston in Wellington ; Mrs Kermansen, matron of the Wellington Hospital, where Miss Houston had been nurse, Mr G. O. Mathias, of Timaru, whose wife had employed Miss Houston as her companion—all gave her an excellent character. Dr Guthrie, of Christchurch, stated that he had examined Miss Houston medically, and found all the evidences of virginity. The Attorney-General gave up his right of reply, hut said he did so with some hesitation, for fear of prejudicing future Attorney- General’s ; but he did not want the prisoners to be placed in any other position than that in which they would have been if one of the Crown Prosecutors had ap-

peared. In summing up for the Crown, lie said the jury was aware that the case divided itself into two branches, as it affected the two accused. Taking the first, the case of Miss Houston, he ttought it light to ask on behalf of tbe prisoners, as well as against them—are the facts consistent with guilt and are they consistent with innocence? If the jury thought them equally consistent with either guilt or innocence, then -they must give a verdict of acquittal- Ho wished to strain nothing against the prisoners, for be felt that was the imperative duty of the prosecution. He admitted at once that the case against Miss Houston was not like that agaicst Hail, though if the jury found that she aided Hall and was conscious of what Hall was doing, they must bring her in an accessory before the fact. Com’ng to the oyster-, these had been bmnghfc to the house on Janes 25th and 2-;th. Toe first, given by the uuree, did Mrs Hall good. On June 26 ;h the oysters were brought in for dinner, and some were taken by Miss%ouston and Hall, and, after removal from the dining-room, by the boy and Mary Hassen, who suffered no ill effects. Considering the effect, upon Mrs Hall of tbe four oysters, they must have b-.eu poisoned, and poi-oned by either the male oi the female accused. If the jury came to the conclusion that Hal! pois-.uied them, then they would have to say if Hall could do it without Mi.-s Houston’s knowledge. Miss Houston had brought them into ths bedroom. The jury vvou'd remember that he had opined that tffire was no criminal familiarity between Hail and Miss Houston ; bat they were on very friendly terms. The lacing of the stays, and the f- ci of Hall coming into her room, were facts considerably at variance with her training as detailed by Dr Key worth. The jury would remember that according to the evidence she was in tfce habit of making Hall's bed. Now Miss Houston must have seen j Taylor’s work, which was on the dressing table, and with her experience as a nurse, how was it. then, that she volunteered an excuse for Hall, and an excuse which Hail never made himself ? Then, as to the poisoned wine being found, why did not Miss Houston say, “ Oh, she might have taken some of the poisoned wine ?’’ There was also the question of the writing to Dr Stacpooie and volunteering to give the medicine. Dr Stacpooie was positive that he had not told her that the nurse was to be interfered with. Then, if Mr Broham wavto be believed, Hall said that be alone had anything to do with this. A sharp, intelligent girl would have seen that this was a confession of guiir. Then Constable Hicks said that Hall said, “ You are quite safe,’’ &c. ; so that before she wro.'e the letter to Hall the had heard him confess that he could not possibly get off. Yet this girl of good cnaracter thought proper to communicate with a man guilty of so diabolical a crime. It be said that Hall had said