THE CUMBERLAND STREET TRAGEDY.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1249, 19 April 1880, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE CUMBERLAND STREET TRAGEDY.

SUPREME C>URT. CRIMINAL SITTI>Gd. CHARGE AGAINST ROBERT BUTLER. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a Common Jury.) The hearing of the charge of murder against Robert Batler, aliit* £>mnetly. atiiu iledwny, alia* Lee, was commenced at the Supreme Courthouse at 10 o'clock on Thursday morning. ilr B- C. Haggitt conducted the case for the Crown; the prisoner was not represented by counsel. The Registrar (Mr Gordon) reul the indictment on which the prison**- ww tot arraigned —viz., that ujion the Hth day of March, in the year of our Lord IsSO, he feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought, kill anil murder one James Murray Dewar, against the peace of oar Lady the Queen, her •cowri anil dignity. Prisoner pleaded Not guilty. As the jurors' names were called ont, the prisoner challenged twelve, and the solicitor for the Crown, two. The jurors who took their scat* in the jup'-hox were William if. Quick (foreman), John Walker, David Mare, Jan., Henry Puey, Mo a Moss, Charles Dale, Georje Armstrong. Roderick M'Dorral-t, William Richmond, Mkkwl ouiiivan, Janie 3 l-angiiuiir, Jo'.m E. Whitaker. His Honor (to prisoner): I suppose yon have made up your mind to defend yourself. That is the case, is t t not? Prisoner: I win defend myself. Hii Honor: You have made tip yoar mind to deond yourself I Prisoner: Yea, yoar Honor. His Honor: I can only aay that I am sorry you have adopted that resolution. Mr Uaggitt, in opening the case for the Crown, said: ! May it please your Honor, and Gentlemen of the Jury, j —ln Cumberland street, a short distance from at. David street, there » a small cottage which stands back a short distance from the street—not very far, but farther th:m the other homes in the immediate neighbourhood of it. In front of that cottage is a small grass ptot, and !>y the aide of it there is a passage leailing up to some cottages at the bock. The place is pretty thickly surrounded by dwellings, all of which at the "time of the occurrence, the circumstances of which you will have to investigate to-day, were occupied by different people. The cottage which 1 have first mentioned to you was occupied by the deceased—James Murray Dewar. The deceased was by trade a butcher. He was a married man ; he had been married some 13 mouths, and he had one child. Tiv? husband and wife, the evidence will show you, lived very happily and comfortably together. The husband was a hard-working, industrious man, of a happy disposition; the wife was an affectionate wife, a good neighbour. a good housekeeper ; and their house, as you will hear from the evidence of those who were in it immediately after this. occurrence took place, was well and tidily kept, and hail every appearance of being a comfortable home. At the time of his death the deceased was in the employment of a Mr Howard—Richard Sweetman Howard—a butcher. He was employed in his ordinary occupations up to ft o'clock on the night or Saturday, the.t oth of March. At chat time his employ er was talking to him immediately before he left to go to his home. He was seen to get into a tramjar. Tne trameor into which he got he was known to the driver of, and ho got out Of the tramcar at the corner o" St. David street about 10 minutes past 10, and, as far as is known, that was the last time he was seen alive. About II o'clock a Mr Hollander, a neighbour, passing the house saw a tight in the bedroom window ; and at 4 o'clock on the following morning a MrHaydon, another neighbour, was disturbed by a noise which sounded like something heavy falling-. He got up, fend Imagining that it might be his own that waa knocking about "with the wind—it being- a very boisterous night—he went oat to see if such was the case, and found it was not, and returned to his house noticing nothing—l mean noticing nothing to account for the noise, but he did notice that in the sitting-room of the deceased's house there was a dim light. He did not pay mach attention to it; he simply noticed the fact, and remembered it afterwards, and returned to his bed. He heard nothing more until about &30 o'clock on the following morning. At that hour a person named Charles Robb, living at the opposite side of Cumberland street to that on which the house of the deceased was, saw ■naolce coming from the house- He woke his son, James Kobb. who is a member of the Fire Brigade, and Jam en Robb went across to Dewar's house, knocked at the door, received no answer, and then proceeded round to the bock of the house, where he ound the back door open. He entered the house, ound it full of smoke, called to those in the house to get up, received no answer, and feeling unable to get along in consequence of the smoke which tilled the passage, he went down on his hands and knees, and by that means crawled along to the