THE TIMARU POISONING CASE

New Zealand Mail, Issue 779, 4 February 1887, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE TIMARU POISONING CASE

(UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION. 1 Dunedin, January 27. The trial of Hall for the murder of Captain Cain was resumed to-day. Dr Mclntyre’s cross-examination was continued for about two hours. He admitted that the sickness, exhaustion, and drowsiness of Captain Cain were symptoms consistent with the diseases from which he was suffering, and he came to the opinion when the captain was laid up that the attack would terminate fatally. On re-examination, Dr Mclntyre said that he had not heard anything to change his opinion that the administration of a full dose of antimouy to a person in Captain Cain’s condition must cause a depression and accelerate death. Dr Drew gave evidence of having visited Captain Cain as a friend on the day before he died, and having felt his pulse, whichghe found very fair for a person in his condition. Witness was surprised to hear of Captain Cain’s death next day, though he considered the illness must terminate fatally. Witness corroborated the evidence of Dr Mclntyre regarding the analysis made in August last, and respecting the effects likely to result from the administration of minute doses of antimony in the condition of Captain Cain during his last illness. Nurse Ellison gave the particulars of Mrs Hall’s illness, and of incidents in connection with the ice-water. Inspector Broham and Detective Kirby repeated again the story of the arrest of Hall in his own house on the memorable Sunday evening, the former laying more stress than hitherto on Hall pressmg to be supplied with a glass of brandy from the first bottle which was noticed to be discolored. J. W. Webb, undertaker, and Edward Drake, sexton, gave the same evidence as on the former occasion, of the burial and exhumation of Captain Cain’s remains. Wm. Selig, apprentice to Watkins (chemist) gave evidence regarding the dispensing of Dr Mclntyre’s prescriptions for Captain Cain, which was supplied on ten occasions, and was first made up on the 24th December. There was one date on which the cough mixture was supplied twice, at first in the morning and then in the evening, but how it came to be required was not brought out. In addition to this, some cough mixture of Watkins’ preparation was supplied on December Ist, 1884, but, though it was charged to Captain Cain’s account, it might not be for him. On the 18th November, 1885, an ounce of strychnine was purchased on Hall’s account, but, as the poison-book was not in Court, it was nob known to whom it was supplied. There was an entry in the book on the 14th January, which Selig thought was in R. F. Stewart’s writing, and Stewart, when examined, thought it was Burrows’. The latter was put in the box, but he said it was not his ; nor could Mr Wilway identify the writing of the entry. It therefore remains unexplained. A number of witnesses, who had been examined, were allowed to take their departure, and the Court adjourned. Dunedin, January 2S.

Dr Hogg, in the course of his examination, was asked what is antimony? Witness—lt is a metal. To Mr Haggitt —But beside being a metal, what is it ? Witness—An irritant poison. Mr Haggitt—Oh, ah ! an irritant poison. It is not harmless ? Witness— No ; I am not aware that metallic antimony itself is poison. Tartar emetic is the salt of antimony. Antimony in combination with cream of tartar and tartar emetic is a poison in quantities of from two grains upwards Mr Haggitt—ls tartar emetic more likely to be fatally poisonous in small doses, frequently repeated, or in a larger doze ? Witness —More fatal in small doses frequently repeated. Small doses would be absorbed into the system, while a large dose would give rise to vomiting, and perhaps a greater portion of it, or nearly all, would be thrown off. I would say depressents were not good under the circumstances. Tartar emetic administered in small doses is a depressent. Tartar emetic so administered to a person in Cain’s condition would be injurious, and if administered long enough would prove fatal. If administered in large quantities to a person in Cain’s condition it would have a very depressing effect, ana if continued would be fatal. The symptoms described would indicate irritation, probably by poisoning. The presence of antimony in a person so suffering would indicate antimony, and might be the cause of those a t r ongly pressed by Mr Chapman on the point, but unswervingly adhered to his statement that, apart from, any condition of the system which might be called an idiosyncrasy, if antimony was administered to a person in Cam s state, he ‘unhesitatingly affirmed that antimony would accelerate death. His opinion waa that a single dose in a case of that sort would accelerate death. He would not be responsible for consequences, and should be sorry to give a dose of two grains, or in smaller quantity, if repeated at four hourlyperiods. . After lunch Dr Hogg’s cross-examination, was continued. He said in some cases thirst might be a feature of Bright’s disease. He had discussed the features of the case with Drs Drew, Bachelor, and Ogston. _ Supposing he found in the patient indications of chronic disease of the kidneys, and found albumen in the water and dropsy also, he would not naturally attribute