she was not guilty. The jury could, of course, consider this, bat it might mean, “ Keep any knowledge -you have from the police, because you are perfectly safe.” Both these statements might be used both for and against the female prisoner. The terms ou which the £wo were liviug must be considered. There was also her conduct in endeavoring to assist Hall in getting rid of a proof of his guilt. This was no sudden impulse, because she desisted immediately she heard the footsteps of the constable approaching. He (the Attorney-General) again cautioned the jury that, if the 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 overawed her and induced her to wiuk at his doing,but, this was forthe jury to fully consider. He would say no more about her, but pass on to the case of the prisouer Hall. The firmh position and his own position of hopeless insolvency bad been proved, eo also that he had recourse to forgery. Then at to the motive with which the aim seemed to have been planned—one insurance far £3OOO had been effected for the large premium of £B2 a year. The other policy was for only seven years, the premium being ouly£3B per annum. The prisoner told Mr Davidson in Augu-t that his wife was getting better, yet he knew she was rapidly getting worse. The gain to him by his wife’s death had been proved to be £9OOO. £IO,OOO or £12,000, Coming now to Hall’s behavior :—ln cross-examina-tion it had been brought out that he was anxious for his wife, and was kind to her ; but the man who could be guilty of forgery could surely be capable of hyp jerisy. A man capable of planning his plau would be capable of so conducting himself as to appear to tbe public as kind to his wife. Gf course Hall had not ventured to object to, a consultation, for such objecdou would have at once raised suspicion. Mrs Eldson had certainly shown no bias against Hall, but she had said that Ball told her to wash everything after she bad given anything to Mrs Hall, in fact that all record of what had been given should be obliterated so far as the vessels were concerned. Practically, only two examinations of what ( passed from Mra Hall were known to Hall. After the first he mu3t have laughed at tbe doctors for being so completely off the scent - . He was careful to ask what had been found. The only other examination of which he knew was that after the third consult- Uion. Tbeo it would be noticed that Hail showed great anxiety to make friends with Dr Drew, askirg bim to dinner, and offering to waik home with him. All these facts bo doubt the other side would say showed Lis anxiety about the health of his wife, but did it not also prove his anxiety to find out whether anything had been discovered? Now he would come to the poisoned wine. Did ths jury believe this va< done to prevent Mary Hassen from drinking ? The evidence showed that all the wine was locked in the cupboard, and that Hall had tbe keys. Did the jury believe that, instead of getting rid of a drunken servant by discharging her or teaching her a lewo.i bv putting jalap into the wine, he would absolutely poison the wine ? The evidence showed that Mary Hassen was of a temperate character. He asked the jury to believe that all this s‘ory 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 her ? One of these near her (Hall). There was proof that he had purchased poison in large quantities. He had preteuded that he used antimony for cigarettes, but the cigarettes bad been examined and no antimony could be found in them. The doctors believed that Mrs Hall was being