front part of the house and into the bedroom occupied by the decea->ed and his wife. Directly he approached the bedroom door he heard a peculiar noise, which he describes as a gurgling sound, and then immediately afterwards he felt the body of some person on the ttoor. He palled this body out into the pannage, and in the act o! pullinig it out discovered it wai a woman he was rescuing, and having placed her in the passage he got water and extinguished the tire which was burning in the room. Having extinguished the tire he noticed the deceased lying in hU bed. which apparently wai undisturbed : ho was lying upon his buck, with his face inclined towards the window of the room, turned slightly to the left.and he also noticed that he had received severe injuries on his head, and that his brains were protruding from the wounds which there appeared. He noticed also, gentleman, that standing alongside the bed where the deceased was lying, between the door and the head of the bed, was an axe, and that axe on subservient examination proved to have upon it blood »nd hair. Now, gentie'tien, I will describe to you a little more fully than I have vi >'.e already the house occupied by the deceased. Tne hou« consisted of three rooms only—two of rooms were to the ront of the house, and they were separated by a passage ; the third room was at the-back of the house. Immediately outside the back door of the house there was a porch, and immediately at the back of this porch was a small shed, in which was a eout-binker, anil in the coal-bunker the axe—which was found—ad I have already totd you. in the bedroom of the deceased —was usually kept. The room on the right-hand side of the passage, looking at it from Cumberland street, was the room occupied by the deceased as a sittingroom ; the room to the left-hand side of the passage was the bedroom occupied by the deceased, of which I have already spoken; the room at the back, into which the passage opened, was the kitchen and the usual sitting-room of the family. The size of the bedroom was about 11 feet square. We have therefore, gentlemen, up to this time, this state of facts existing. The deceased was last seen, as i have told you, at a little after ID o'clock ; a light was seen in his bedroom at 11 o'clock ; a light was scon in the sittingroom at ■{ o'clock in the morning; the house was seen to be on tire at half-past C. and upon persons attracted by the tire going to the house they found that the backdoor of the house was open. There is one other circumstance which I had forgotten to mention, and which I will now mention—namely, that when Mr Robb, who was the first person to see the tire, looked at the house, he saw that the I nversash of the window of the sitting-room wa3 raised about a foot or 15 inches, and waa standing o[>en. That was the appearance of things, gentlemen, anil in the house were found, as t have told you. the body of thi deceased unite dead in his had. the It' dy o; his wife lying upon the floor of the bedroom, taken out by Mr James Robb, as I have told you, and in addition to these two bodies there was found the body of the baby, but with no marks of violence u|«n it -the body of the child of the deceased. To complete this part of the story, gentlemen. I may say that Mrs D'jwar at this time was not dead: that a doctor (Or Niven) was called in. He examined her. ordered her to be removed to the Hospital, ami she was removed accordingly. It was found that she had marks in three places indicted by the axe, which I havo already spokert of, on the side of the head, the effect of which hail been to depress the bones of her skull, which bones were sub .Kijuently raided by Ur Brown. The woman lingered without being able to spewk until a little after 12 o'clock on Sum lay night, when she died. Now these are the state of facts as they were known ou Sunday, the ilay on which this offence was committed. I wilt now, gentlemen, before proceeding to describe what was subsequently discovered, take up the movements of the prisoner, and trace him from the time when he is first connected with this affair ttp to the time of his arrest by the police- Upon the morning of Thursday, the Uth March, gentlemen, just two days before this murder was committed, the prisoner w«nt to take up his abode at the Scotia Hotel. The Scotia Hotel >s situated at the comer of Lcith street and Dundas street. At the time he went to the hotel he was dressed in a suit of dark lavender, with a small check on it. This dress, gentlemen, you will find by-and-bye-, has soma importance attaching to it. The dress is described as being of dark lavender, with a small check on it. He had a (larcel with him at the time he went to the hotel. He also had a blue topcoat and a white mn.'Eer, and at the time he went to the hotel he was wearing a moustache, the rest of his tat* {wing clean-ihaved. lie removed to the hotel on