them to the existence of chronic Bright’s disease, or of Bright’s disease. These things might lie due to heart disease, giving to congestion of the kidneys. Opium might produce vomiting. Re-examined : There were a number of forms of Bright’s disease, and the symptoms varied in every form. There might be vomiting, and retention of urine caused vomiting. In congestion of the kidneys resulting from impaired action of the heart, one would not expect to find urinic poisoning. During Cain’s life he saw nothing to lead him to conclude that he had Bright’s disease. After death he could not tell. The kidneys were in a position to prevent him forming an opinion. He had attended Captain Cain between May and July, 18S5, and he was suffering from disease of the heart, as he (witness) discovered from examination. As to opium producing vomiting, that would depend on the quantity and the patient’s susceptibility. Dr William Brown deposed : I have been in medical practice for 16 or 17 years. lam a bachelor of medicine. I know the substance called tartar emetic. 'he effect of that poison administered in such quantities as to cause sickness and vomiting upon a person suffering from kidney disease and dropsy would be very dangerous, unless the kidney disease 'was of a certain nature, when the effect would be risky—hazardous. The kind I refer to is acute disease. Suppose to the kidney disease and dropsy there was something the matter with the heart, such doses would be extremely dangerous if the patient were an old man suffering from general debility. It would probably kill him. If the patient were suffering from senile gangrene, vomiting and diarrhcea, the effect would be to kill him. The doses might not immediately kill him if he vomited them up, but the prostration resulting therefrom might prodnoe a fatal result. Re-examined : I have not made the subject of antimony a special/study, except within the past two or three days. lam a partner with Dr Ogston, with whom I have consulted.

Dr Ogston deposed: I am a doctor of medicine from the Aberdeen University. I am Lecturer of Jurisprudence at the Otago University. I have made the subject of poisons a special study at Prague, where I passed the examinations necessary to qualify me as an analyst in Germany. I was the expert employed by the Crown in all medical-legal cases in Aberdeen for several years. On the 27th September last I made a post-mortem examination of the body of Captain Cain. The body was first of all identified, and I afterward opened it to such an extent as would prove useful. The body was better preserved than I thought it would be. I did not open the head, as I knew from experience nothing could be made of its contents. I found the lungs dark and moderately -spongy. In the pleural cavity I found a moderate quantity of red fluid, and on opening the heart bag I found no fluid. The heart was large and heavy, but the walls seemed of the natural thickness. The lower cavity was somewhat enlarged. The valves contained bony plaits, or knots, not unusual in old people. The main artery of the body was simply converted into a rigid, bony tube. That is very unusual, and indicated that the man had a wonderfully strong constitution for him to have lived so long as he did. The aortic valve 3 were diseased. The swollen state of the heart, in connection with the bony aorefca, indicated disease of the heart.' The disease must have existed for years. There was a good quantity of blood, or bloody fluid, in the lungs, and they were healthy enough. The bronchial tubes seemed healthy. The liver, spleen, and kidneys were looked at, but the change which had taken place in them prevented it being seen whether they were diseased or not. They did not look much diseased, if at all. The stomach was taken out with a part of the beginning of the small bowel, and opened and looked at. A piece from the centre of the small bowel was looked at, and also part of the large bowel. They all contained a coating of greyish slime, more or less, but none of the usual contents. They were empty. The urine bladder was found to contain about four ounces of urine. The cavity of the belly and glands of the bowels were quite healthy. There was a stone in the gallbladder, a very common thing. There was no clotted-blood in the heart. This was a little consistent with other appearances which indicated a natural slow death. It was a little suspicious, of course. I understood that the main reason of the post mortem was to find poison, and not the true cause of death. I took away for analysis some of the bloody fluid, and also those structures which contained most blood —the liver and spleen, the intestinal bag, the urinary bladder, urine and kidneys. The analysis was made on the evening of the 28th. The substances were contained in the four bottles produced, which were kept sealed until the analysis was made, resulting in the finding of antimony in tha contents of each bottle. Subsequent confirmatory tests were made, all resulting the same. A quantity of earth from the Tirnaru cemetery was analysed, and no antimony found in it. Antimony is a preservative, so that its presence in the body would account for its good condition. From the post mortem appearances and the discovery of antimony, I form the opinion that the cause of death wa* exhaustion. Antimony would cause exhaustion. I have heard the state of health of Captain Cain described. The effect of tartar emetic administered to him from time to time in sufficient- doses to cause vomiting would increase every bad symptom. The effect of antimony is depressent. A large dose acts as an irritant and would cause rejection The effect of antimony upon the human body is depressing, but in a very large dose it acts as an irritant. In small doses it acts partly as an irritant, partly as a depressent, and occasions a large flow of bile, the result of which would be diarrhcea and bilious vomiting. I believe antimony is quickly absorbed into the body. Every valuable poison is quickly absorbed. All the poisou not rejected is net absorbed—probably a good deal of it would be thrown down as an insoluble sulphide into the stomach and bowels. If the patient lives that may be absorbed, as there are many acids in the bowels which may or may not dissolve it. The most prominent symptom of antimonial poisoning is sickness, coming on very shortly after the poison is taken. Then you have purging, great ex-