poisoned in hor food, and so ordered that she should take nothing but ice by her mouth, and that she should be kept alive by injections. They did not believe that they were dealing with an adep't who would poison the injections. Yet the brandy to be injected was found to be poisoned by colchicum ; and that brandy was given to the nurse by H ill, who had not used antimony here, because he knew that it was almost impossible to give it in brandy, and that it would precipitate in a white powder. He asked tbe jnry to believe that Hall had ponred a large quantity of the tartar emetic in the cup of ice water. Fortunately the dose was eo large that Mrs Hall’s stomach rejected it. Why was Hall on the Sunday of his arrest carrying powdere 1 tartar emetic in one pockot, and tartar emetic dissolved iu a phial in the other ? Coming now to the incidents of the arrest. Hall had pretended to be sick so as to get the constable out of the room in order that he might make away Yvith tbe damaging evidence in his pocket. He made two statements. He said that whatever he had done was his own doing. That was a confession that he had dene something. So also, in Mr Hicks’ presence, he had said that he could not got off. Were those confessions to count for nothing? There was tbe evidence of Mrs Hamerslev, showing beyond doubt that the tea was poisoned. She did not say who told her not to take the tea, Hall or Houston, but in any case the tea made this lady very sick. A good deal had been said about Halt’d injectiou of morphia. The evidence showed no mental effects caused by the sudd-u cessation of the habitual use of morphia. Were the jury to say that he was to be acquitted because his moral was dulled ? On the whole the evidence had shown that Hall had premeditated the murder of his wife tor months. He might have decided to wait till the child was bom, but there was no getting over the fact that he purchased poison largely, Uiat Mrs Hall suffered from poisoning with this poison, aud that Hall had made such arrangements as secured his peouuiaiy gain on the death of his wife. Then a* to the plan for burning down the building. What had the prisoner done ? He had purchased the kerosene and had it sent to the effi.ee ; no doubt had taken it horns and up to tbe garret, only approachable by himself. All the train was laid for the destruction of every proof as soon as fcis wife was dead. Unasked by the executors of Captain Gain he makes Mr Wi'son in sure the building and the furniture, himself insuring his own furniture, so that he could lose nothing by the fire. If the witnesses were to be believed, then the jury must believe that the poisoning had beeu deliberately jlmnel. There were Headlam’s book with only certain pages cut, Taylor’d book with the name and the date of 1882 and Dunedin, though it was bought in Timaru in 1885. Through the study of these books Hall, no doubt, laid his plans. When arrested he did not protest bis innocence. He gave no excuse for having the drugs. Ho .admitted that no one else had anything to do with it. The jury could come to no other conclusion than that Hall had deliberately planned the poisoning. So far as the witnesses were concerned, they had testified frankly that Dr Mclntyre had throughout acted as an honorable and courageous man should do under specially difficult circumstances. The case was now iu the jury’s hands. The Attorney-General had not gone into details, but had pointed out only the salient points. If the jury could say that the ice-water etc, cou’.d be explained on any theory of innocence, they should acquit ; otherwise, to acquit the accused would be infictiog a blow on the administration of justice in the Colony from which it could never recover. He had every confidence in the result. Mr Joynt wished he could promise to successfully emulate tbe terseness of the Attorney-General ; he would have to ask the jury to bear with him at considerably greater length. The Attorney-General had had an opportunity of addressing tbe jury, but he (Mr Joynt) had now the first chance of commenting on the evidence. At the name time he would be careful not to weary the jury by reading any part of the evidence. Before speaking on the evidence,, however, he asked the jury, if possible, to cast off their minds anything like an impression unfavorable to his client which might have been forced upon them by the way iu which tbe case had been brought before the public. Ho must say that, while satisfied with the personnel of the jury, he must beg them to judge by the evidence alone, and not to be influenced by any prejudice from anything heard outside, either as to this case or any other. There was one matter which he thought it most deplorable should have come before the public ou tbe eve of this trial. His Honor : I quite agree with you as to its being reported, not asi cs being done. Mr Joynt: This was done at such a time and uader such circumstauces as could not be otherwise than most prejudicial to tbe prisoners. It was, therefore, all the more important that the jury should force from them all impressions thus caused. As to the female prisoner. He was glad that she was to be defended by another gentleman, as his feelings, not having the cool temper of a Caledonian, would consist'so much of indignation that he could not do the case that justice which the greater calmness -of hia learned friend would ensure. He would first call attention to the indictment, Of all the indictments he had ever seen on such a charge this was the most utterly meagre, shallow, and unsatisfactory ; and he would remtud the jury that they were bound to go by the indictment. The indictment did not say that between certain dates poison had been adminis'ered at various times, but charged one act alone. To that alone the Crown was confined, and all the other acts shown iu the evidence were admissible only to show motive and intention. He submitted that the jury must confine themselves to the charge as laid, “ That on August 15th the prisoners, or either of them, administered the poison.” His Honor : I cannot agree with that. They could prove administering at any time up to that date. The jury could Betect any one of the acta. It was not necessary to prove the date as laid.