Thursday, and slept there on Thursday night. He remained in the hotel principally all day oh the Friday, •but left on the Friday night at 6 o'clock. When I say ■eft, I mtan to say that he went out—he did not leave he hotel altogether, because he left in the bedroom in which he slept on Thursday night his coat arid muffler, and olio this parcel; and in the sitting-room of the hotel, where there was a piano, he left a quantity ol music belonging to him and some books. However, he went out on the night of Friday about 0 o'clock; he did not return on Friday night; he was not seen, so far as I know, at the hotel on Saturday—he did not return on Saturday night; he was not seen there on the Saturday night, nor until about half-post 6 or five-and-twenty minutes to 7 on " Sunday morning when, upon the door of the hotel I being opened by Sarah Gillespie (one of the witnesses who will be called before you to-day), he was seen , standing at the door; and upon the door beingopened, he entered the hotel. At this time, gentlemen, he was st II dressed in the lavender suit of which I have already spoken. He wa3 still wearing the moustache which he had worn when he first came to the hotel, but it was noticed by Miss Gillespie that he was excited and pale, and that he appeared to be disturbed in mind, restless, and afraid, as if someone was comingafter him. That, gentlemen, is the description which Miss Gillespie will give you of his appearance at the time he presented himself at the door of the hotel on the Sunday morning. He went up to his room, he got his coat and muffler, which I have spoken of, and brought down the parcel which he had there, and went ont of the hotel, having previously put on his coat, which he buttoned closely up to his throat. He went out-idc the door of the hotel, stood at the corner of the street, and looked about him. He then returned to the hotel, had some beer to drink, remarked that he had hail no breakfast that morning, and having had the beer he finally left the hoteL Prisoner: 3lay I address the Court for one moment? His Honor; Yes. Prisoner: I wish the witnesses in this case should leave the Court. His Honor; Yes; all witnesses in thi3 case leave the Court, except the medical witnesses. They have a right to remain. Mr Haggitt: Does this apply to Mr Mallard, your Honor? His Honor : Yes, I think so. Mr Haggitt: And the draughtsman who prepared the plans ? His Honor (to the prisoner) : Do you wish the draughtsman who prepared the plans" to leave the Court? Prisoner: No. His Honor: He need not leave, then. Prisoner: I wish to remark, your Honor, that I have not sent the witnesses out from mere caprice, but I find that the prosecutor is going over the evidence that is likely to be given. His Honor: Yes, it is the business of the Crown Prosecutor to go through the evidence he intends to adduce. That is the object of . his address. But your request has nothing unreasonable in it—in fact it is usual. Mr Haggitt resumed: The prisoner having drunk the beer he hail ordered, went out of the hotel again ; stood for a few minutes at the corner of the street, again looking about him, and finally went away. He is next seen at the store—at the corner of Dundas street and Castle street, where he went apparently immcdiately after 1 earing the hotel. The time that elapsed is so short that he could not have gone anywhere else. The store was shut up at this timeno one was about. He knocked at the door, and, whilst waiting for the door to be opened, he walked to the comer of Cumberland street and stood there looking down in the direction of the house where the murder which I have told you of had been committed. He was seen by two persons at this comer, and looking in that direction. A boy, who came to the door of the store, looked up the street, saw him there, went in again, and shortly afterwards—a minute or two afterwards—the prisoner came back to the door, knocked again, was admitted, and when he got into the shop he purchased from the boy four tins of salmon. He said little or nothing. The boy says he said nothing more than was absolutely necessary to obtain what was wanted; but, having obtained the salmon, he took it away with him and is not seen again from that time until 10 minutes past 10 the same night (Sunday night), when he is seen at the Saratoga Hotel, at Blues kin. But, gentlemen, although the prisoner is not seen in the meantime between the time of being seen at the store and the time of hi} again being seen at the Saratoga Hotel, he has been traced by links of evidence which, I think, will satisfy you as to where he was. From the store, gentlemen, he went to the Botanical Gardens, for in the Botanical Gardens are found two tins of salmon, exactly similar in every" respect to those which he purchased at Leighton's store. From there, gentlemen, he proceeded into the Town Belt. That is proved from the fact of another of the salmon-tins—this time an empty one—being found there, and from the fact, as you will hear later on, that the clothes he had worn on thi3 Sunday morning were also found on this portion of the Town Belt. From there, gentlemen, he must have made