haustion, and periods of apparent recovery in tbe morning. If the poison is not given during the night, thirst, as in the case of all irritant poisons, is a prominent symptom, and also gripping of the throat. Mr Haggitt: Taking it as a faot that Captain Gain, during the last portion of his life, say the last fortnight, suffered from nausea, vomiting, diarrhcea, depression, and loss of strength, the weakness gradually increasing, taking in conjunction with that the .post mortem appearance you observed, and the fact that on analysis antimony was found in the body, what conclusion would you arrive at ? Witness : That antimony had a great deal to do with his death. His Honor : You say, doctor, that you found antimony in the intestines, and in the urine as well as in the blood ? Witness : Yes. His Honor : After the antimony goes into the mouth, what is the ordinary course of things. Into the stomach first, I suppose ? Witness : Yes. First into the stomach, then it is absorbed into the blood, and acts as a poison there. His Honor : Part of it would remain insoluble in the bowels, part would be absorbed in the blood, and that absorbed part would

be eliminated by the urine. It must be absorbed before it could reach the urine ? Witness : Yes. His Honor: All these natural processes would come to an end at death? —•Witness: Yes. His Honor: From the fact of antimony being found in the urine could you form auy inference as to how long before death the antimony must have been administered ?—Wibneess : No, not without referring to some books on physco’ogy. It could be found by giving certain substances and waiting till thoy came out in the urine. His Honor : Could you fix a period within which it would happen ? Witness : Yes, it must be within eight or teu hours ; soluble bodies entering into the body would come out into the urine within eight or ten hours at the outside. His Honor: Might it not have been administered before that ? Witness: It must have been, because a good deal was lj ing in the bowels, and all that we found in the lower bowel might have beeu administered days before, and what was in the stomach a few hours before death. His Honor : Can you draw any inference from what you found as to the time at which it was administered—the size ot the doses in which it was administered ; and further, can you drawanyinferenceas to whether what you found iu the body was all that was administered? Witness: We did not find all that was administered, for we knew very well that diarrhoea would carry off a great portion of it, as we found on a former analysis, as antimony being effective upon the liver, making a flow of bile, would act as auy other purgative, and it might go into the stomach and out of the bowels within six or seven hours. His Honor : Then if you find antimony in a man’s body, and before he dies he suffered from diarrhoea, there is a probability that the antimony found in the body was not all the antimony administered to him ? YVitness : It would not be all the antimony. Probably if antimony was found in a man’s body, and shortly before-his death he had been sufferiog from diarrhcea, then I should presume the antimony had caused the diarrhcea, and that the diarrhoea would itself have carried off a good deal of it. His Honor : Where antimony has been administered for a period, are there any appearances of the intestines that would indicate that it had been so administered ? Yes, if the dose was a sufficiently graded one to be retained for a little time, and yet large enough to act with its full virulence upon the stomach, there would be inflammation. But if there were smaller doses repeated you would have less signs of irritation instead of inflammation. His Honor : Did you observe anv signs on the bowels, or were they too far decomposed ?—Witness : They were decomposed pretty much. As noon as olecomposition sets in, all redness would dhappear; but they had a coating ofdirtygrey film. His Honor: What does that mean ? —Witness : lb means that some inflammation occurred, perhaps chronic, perhaps lasting for some time, and in that film we found antimony. Then we had a negative indication. We bad no signs of any inflammatory disease, because that would cause either ulceration in the bowels themselves or enlargement of the mesenteric glands. Uis Honor : Perhaps you will be good enough, before to-morrow, if you can, to look up the subject I was referring to, and ascertain, if possible, how long antimony might have been administered. Witness : Yes. His Honor : Can you draw any inference as to the doses in which it had been administered? I ask that question, because I see that, in cases of poisoning by arsenic, doctors profess to be able to do so ? Witness : There are so many modes of rejection that any inference as to quantities is 'itiated. The poison we found lying in the mucus of the bowels was insoluble and unab3orbea, and was nob the stuff thad actually poisoned him. His H nor : Tartar emetic is a poison, and antimony is a metal, is it not ? What was found in the body was metal antimony, I suppose ? Witness: No? we found some form of antimony, but not the metal antimonv, in the bowels. Probably it was sulphide of antimony. His Honor : Can you say whether the anti- | mony was administered in the form of tartar emetic? Witness: No; that is impossible. His Honor : It must have been administered in a soluble form ? Witness : Yes. To Mr Haggitt: Our tests bring it back to the metal antimony. I assisted Dr Blaek in performing some analyses previously in connection with another case with which the prisoner was concerned. On September 12 I analysed certain things brought from Dr Mclntyre’s laboratory by Dr Black, , which were sealed by myself. I sealed and labelled everything I took otfer, so as to identify it again. The analyses all showed antimony distinctly. Another analysis on the 19th gave similar results. Theice-water tested on August 19th in Dr Mclntyre’s house at Timaru must have been saturated with antimony. Colchieum was found in some brandy we tested. We tested some cigarettes in Christchurch, but found no antimony in them. Antimony is not used in making cigarettes, unless you want to kill somebody. Antimony used in cigarettes could not possibly be of any use in asthma. Have used antimony in medical practice, but it is very little used. We have safer and better means now to secure the same objects. I analysed a trousers pocket and found