Mr Joyut contended that the only act that could be referred to was that laid.

Hia Honor would tell the jury that it would be enough if they were satisfied of any one act, aud that the other acts wore only necessary to prove intention. He did not wish to embarrass Mr Joynt. Mr Joynt continued, speaking at great length. He submitted that - neither the firm

of Hall and Meason nor Hall privately were indebted to tbe bank for any amount not secured. Of course the firm fell when the financial partner was in dock under a charge of attempted murder. It was not clear that Hall had committed forgeries. The banker only believed that Hall had 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 endeavored to poison his wife after her child was born, when be would thereby clearly have loßt the inheritance, which would have passed to the child under Captaiu 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 such a time. Miss Houston’s and Hall’s expressions at the time might be explained. It had not been Droved 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. There were also the facts in the evidence for the Crown that Hell had bought nitre aud stramomium seeds, which he had been advised to U3e in tbe cigarettes He ridiculed the idea that there was anything like proof that Hall had intended to burn down the bouse. Was it likely that a maninteodiug to burn down a place would leave things soaked with kerosene in a bag ? Would he not spread theta about? Neither Inspector Broham nor Detective Kirby on toe night of the arrest smelt any kerosene, though they put their heads into the garret. Nor di 1 Mary Hassen, who was close to the garret door next day. It wa3 not found till towards the eud of the first week after the arrest, aud be asked them to believe that it was not Hall who had put the kerosene there. As to Mra Hauaerslej’d sickness alter drmkiDg the tea, it had never occurred to her to suspect that ter sickness was caused by tbe tea till after the arrest, when people were casting about for evidence against the accused. It was childish r .asoning to say that, because Mrs Hall was sick the night after eating the 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 that be had not the least idea what Hall purchased tartar emetic and colchicum 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 expert evidence, and wanted to know why, if antimony was present, the chemists had not extracted the metal. - They had said that they got all the colors of the rainbow, and tbe jury were asked to believe that this shotted the presence of antimony. One of the tests Professor Black had disparaged himself, and he did not rely entirely on any one of them separately. Professor Black had said that Taylor,a celebratedchemistof 40years ago, would be laughed at by chemists now; and probably Professor Black and Mr Ogsfcon would themselves be laughed at 40 years hence if they were remembered. Chemistry was a progressive science, and perhaps these tests that were relied on now would not be considered conclusive iu a few years’ time. It was for the jury to say whether they were satisfied with ths expert evidence as conclusive evidence of the presence of antimony in what came from Mrs Hall and in the ice-water. The learned couoEel canvassed the evidence with reference to the administration of the ice-water, submitting that there was no evidence that Hall had administered the ice-water from the cap to Mrs Hall. The contents of the jug, which was in the room at the time, had not been analysed, for tbe coutents might have been changed before the jug was given to the police. The evidence was entirely adverse to the contention of the Crown that Mrs Hall had drunk from the cup in the presence of Hall. It was remarkable that the Crown had not called Mrs Hall, and he contended that it was incumbent on the Crown to have put Mrs Hall iu the witness-box to tell her osn story, from beginning to end. The glimpses they got of Mrs Hall’s mind showed that Bhe was moat anxious to tracs out thi3 crime,. which, she believed, had been committed against herself. The Crown were to blame for not having produced Mrs Hall. Her health did not prevent it, and she was the only person who could tell what actually took place between herself and her husband on the Luuday morning when it was alleged the poison was administered. It was another curious circumstance that Dr Lovegrove was not called, though he was senior consultant. On August 12th, the evidence showed that colchicum was not administered. If Hall had poisoned tbe brandy, would he have attempted to drink a glass of it on the night of the arrest when the Inspector prevented him? AgaiD, the jury were asked to believe that Hall had poisoned a decaliter of wine for his wife to drink. It was a pure assumption on the Attornsy-Goneral’s part that the wine referred to in Hall’s conversation with Mr Kerr was poisoned at all. Hall might have got plenty of other things from the chemist besides antimony, aud though there was no proof that tli3 servant was addicted to drink, it was proved tnat she was suspected by Mrs Hall, and it was reasonable to suppose that Hall suspected her. Hall’s 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 wa3 not concluded when the Court adj ruined. LAST DAY. HALL FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED. MISS HOUSTON ACQUITTED. (united press association.) Chkistohukch, October 19. The trial came to a close sooner than was expected. When the Court opened this morning Mr Joynt resumed his address. . Hs began by asking the Judge to direct the jury that poison could not have been administered unless taken into the stomach, but his