hi-t way—liow we do not know—to Blueskin, where he was seen, as I have already told you, at about 10 minutes post 10, sitting in the dining-room of the I bous«, by»witnes3of the name of Donne, who will be ! called here to-day. At the time, gentlemen, when he ; was first seen hy Mr Donne, Mr' Donne noticed that 1 he was sitting in a listless attitude, looking very tired and weary. After he had been sitting there about to minutes the .landlord of the hotel, Mr Colehan, who was in the bar—not in the room where the prisoner was—made a remark to someone in the bar which the prisoner overheard, the dining-room in which he l>einy in full hearing of the bar. The remark m.-ule by Mr Colehan was to the effect of " Wiuvt a shocking murder that was in Cumberland street 1" I'pon this remark being heard by the pri-soner Mr Donne noticed that his manner innnedivtely changed ; he said not a word, but started up, became restless and impatient, kept shifting uneasily in his chair, showed anxiety to get out of the hotel as soon as jiossible, and after having hastily taken hU supper, he left the hotel immediatoly. He is not seen again, gentlemen, until the following day about half-post 3 in the afternoon. He is then found on the road to Waikouaiti, about five miles on the Dunedin side of it; and he is found in this way- I must tell you, gentlemen, that up to this time it was not known who it was that was being followed up; but the fact of a man of suspicious appearance having been at the Scotia Hotel, and the fact of a man of suspicious appearance hating been seen at the Saratoga Hotel, became known to the police, and immediately on that being known, Constable Townsend was despatched, by Megraph from Waikouaiti to proceed in the direction of Blueskin, and Constable Colbome was despatched, also by telegraph, from Blueskin, to proceed in the direction of Waikouaiti, in search of the same man. Neither of these constables knew anything about the murder; they had no instructions with regard to the man, except that they were to arrest a suspicious man, and charge him as a vagrant or vagabond. Not a word was said about the murder at all. I think it is necessary to explain this, in consequence of •■vh.it follows. The two constables met at the spot I have told you of, about five miles on this side of Waikouaiti. Before they met, and whilst they were in sight of each other. Constable Townsend saw a man go into the bush a little way off the side of the road. Constable Colbome passed the man who had gone into the bush, and came up to Townsend. After exchanging some words, which I must not repeat to you, Townsend went into the bush where the man was that had been seen to go in, and when he got up to him he asked the prisoner where he had come from, to which the prisoner replied that he had come from Waikouaiti. Whilst Townsend had been approaching the prisoner in one direction, Colbome had been approaching in another. At this time Colbome was immediately opposite the prisoner on the other side of him. Townsend said to Coll>orne, "Here is a man who says he has come from Waikouaiti." Immediately the priioner stepiHsl back a pace or two, drew a revolver, presented it at Constable Townsend, and as the constables app cached he changed the direction of the revolver from one to the other. The constables, seeing the danger thev were in, rushed him simultaneously, got him against the hank, took the revolver away before he liad an opportunity of firing it, and secured him. Having secured him, they took him to Waikouaiti, where they locked him up. L'pon the prisoner being searched there were found u|K>n him, amongst other thing-i, an opera-glass, a paper mask, two tins of salmon corresponding in every particular with those p irvhni-'i at Leighton's store, and 40 cartridges for tile revolver which he had with with him. Now, gentlemen, having dealt with the prisoner so far, I will take you back to the house in which this murder km committed. The sutaequent examination of the house indicated several things. First, in consequence of a knife being found upon the grass plot, which I have already spoken to you of, in front of the window which was seen open by Mr Kobb, it appeared that the house had been probably entered by the opened window of the sitting-room; and there was a further indication of this, inasmuch as upon the sill of the window there were found traces of the nails of a boot —traces node by the nails of a boot of a person getting into the window. There were also indications that the object of the person entering was probably plunder, inasmuch as the contents of a chest of drawers had been turned over with the view of searching for money apparently, although there was nothing to show that anything had been taken from the house. A further indication was that the deceased had been murdered with his own axe, which, m we have already told you, was usually