antimony in it. I had a phial said to have been taken from the prisoner’s trousers pocket to test. In that phial we found a soluble antimony. Mr Hnggitt said he might ask Dr Ogston a few more questions in the morning. The Court adjourned at 5 o’lock. Dusedin, January 29. Dr Ogston having been cross-examined the case for the prosecution closed. Mr Denniston, in opening the defence, said the Crown had absolutely failed to establish the issue they had. undertaken to prove. The prosecution had undertaken to establish three propositions—That antimony was found in the body of Captain Cain ; that the administration of antimony necessarily accelerated his death ; and that such antimony was conclusively and incontestibly

proved to have been given by the prisoner. As to the first of the3e points, they could necessarily offer no evidence. Ths whole manipulation of the body, tliß whole details of the examination, had been in the hands of the Crown, and the prisoner was virtually in their hands so far as that part of the case was concerned. The second point, though to some extent abstract and technical, was vital for the prosecution. It was not material to the defence, of course, because an affirmative conclusion might be come to on it, and j the main ground which they raised for fViQ rlnfonna nrsMilrl I'JTT)nin Mnhnwpllflfl -Thft I

evidence of the prosecution showed conclusively that the death of Captain Cain was originally attributed to natural causes. It was now attempted, after a great lapse of time, when the memories of men had altered, and the circumstances had become forgotten, to establish a different conclusion. They wished upon the strength ot a loose diagnosisor careless observation, and a slovenly post mortem—an examination entirely based from beginning to end on a foregone conclusion as to the real cause of death to establish the momentous proposition that the death was conclusively accelerated by the fact of antimony being administered, The evidence for the prosecution outside the mere expert evidence had been clearly and unequivocally in the accused’s favor as to the certainty o' the acceleration of Captain Cain’s death, and medical evidence would be called to prove that, considering the very weak state of Captain Cain, it was improbable

to prove affirmatory and conclusively that his death was accelerated by the administration of antimony. It was for the other aide absolutely, conclusively and inevitably to prove that death was so accelerated, and that Captain Cain must have lived after the date he died but for the administration of antimony during his life. It was unnecessary for the defence to establish that this antimony, if it were administered at all, was not a depres-

sent, or that it could not have a good effect on the deceased. They had simply to prove that the date was so imperfect as to make it. impossible for any person to say positively that death was accelerated by the administration of antimony. As to the third point—the alleged administration of the anti, mony by Hall—the defence was also neoessarily circumscribed as to the evidence they could call. The Crosvn had not attempted to suggest any proved administration of poison of any kind, but had relied on a mass of circumstances which did nob show the administration by Hall more thau by any other person. The Crown sprang from one point to another, suggesting whisk;’', ahamnacme. concrh mixture as the nrob.