Honor declined to do bo, saying that the proposition was not relevant to this case. The learned counsel continued his address at great length, urgiug every possible point in favor of hia client. While admitting that appearances were against Hall, he asked the jury to look below the surface and consider whether, from the general conduct of Hall to his wife, it was likely he would attempt to poison her. He again commented on the fact that Mrs Hall had not been called, and said as the case was full of mystery and doubt it was the duty of the jury to acquit Hall. Mr Hay followed, and a 9 the speech wa» his maiden effort, it had been the subject of much expectation. He displayed much rhetorical ability and a complete grasp of the case as affecting Miss Houstbn, arid his address was the subject of many congratulations. He submit!el that the case against Misi Houston had completely broken down. So far from there being evidence of guilt, there was conclusive evidence of her innocence ; but acquittal would not kill the tongue of slander. Miss Houston must go forth without a stain or blemish on her character. He called attention to the fact that when she entered Hall’s household iu February last she was * Mrs Hall’s, but astraoger to Hall. The motive alleged against her at first, namely, affection for Hall, had been abandoned by the Crown, who now alleged that Hall’s motive had been relief from pecuniary embarrassment, which was not known at the time of Miss Houston’s arrest. The Crown, however, had not released Miss Houstor, but they had maligned her character and brought two girls to support their purpose. Still, he must acknowledge that ia this Court the AttorneyGeneral had put the case with admirable fairness as regards Miss Houstou. The counsel then proceeded to analyse the evidence. As to the oysters—that was the only occasion on which sickness had followed anything administered by Miss Houston, and the jury could have no doubt that the first explanation given by tbe nurse, that the patient had too many oysters was the true one. As to the ice-water, the evidence was clear. Miss Houston did not have access to the bedroi m till the discussion as to the nasty taste was going on. Her remark to the nurse that Dr Stacpooie had said she was to administer the medicines was said by Mi 33 Houston in a spirit of girlish fun. Air Mathias had said that Miss Houston had a keen sense of the humorous, aud it was natural that such a girl would have led the old lady on to fume at her prerogatives being interfered with. As to the telephone incident, Miss Houston undoubtedly believed that the wine had been doctored for the servant, and in that pause before Hall said through the telephone. “ Bat it does matter,” she had evidently said “It does not matter. 5 ’ If shs had been ~anaccomplice would it have been necessary for . Hall to repeat his warning ? As to the sickness of Mrs . Hameraley, no one tried to prevent her from taking the cup of tea. Her sickness was evidently the' result of the htaiache she had had in the morning. Great weight could not be attached to the statements of Hall as affecting Miss Houston. But the jury had the fact that be had declared her innocent. With respect to her query at the time of the arrest as to antimouy being used in photography, it was natural that in her innocence she should coonect the name of the poison with Hall’s amateur photography, in which she would no doubt know he used poisons. Then there was her alleged interference when Inspector Broham seized Hall’s hands. Inspector Broham could not say that he had felt her Ee'ze him or saw her seize Hall, and there was no escape from the conclusion—she had done neither. Her room showed no preparations in anticipation of a fire. Her trinkets and property, which were insured, had not been collected nor disturbed. The explanation of the letter was that Mias Houston had asked for only one sheet of paper to write to Mrs Hall, and she wrote to her. The kindness of her heart led her,'’ as Mrs Hall’s husband’s best friend, to write to him. The name “ Tommy Dodd ” had occurred to her. as a contrast to hi 3 present depressed condition. As to th 9 matter of the stays, the fact was that she was in her ball dress, and Hall had perhaps fastened the back of it. The servant’s evidence was that she had her di»?s on, aid she would also have the body on with it. Mary Hassen’s assertion that it was the Btays was merely malice and vindictiveness. It was absurd and contemptible that to much had beenmadeof the visits to Hall’s bedroom. It was just an instance of the fact that the innocent and pure-minded were less careful of putting themselves in compromising situations than prudes. After some further remarks on matters of detail, Mr Hay concluded by saying that M* 33 Houston had been proved never to have known of tbe crime 'she had been charged with, and it was dreadful to think of what she must have endured during tbe last few months. He asked not only for a verdict of acquittal, but for one that would vindicate her character.

His Honor said he must direct the jury to find a verdict and nothing else. Mr, Hay concluded his address by an impassioned appeal to the jury. Hia Honor, in summing up, referred-to the responsibilities of the jury to their country and - the accused. He regretted that an over auxiety j to gratify morbid curiosity had led to the publication of certain statements, but he was sure tbe jury would not be influenced by anything they had heard elsewhere. He thought it a pity that the indictment had not been drawn in a different manner, which would have obviated long arguments, but he had come to the conclusion that, in vulgar parlance, and in the speech of- scientific persons, poisoffing by tartar emetic was called poisoniag by antimony, and so he directed the jury. His Honor then went on to say that if the scientific evidence was correct, there was no doubt antimony had been administered ; and then went ou to give a brief history of the case, warning the jnry to be thoroughly satisfied of guilt before convicting either of the occusad. He specially referred to tbe apparent absence of motive on Miss Houston’s part. The jury retired at 3.10 p.m., and after an absence of seven minutes returned with a verdict of guilty as regards Hall, aud not guilty as regards Miss Houston. The Foreman said tbe jury wished to say that Miss Houston left the Court without the slightest stain on her character.