kept in the coal-bunker, a short distance from .the back door, which had been found open. Appearances also indicated that the deceased had been murdered while he slept, and that the murderer had subsequently , attempted to set fire to the house to conceal his crime. I It also appeared, gentlemen, that the deceased had 1 been struck five blows with an axe, that his wife had been struck three blows, and there were such indications as to show that the blows had probably been struck by a person standing all the time in the same position ; that is, without moving from the position in which his first blow was struck he had struck all the other blows, and that the person using the axe had probably placed his left hand in front while using it. And further, gentlemen, the blood that had come from the wounds that had been inflicted upon the deceased man all radiated towards the corner of the room against which the back and side of the bed stood (Mr Haggitt pointed out the position on a card). The bed and chair occupied the whole of the space between the wall and the door, and the spots of blood which I am now speaking of, which came from the head of the man, all radiated 5n the direction of that corner of the room. But whilst, gentlemen, the larger spots of blood all went in that direction, there had been some smaller spots which had shot out from the wounds, and these smaller spots there were indications to show had come in the direction of the place where the person committing the murder had stood. Upon the back of the door small specks of blood were found, and it was supposed that if the person who had committed the murder could be found, there would be found upon his clothes similar marks to those that were on the door. Of course, gentlemen, those spurts of blood which passed the person of the person committing the murder would not be traceable at all, inasmuch as they would have fallen upon the floor, and as I have told you, the room was on fire, and the mess which the fire caused, and the water which had been used in gutting the fire out, would have removed those spots •om the floor, or have rendered it impossible to trace upon the floor traces of blood which had passed the person of the murderer. Then, gentlemen, these were the clues which had to be followed up: first, the knife found as I have told you on the grass plot; secondly, the boot-nail marks; and thirdly, the blood which would probably, as I have already said, be found in small spots upon the clothing of the person who had committed the murder. Gentlemen, with regard to the knife : all efforts to find out where that had come from have failed. The utmost that can be done with regard to the knife, as you will hear, is to show that it did not belong to anybody in the house or to anybody in the neighbourhood of the house, and that such a knife had never been seen on the premises previously to this night. With regard to the mark of the boot-nails, nothing could be made of that; but there is this circumstance which I may mention to you, gentlemen, and to which you will attach such importance as you consider it deserves": that immediately before the prisoner was arrested in the way I have de cribed to you, he had removed from his own boots the outer soles. He had been wearing previously what are called, I believe, clump-soled boots, and on his being arrested by the constables, as I have told you, it was found that the outer soles of these boots, had been removed, and it was known that the outer soles had been removed only a short time previously, inasmuch as some nails which had fastened the outer soles to the inner soles were still found upon the boots,which proved that the outer soles must have been removed only a short time previously, for a small amount of walking upon the nails of the inner soles would have had the effect of breaking them off. But as I was saying, gentlemen, from the effect of those soles having been removed from the boots nothing could be made of the nail-marks; therefore, gentlemen, the only clue that was left was the blood which was likely to be found upon the person of the murderer. Now, gentlemen, I am again leaving the' house, and the indications which subsequent examinations in the house presented, and I am coming back to the premises. I have already told you that the prisoner was last seen in the town—at the Scotia Hotel—on the Sunday morning; he was still wearing a lavender suit, which he was wearing at the time he first went to the hotel. At the time of the arrest he was wearing an entirely different suit. The question was, where was that suit to be sound ? What had become of this suit he had been wearing on the Sunday morning? That suit, gentleman, was, as 1 have told you, a lavender suit; it was a new suit of clothes; it had only been worn about three weeks, or a month at the furthest; and it was perfectly new in every respect. There was, therefore, no ostensible reason why that suit of clothes should have disappeared, or why the