able means of conveying the poisonous drug. He contended that the symptoms on which the other side relied as being evidence of the administration of poison were shown to be absolutely inconsistent with the administration of poison directly by Hall. The Crown had practically relied on simply placing before the jury in a mass the details of Captain Cain’s last illness, and proving that Hall could have administered the poison, trusting to the prejudice and ill-will rising from circumstances which it would be impossible to ignore, and which had been introduced into this case to indues the jury to find a verdict which the evidence placed before them could not possibly lead them to find. He put it to them as reasonable that it was impossible to say from the evidence given, from the circumstances attending Captain Cain’s death, the manner in which his meals and medicines

were administered, the manner in which he was attended to, the circumstances of his nursing, and the symptoms ; it was impossible for them, apart from the shadow attempted to be thrown over this trial by other circumstances and other events, to find that the prisoner, any more than any other person, had anything to do with administering the poison, if administered it was. Nothing need be said at present as to the motive, beyond that the prosecution had broken down. In effect it had been proved that the callous destruction of Captain Cain was rosultless, and must have been known to be resultless at the time the murder was said to have been per-petrated. He then called

Edward Wakefield, journalist, who said he knew accused intimately. He saw the book Taylor on Poisons iu the prieoner’s room at Hibbard’s. He also saw the book at Kingsdowu in 1885. He remembered reading part of the book and talking to prisoner about prussic acid and its effects applied externally. Hall had told him that he had picked up the book a year or two ago in Dunedin. Benjamin Hibbard, of Timaru, said at one time Hall lodged with him. He left in ISSS. Witness had seen the book Taylor on Poisons in prisoner’s possession in ISB4 or 1883. He had picked up the book and was under the impression that the prisoner’s name was written obliquely at the back of it. He had informed the police that he had seen the book in Hall’s possession. To Mr Haggitt: Was positive on the point that the prisouer had the book Taylor on Poisons in his possession. He was not sure that he had informed the police before the Christchurch trial. He could not say if the book was the one produced, but was sure it was Taylor on Poisons. George Buchanan, settler at Timaru, said he knew the late Captain Cain intimately. He sat up, with him before his death on alternate < nights with Stubbs. He was mainly alone; he could always get assistance if required. In the early part of the night Captain Cain was chatty, and restless later on. He had never noticed delirium ; he never slept long at any time, and generally

woke up with a cough. He never complained of the cough mixture, but he always behaved as if he did not like it. Witness had given him whisky and champagne wice, and neither had ill effects. Witness had taken whisky while watching Captain Cain. Had taken it from the same bottle as he gave Captain Cain. He had informed the police of what he knew. To his Honor : He had sat up for nights with Captain Cain. To Mr Denniston : Captain Cain was cheerful and chatty, and talked of old times. To Mr Haggitt : He went to Cain about 8 or 9 o’clock. Stubbs was with him for an hour or so. Both Kaye and Wren used to be in the room. On one of the four nights that he was with Captain Cain he was sick. He thought Captain Cain had whisky twice or three times, and it never disagreed with him. The cough mixture, he was sure, never made the Captain sick. Ho had given him champagne on two or three occasions, but could not how often. He did not see much difference in Captain Cain on the 27th. He used to sleep best between 2 to 3 o’clock; If Kaye had said that on no night was Captain Cain not sick, he (witness) would say he had made a mistake, unless he called spitting phlegm being sick. Witness heard that Captain Cain was in the habit of being sick. He had asked the police what they were summoning him for, as his evidence would not go for much. Witness had been living in a cottage of old Mr. Hall’s.

To Mr. Denniston : never very intimate with the prisoner. Had never exchanged more than twenty words with him, nntil after the birth of his child. Ho was an old friend of Captain Cain’s, having known him about 30 years. Ethel Morris, of Dunedin, said she had been a bridesmaid for Mrs. Hall. * She had lived at Woodlands for about a fortnight before the marriage of prisoner. During the time she had been at Woodlands, she had seen Captain Cain sick, and on three occasions she saw a basin by the side of the Captain’s chair to receive vomit.