His Honor asked if there was any other charge against Miea Houston, and, on hearing

that there was not, at once ordered her ais-' The Attorney-General said that there were other charges against Hall. Mr Joynt submitted that the verdict could ,not His ground for dciog so was that jthe order of the Court for the special jury rißummoned them to try a charge of administering poison, whereas they had found a ■general verdict. ’ , His Honor said this was not a ground for arrest of judgment. Mr Joynt could for a writ of error in fact. Addressing t prisoner, his Honor said Prisoner at the bar— After a long and patient investigation the -jury have come to a .conclusion wmch at once satisfies the demands of justice and protects the innocence of a persou accused, not proved guilty. The, crime < of wlhich ; you have been convicted is one of the most in famous that one has ever read of la the history of criminal proceedings. A■ y°®?B recently married to a young wife who had fust become the mother of his child ; a woman 4hom you treated to the worlor’s eye with the .considerationand respeot that were due to her the weman whose bedside you visited every £„„7»“with . d,.dly ,• f «7““ whom vou saw dying, as I may call lt ’ Z inches,' stepping <m day after day and hour after hour to that grave to which your mten tfons consigned her, getting for yourself the oassintr reputation of a kind, considerate, good husband, while all the time of these long montfas-it may be from the very hour you led her to the altar— you have been harming the vi’e thought of seeding her to her tomb. Anything that I could say cannot sufficiently describe = the detestable nature of your Se. There is no excuse whatever, as we have read of in other cases of poisoning, that 4hpre were intrigues or sexual desire, or Sat you are a® man lured on by strong passions. There is nothing of the kind to extenuate the offence. You have been guilty of worse than murder, and compared to this most murders are kind and considerate. In prosecuting your scheme, your murder haß been from week to week.- I am bouud to say, little as I like to speak in strong terms to those who have fallen to tb . lowest depths of degradation, that _ I Lust in justice characterise your crime as it deserves to be characterised, and as an example for the rest of your feUowcoloaists, and I say that you have achieved the distinction of being the vilest of your sex. Among the many cases of murder on record, seldom has a case occurred of so much moral guilt as yours, and had the law not been altered, you would certainly have forfeited your life and there would have been no chance of any commutation of your sentence. The law does not permit me to pass that sentence which would stamp your crime with itß tme character. I pass upon you the heaviest sentence possible—that you be kept in penal servitude for the rest of your natural life* ' At 3.30 p.m. the Court adjourned till Tuea * day The Attorney-General said by that time he would be in a position to say whether or not he would prosecute m the forgery cases.

REMARKS ON THE CASE. Christchurch, October 19. •When it became known in town to-day that the verdict would be delivered this afternoon the public excitement which has folfowed £e tidal, more or less wavering during its eight days’ duration, was at its height. The conclusion was somewhat unexpected for his Honor’s Bumming up lasted only about lu hour and a quarter, white from some hints he had dropped previously it wa3 expected he would take the whole afteruocm. Txow that the case is over, it may not be out of nlace to take a retrospective glance at some sjsre lar ?rs led-e aSk aTd Ch a^rladinST’ of" resource Whfch was at times really astonishing. He was a veteran in armor, and entered th~ contest undaunted, but against his verbal l° p «o tesc uu > . . j ac j; S against which flaw in the indictment. tie pui on a f-nnt and endeavored to disboll, ’evidence of the chemical exeredit ridiculed their analyses. He perts, ff. £or n ot calling Mrs cesßf °i .l ‘ t y a B r,ecial jury had found a general ground thataspeem] y want of able verdict. It was clearly Hall waH convicted. MrHay had a different task in defending Miss 4 tj l Thore were few persons, especially tb'. been heard I. Mi» Hou9to.“s favor, who failed to see what was the dM»oß«.th. At*,-.,-® «»*' l r ’ttaSSf *szp UtiUbl'r rrith» brilliant academical reed, J it remained till to-day to be seen whpr the clever student would give proof becoming the able pleader at the bar. No one who listened to his speech to-day can KoonewniH'" , d case an( j doubt the result He had * B> to the a fair client, has evffientTy mastered the art of C pulHng springs and knows the use of logic vi W,ls fair to develop into a polished a moot.car.fcl aa.l,.i. of f-hT evidence, forgetting not a single point, j c nHv sneaking with evident emotion, an oh T a vonog Lan would be expected naturally to feel in championing the cause of was of Mr Hay had been articled ; and the jury g him what he asked for, a vindication as well aa an acquittal, notwithstanding his Honors remarks that they could ody return a verdiet : for after the verdict was returned the foreman expressed the unanimous opinion ot the jury that Miss Houston’s character was unstained. “ The waiting for the verdict was of short duration. The accused were not kept long in suspense, and M iis Houston, who had borne the ordeal thronghout with wonderful calmness and great nerve, though anxiety had given her face a wan and pinched 7 expression, was once mere a free women. Hall appeared unmoved, and even after that