prisoner should have left them off. Search was accordingly made for this suit of clothes by the police and other persons for th« suit the prisoner wore on the Saturday, and on the early Sunday morning when the murder was committed. It was disoovered on the Town Belt by Mr Youngman, the Town Belt Ranger. The portion found by him in the first instance consisted of a coat belonging to the suit, and he found at the same time a cravat, with stripes upon it, which the prisoner was known to have worn. He also found the hat of the prisoner. That was all that was found on the first day; but on a subsequent occasion he, or someone else who was with him, found, within a few feet of the place in which the coat had been found on a former occasion, the trousers which belonged to the same suit. So that by this means, gentlemen, the police got possession of the coat, trousers, cravat, »nd h»t which had been wom by the prisoner on the Saturday night and up to 7 o'clock, or half-past 8 at any rate, on the Sunday morning on which this murder was committed. The shirt which the prisoner had worn he still continued to wear. That shirt had been found on him, and was taken from him at the time of his arrest at Waikouaiti shortly afterwards ; so that the whole of the garments wom by the prisoner got into the possession of the authorities. These garments were examined. This shirt the prisoner continued to wear, thinking no doubt that there were no marks at all on it; because we can hardly imagine that, had h* believed there was on the shirt such evidence as there is, he would have continued to wear and preserve it. On this shirt being examined by means of the magniand the microscope, there were found on it specks of blood corresponding exactly with the character of the specks of blood which, as I have told you, were found on the back of the room and the door. These specks were of a peculiar nature. They do not consist of one single spot, but consist of four or five small specks constituting a spot. On the door the spots presented exactly similar indications to those indicated on the shirt. These spots were found not only on the front of the shirt, but on the left sleeve of the shirt, where the blood had spurted. I told you, gentlemen, that the blow had evidently been 'struck left-handed. These specks of blood had spurted on to the sleeve at the time the blow was struck; and the specks were found to correspond exactly with thesespecks that were on the shirt which the deceased had worn. Upon prisoner's coat were found several blood spots; on his cravat one spot was found; and on the collar of his shirt another blood spot was found. On his trousers were found, in a line on both side 3 in the higher parts of his thighs, blood spots also on both sides. >'ot one or two spots, gentlemen, but many spots were so found ; and the tests which have been applied by the medical gentlemen who have examined these clothes—gentlemen of the highest reputation in their profession who can be found in this town, viz., Drs Hocken, Alexander, and Brown—are agreed beyond the possibility of doubt that the marks which they found on these clothes are blood. They are also agreed on this further fact: that the blood marks on these clothes were produced there by the blood being projected on to the clothes, and in no other manner. Now, gentlemen, on these clothes being found, and on the prisoner being confronted with them and with the witnesses who speak with regard to them, what does he say ? What is the explanation he attempts to give ! for the blood being there V It is, gentlemen,that in going through the bush he scratched his hands. He attempts to account for the blood on his clothes by the fact of his hands being scratched, for it is a fact that there were scratches on his hand. But, gentlemen, the medical men will tell you that that is impossible. It is thoroughly impossible that the blood which was found on the'clothes could have been caused in such a manner. In the first place, there will be considerable doubt thrown on the theory that the scratches on the prisoner's hands would have caused any blood spots at all. The medical men will tell you, gentlemen, that, supposing the prisoner's hands had bled, it was utterly impossible that the blood found on the clothes could have been caused by that means, inasm>r:h as blood so caused would have presented a smear<. 1 appearance, and not the appearance which these clothes presented, viz., as I have already told you, having been projected on to the clothes. Now, gentlemen, I have already told you shortly all the facts which will be given in evidence before you in this case. Let me now go through them shortly again, and show you how they bear as against the prisoner. Let me put them, if I can, in the form of a narrative, as it were, as they will in point of fact be put on behalf of the Crown, as to the manner in whiuh the murder was committed, and as to the prisoner's connection with it. Gentlemen, the theory is this : The prisoner was away from his residence—from the place where his bed was and where he was supposed to be sleeping—on the night when this offence was committed. He was in the neighbourhood of the place where the murder was committed at, about, or near the time when it may be supposed ! it was committed. He was attracted to this house, we suppose, by the fact of its standing some short I distance back from the road, and not being so liable, j therefore, to be observed in entering it as if he had attempted one which was situated close to the road, as the other houses in the neighbourhood. He entered that house not with any intention of murder, I think, but with the intention of plunder; and with