The Court adjourned till Monday. Dunedin, January 31. To-day’s proceedings at the Supreme Court brought the conclusion to within a measurable distance. The evidence of the defence was proceeded with.

Joseph Edwards, of Invercargill, deposed that on one occasion in June, July, or August, 18S5, Captain Cain was sick in Slater’s draper’s shop, at Timaru. The other evidence wa3 all medical, and was given by Drs Alexander, Maunsell, and Bake well. It was intended to show that the symptoms of Captain Cain’s illness were not inconsistent with death from the diseases from which he was suffering, but were not so consistent with antimonial poisoning. Dr Bakewell, in fact, went so far as to say that antimony administered in small doses such as, judging from the amount found in Captain Cain’s remains, was the case with him, would prolong life, and would counteract the effect of over stimulants and alcoholic poisoning from which Captain Cain was suffering. He was inclined to give urinic poisoning as the cause of death, and to eliminate antimony, as from the symptoms described in the last days of Captain Cain’s illness he was evidently not suffering from antimonial poisoning. Mr Chapman opened for the defence in a speech which promises to be of great length and great weight. He commenced by referring to the gravity of the charge and hisaense of the responsibility under which he rested, the present being the first case in which he had undertaken the defence of many issues which might put a man in peril of his life. He then proceeded to analyse part of tbe evidence, but as he only spoke fer a little over an hour, and is likely to speak for another four hours, he only cleared the ground a little. From a later telegram we make the following extracts from theevidence:—Dr Maunsell thought it would have been advisable to open the head so as to arrive at a correct estimate of how death was caused. Would think that in Captain Cain’s condition antimony administered shortly before death, even in small doses, would have accelerated death. Witness considered the condition of affairs in Captain Cain’s case as described by Drs Mclntyre, Kaye, and Stubbs—consistent with death from uriuic poisoning. Cross-examined by Mr Haggitt : The description was not immediately consistent with, antimonial poisoning. Captain Cain had not the cold, clammy sweats usual in cases of death from antimonial poisoning. There were symptoms of urinic poisoning previous to death. The state of coma into which Captain Cain wentoff reemtd. more consistent with urinic poisoning. In an old man anything that tended to increase depression would decidedly facilitate death. Witness would not expect to fiad antimony in a man as the result of urinic poisoning or Bright’s disease or dropsy. There was no known disease that would develop antimony. If a man were suffering fr m Bright’s disease and dropsy, and antimony were found in the body after death, witness would conclude that the antimony, if taken shortly before death, had caused death. Antimony might be found in the organs of the body, probably not in the urine, if taken months before death. As long as antimony continued to be found iu the urine it would act as a depressent, and so long it would be an accelerating cause of death. Antimony, even in very small doses, had a depressent action on the heart. Witness had heard Dr Ogston state that he had taken a part in somethingjlike 500 postmortem examinations. Witness did nob pretend to be a specialist on the subject. Witness though that in making a chemical, or post mortem examination, it would be preferable to take notes at the time. Be-examined by Mr Chapman : Could you express an opinion as to the effect the antimony had, except you were informed when it was administered, and in what quantity ? Witness : I could state with actual certainty, with all probability it would all depend on the quantity and the time. His Honor : Suppose antimony was given a considerable time before death—we have evidence that Captain Cain suffered from diarrohea in the last month of his life—would the tendency be for the diarrohea to eliminate tbe antimony ? Witness : Yes ; that would be the tendency. His Honor : And vomiting ? Yes. liobert Hall Bakewell, M.D., of University of St Andrew’s and New Zealand, examined by Mr Chapman, deposed that he had practised for between 32 and 33 years in former years. Witness had considerable