terrible sentence had been passed upon him, be was observed to speak to his counsel with apparent unconcern. The sentence “ Penal servitude for the re3t of your natural life ” has a more terrible meaning than penal servitude for life, though many persons may not be aware of the distinction. Under the latter sentence the prisoner may be discharged after serving ten or fifteen years,' but under the former he must pass all his life and die in gaol, except, of course, there are some extraordinary circumstances to revert to the trial again. The Attorney-General is too well-known for any comment to be needed as to his style or abilities ; but Mr Hay was no doubt expressing his own candid opinion when he said,'* The Attorney-General’s speech has been a model of fairness.” It is true that the other learned counsel for the defence, who felt that such a remark might influence the jury against his client, uttered a prolonged “ Oh ! oh 1” when Mr Hay said this, leading the latter learned gentleman to add the modification, “As far as my client is concerned,” but these last words were said, as it were, under advice. Sir R. Stout -has no doubt had his own conviction with regard to the guilt or innocence of the accused, and though his evident set purpose was to let the case tell by its own weight, and be judged by the jury in it 3 right aspect, at times one could see the fervor of his convictions showing in his face and speech. The Judge has beeu impartial and patient throughout. A short extract from his summing up will show its bearing. After dealing with various aspects of the case against Hall, bis Honor said that at the time of his arrest he was aware that he had -antimony in bis pockets, and he made an effort to get rid of the contents of his packets. The prompt action of Mr Broham prevented this. Was his conduct that of an iuuccent or of a guilty man ? The next point to be dealt with was his language on his arrest. His anxiety seemed to be that Miss Houston should not be dragged into it. He acted not as a man protesting his innocence, but, when the book on poisons was found said, “T suppose this will tell against tee.” At the watch-house, when the accused apparently knew nothing of the presence o£ Hicks, Hall used language equivalent to “You have nothing to do with it. I shall have a hard fight, but you are all right.” It was for the jury to say if this was the phrase of an innocent man who simply saw the diffi cullies surrounding him. With regard to the supposed attempt at arson, the evidence was probably insufficient to convince the jury. He had serious doubts as to the admissibility of the evidence as bearing upon the death of Mrs Hall. The theory was Ibat the intention was to burn all the evidence of his guilt ; but this appeared to him to be mre ingenious than clearly proved. Altogether the case was too speculative to be of much importance. With regard to Mrs Hamersley and thetea, the jury might dismiss it as being of no value. Mrs Hamersley, during the whole intermediate time, had not attributed her illues3 to the tea until these proceedings were taken. As to the use of morphia, nothing had come out affecting the case one way or another. He now came to the case of Miss Houston. At first it had seemed that some evidence had been sworn to to establish a secret alliance between tbe two accused, which would have been of little avail, except to prove that Hall had a stroDg passion for Miss Houston, and wiohed to get rid of his wife in order to marry her. The very apparent boldness of Miss Houston might well he treated as evidence of an innocent rather than a guiity kind. Had she been an adulteress, would she not have been more careful ? But apart from thia, there was evi-. dence of a remarkable character proving Miss Houston’s innocence. He confessed that he was surprised to find that the line of prosecution had been pursued. If tbe idea of Miss Houstoo, believing that she was to succeed Mrs Hall, were exploded, what possible motive could a young woman with so unspotted a reputation have ? He could see no possible motive.

The jury have had a responsible and tedious duty to perform in keeping their attentian, day after day, on the facts and theories of the ease, and it i 3 no idle thing to say that they deserve the tbaaks of the country. Christchurch, October 20.

A correspondent of the Lyttelton Times this morning suggests getting up a testimonial to Miss Houston, in recognition of the vindication of her character.