the. determination to murder if it should happen tliat he had been disturbed in the main 'object of his visit ■there. I should say that he entered the house for the purpose of plunder, and not with the intention to commit murder, for this reason : that if the person who committed this murder whether . the prisoner or anybody else had., gone there with the premeditated intention to : commit murder, the probability . is that he would; have taken with him a weapon with which to commit; the crime. So far as w« know, prisoner had no weapon ; Certainly it was found upon him when he was ar rested, but we do not know that the prisoner had any! weapon on- him when he went to this housei The! fact that the murderer had no weapon With him then! • is evidenced I think by the fact that he used an axe! belonging to the deceased with which to perpetrate : the crime. He got into the deceased's house through { the window; through the house to the back; door; opened the door, thus making a means of exit} in case of necessity. He found the axe standing out-: side the door, returned with it, examined the house, j and commenced his search for the plunder for which! he had gone there. Whilst he was in the act of doing I so Mrs Dewar awoke. The murderer, then seeing that! detection was likely to ensue, immediately to avoid: the risk of it, struck the deceased James Dewar before; he was awakened, and killed him in his sleep. He! almost immediately afterwards struck Mrs Dewar. Having done, this he_ continued to rifle, the'chest of; drawers in the house. Finding nothing worth taking , away, before he left, in order to hide the consequences! of his crime, he placed the lighted candle which was! found there—rather the candlestick was—underneath' the bed in which the victims of the murder were, and; attempted by that means to set fire to the house and so destroy the evidences of his crime. We say that the evidence of this is the fact that the prisoner was seen looking down Cumberland street, in the direction of the house of the Dewars, in the manner X have , described to you. He was seen doing so by two wit- ' nesses. Further evidence of that is the fact of the prisoner having gone into the Botanical Gardens on to ! the seat there which overlooked, as I have told you, the house where the crime was committed. Then finding that this fire did not take place, and fearing that suspicion would attach to him directly it became ; known that he was in the neighbourhood of the scene ; of the murder, the prisoner set about to escape ' detection, as he had failed to escape suspicion by causing the fire. What does he do ? I do not know whether I mentioned this to you: if not, you had better note it now. He first removes his moustache—; the only hair he had been wearing on his face previously. Next, he changes all his clothes. Next, he • leaves the place in which the crime has been com-. mitted. He leaves it on the Sunday—on a day when there are no means of travelling otherwise than:on; foot. And he leaves, although he had previously i shown no intention of leaving ; on the contrary, as; will be shown to you presently, he had actually made - an appointment with Detective Bain to meet arid con-' ferwith him in connection with his (the prisoner's) private affairs. Gentlemen, you may say, " Why did .the prisoner select this house—a house of this kind—: if his object was plunder, when there were other! houses wherein he was so much more likely to get: something worth taking than he was likely to get in a house of that description ?' Well, I make answer that: the prisoner's object was to get money and not to get: plunder of any other description. He did not gothere to get jewellery, plate, or anything of that kind., It is known—well known—here that such articles are! incapable of being disposed of; and the object of the; person who entered that house would be not to take' such articles. Indeed, there were some articles- of j jewellery lying in the drawers which he ransacked,' and a ring—certainly not worth much—lying on the dressing-table; but he left those things untouched.: The only evidence of his desire for plunder was in the fact of the chest of drawers being turned over, as Ii have mentioned to you. Gentlemen, the question I am endeavouring to answer is