acquaintance with the use of antimonlals m medicine. Tartar emetic produced vomiting and purging, clammy sweats, enfeeblement of the heart’s action, and an enfeebled pulse. A. close sickness came on after taking tartar emetic, in ten minutes to one hour, then vomiting. The retching was very marked and very unpleasant. Witness should not think it could be confounded with the effect of vomiting caused by coughmg. The primary object of a post mortem examination was to find out the cause of death. The witness then described y the process adopted in a post mortem asT^h 1011 ' r Th ®. bram should be examined as a matter of routine, even after the lapse of time--it was required by the German !aw. A clot m the brain, recognisable as something different to the brain itself, might be found in the brain. From the symptoms described by Dr Mclntyre and other medical witnesses, he undoubtedly thought that there was reason to suppose that the cause of death might have been Bright’s disease. He thought the cause of death might be frenic coma. He had heard the description genet ally of the state of Captain Cain’s health As to his having died of Bright’s disease! he had never been asked to form an I opinion in a ease with such imperfect I data ; but if he was required to answer the question, he would say that probably it was Bright’s disease. The mode of death was apparently consistent with that. He had formed an opinion as to what was the cause of death. His opinion was that death was the result af urinic poison, accelerated by alcoholic poisoning. Cross-examined by Mr Haggitt : He would expect to find the brain

• —&“* —«, owttwo ui pmp. ne L act seen it; in that state in an exposed body at the end of six months. Prom such data as was supplied, many inferences might be drawn as to the cause of death. He saw something in the symptoms as described suggesting antimony poisoning, but, notwithstanding this, he attributed the death to urinic poisoning, because he could not believe that two grains of tartar emetic administered to a man would agree with antimonial poisona®d they did with urinic poisoning accelerated by alcoholic poisoning. Liquor was the worst thing that could have been given to Captain Cain, but when it had been given to him tartar emetic would have rather retarded his death. Antimony might be given, and retained in the body without having any effect. He assumed f i orn the quantity of antimony found in the body that it had been given ia very sir all medicinal doses. He did not know whether it had been given by a doctor or not. He did not H.axr all fho 3 l

poisoning. The vomiting described, was not such as would be produced by tartar emetic, but he did not mean to say that there was not some vomiting produced by tartar emetic. He had stated before that he did not eliminate antimony from consideration, but he held that the small dose which was - given under the circumstances might be beneficial. A frequent feeble puls& would be an indication of increased, action of the heart. Witness should take cardiac depression to be indicated by a slow feeble pulse. Did not think he would administer antimony to a person of 70 who had suffered from senile gangrene and from general debility, and who had developed disease and then dropsy, and was suffering from nausea and vomiting. Re-examined by Mr Chapman : Witness only considered the administration of small doses of antimony to a person in Captain Cain’s condition as beneficial, as antagonistic to large doses of stimulants. This closed the case for the defence. HALL FOUND &UILTY"OB’ MURDER.

SENTENCE OF DEATH PASSED,

Dunedin, February 1. Mr Chapman concluded his address at 2.12 to-day. After the luncheon adjournment Mr Haggitt said he would not occupy more of the time of the jury than the importance of the ease demanded. The issues were the same as he pub to them in his opening address, the first question being : Was it affirmatively proved that Captain Cain died from poison ? He considered it proved beyond doubt that such was the case., and that Captain Cain’s death was caused by poison, or accelerated by poison. The medical evidence clearly showed that the antimony found in (Japtain Cain’s body was sufficient to cause the symptoms from which he was suffering in his last illness. They had heard the evidence, and it established the fact that, whatever was Captain Cain’s illness, or whatever may have been the matter with him, the result was to produce depression, and that the administration of antimony would accelerate death by iucreasing that depression. It was established beyond doubt that the antimony was given during Captain Cain’s life-time, and the symptoms, as described by even Dr Alexander for the defence, were consistent with poisoning from antimon}”. These symptoms of antimony poisoning continued down to death. The next qu< stion was—how did that poison get into Captain Cain’s body ? It was not likely that he would have poisoned himself, and if he had he would not have selected antimony. Everyone in attendance on Captain Cain had been called, and the defence had not put one question which tended to cast even suspicion on one of them, aud only the prisoner remained. He had exhausted the theory of suicide, he had exhausted the theory of anyone else having administered tbs poison, aud there only remained the prisoner to account for the poisoniug. What were the facts inconnection with the prisoner? They had it conclusively that the prisoner had made the subject of antimony poisoning a special studj\ The evidence called for the defence about the book “ Taylor on Poisons” only went to prove that th© prisoner’s study of poison extended over a longer period than the Crown would have attempted to prove. The next fact was that the prisoner had poison in his possession. The third point was that the prisoner had the opportunity of administerieg poison, and they had it in evidence that the prisoner madq daily visits, and sometimes two and three times in one day. It was no part of the duty of the prosecution to prove the particular mode of application. In fact they were so very various that it ' would be impossible to exhaust them. The

Crown did not attempt to prove that poison was administered any particular time or in any particular vehicle. Probably the vehicle was changed on many occasions. The theory of the Crown was that small uoses were given continuously. The next evidence pointing to the prisoner was that he had a motive for the crime. They had shown that he had a motive, but even if the Crown had failed entirely to prove a motive the case would not have broken down. Cases had been known where persons had been poisoned without any known motive on the part of the poisoner. The defence had passed over the real motives which the Crown had shown where the forgeries and falsifications which the prisoner had been proved to have committed. They had no definite information as to what the prisoner himself expected from Captain Cain’s death. The prisoner’s counsel had asked them if the motive suggested was sufficient to cause the prisoner to proceed cruelly to kill a dying man. What had they heard of him ? They had it before them that at a time when a man would naturally have the greatest love for his wife, just after she had given birth to a child, when she was most in need of nourishment, what had happened ? The prisoner, a few days after his wife had borne a child, commenced to poison her systematically and regularly until she was reduced to such a state that all she could take in the way of food were ice-water and injections. Though the only nourishment she could get was in this way, the prisoner, with devilish ingenuity, poisoned the icewater she was to swallow—the brandy which formed part of the injections. Was there anything that the jury could not believe that this man would be guilty of ? He defended Dr Ogston from the charge of making a sloveuly post mortem, and summarising his arguments, said that it had been proved that the prisoner was a poisoner, with whom even his wife was not safe ; that the study of antimony had been a study of his for years ; that he was in difficulties ; a forger of promissory notes and loan mortgages]; and that he had , fraudulently given a mortgage on his property previously given to his banker; that he had antimony in his possession, which he was unable to account for on any reasonable theory ; that he was in constant attendance on Captain Cain ; that he had expectations from Captain Cain’s death ; that the commencement of his attendance jon Captain Cain was the commencement of the continued symptoms of antimony poisoning; and the facts that antimony was found in the body, and that after Captain Cain’s death the prisoner, who had been waiting for his house, took posses, sion of it and occupied it. In addition to this there was nothing * o suggest suicide, and no suspicion even that anyone else had an interest in administering poison, or had it in his or her possession, and no other reasonable way of accounting for the death. His Honor then proceeded to sum up. and said that the case was practically that the accused was charged with accelerating the death of Henry Cain by administering antimony. The case divided itself into two branches. The first was, whether death was accelerated by the administration of antimony ; and the second was, whether that antimony was administered by the prisoner Hall. The evidence adduced for the Crown divided itself into two parts—the phenomena and the inferences. In considering the case the jury would have to weigh carefully the evidence of the experts, and distinguish between the facts they had observed and the inferences which they drew. He then proceeded to describe the appearance of Captain Cain in life and the symptoms from which he suffered, and compared these with the condition of the body when exhumed. It appeared to him that a mistake had been made by Dr. Ogston in mixing up wine and other matter. It was impossible to say if antimony was being eliminated. His Honor then reviewed the medical evidence at great length, andsaid thejury would have to be satisfied that death was accelerated by antimony. They would have to exercise their© wn commonsense in the matter. H:s Honor then proceeded to deal with the question whether the antimony was administered by the prisoner Hall, and concluded by telling the jury that they could take into consideration the charge of attempted wife poisoning against the prisoner, and give full weight to it. The jury retired at 6.20 p.m., and returned into Court at 10 minutes to 8 with a verdict of guilty. Hi 3. Honor said he intended reserving for the Court of Appeal the question as to the admissibility of evidence objected to by counsel for the defence. The Act gave him power to delay passing sentence or to pass sentence and respite. It would be more convenient if he passed sentence and respited execution. The prisoner was then aiked if he had anything to say why sentence should not bs passed on him. The prisoner : I do nob see that it will do any good. His Honor said to the prisoner that, as he had already intimated, the legal question would be considered by the Court of Appeal, and if there was anything in it the prisoner would have the benefit of it. He did not think it necessary to add one word to the sentence whicli the law had to pronounce. His Honor then assumed the black cap and pronounced sentence of death in the usual form. The prisoner was then removed, and his Honor, addressing the jury, said that if it wa3 any satisfaction to them he might say that if the evidence he had referred to was proper evidence in the case, he thought they were quite justified in the conclusion they had arrived at. He thanked them on behalf of the Colony and the jury were discharged.