why the prisoner should! ha.ve chosen a house of this kind to enter for the pur-' pose of getting money. I say that it was a proper place for a person seeking money only to enter. A person wanting money only would enter just such a place as that occupied by the deceased. The houses of persons in a large way of business—the houses of merchants or business men—could no doubt be as easily entered, and with a better chance for plunder of value, but money, which the prisoner stood in need of,' he would be less likelj' to find it in such a house than in the house he chose. People who occupy large houses, and who fill better positions than the deceased, keep their money, if they have it, in banks, and not in their houses, and make all their payments In cheques; therefore the house which the prisoner, would be expected to enter in quest of money would l be just such a house as he did enter—the house of a ! labouring man. The prisoner would imagine that there he would find, not only the man's savings, if he had made any, but find at least his wages received that night. You will, of course, recol-! lect that this was a Saturday night. Therefore I say to you that there is nothing improbable in the' supposition that I have put to you that the object of the prisoner in entering this house was for the purpose of plunder, and that for the reason I have mentioned, such a house he would look to for his object. Although, in saying this, it is not necessary that the Crown should suggest a motive for an offence of this kind—it is not necessary that a motive should even be suggested to you—if I am asked to say what reason there is to believe that the prisoner would be capable of committing such a crime as this, then I will tell you what you will hear from Inspector Mallard and Detective Bain. The evidence of Inspector Mallard will go to show that the prisoner did actually contemplate such a crime as this one which was committed—that he actually suggested to Inspector Mallard that if a crime such as murder was committed, and that if that crime was followed up by arson, the possibility of detection would be completely taken away. And; gentlemen, I shall show you by the evidence of Detective Bain that that prisoner, only two or three days before the offence was committed, told that officer that if he (the prisoner) "ever broke loose again he would be one of "the most ferocious tigers that was ever let loose upon a community." Gentlemen, if these things are proved to you by the evidence of reliable witnesses, I would ask you to say whether it is too much, when you find tbat a crime of this kind was actually committed, to connect the person who uttered them with that crime. When you find, as you will do by the evidence that will be called before you, that the demeanour of this man immediately after the commission of the crime : was such as to attract the witnesses' attention to him, and to cause them irresistibly to think that he had been guilty of some enormous crime;; when his appearance was such as to attract the attention of everybody who! saw him, notwithstanding that they did not know at that time that any crime had been committed; when the first person who saw him, after the fact of the commission of the crime became known to that person, experienced exactly the same sensations as those persons who did not know of it; when you find, moreover, that the only evidence which this murder has left behind it—the only trace which can be found, for everything fits In, as far as it can be fitted in, to connect the prisoner with it—l ask you what other conclusion you can come to than that it becomes absolutely incumbent' upon the prisoner to account for his time on the night of the Saturday on which this murder was committed. It becomes incumbent on him to account for all those facts against him of which I have spoken, and to account for why h* left town as he did; for why he removed his moustache; for why he removed the soles from off his boots ; for why those blood stains are found upon his clothes ; and for why he attempted to account for those blood stains by means which the medical testimony will convince 3-ou it was impossible could have caused them. Gentlemen, I will say no more now. I have indicated generally the case that will be made out against the prisoner. I have indicated it fully, in order that the prisoner may know from the commencement what the case is that he has to answer, and how he may shape his defence. If, gentlemen, he can account for his actions on that night, and subsequently, in a manner that will satisfy you, no one will be more glad than myself to hear him do so. But, gentlemen, if he fails to account for himself, if he fails ..to give you a satisfactory explanation of those things that tell so strongly against him, then, gentlemen, you must do your duty, unactuated by any sentiments or by any feelings whatever. You are there, gentlemen, to try a case which has created a sensation —necessarily and properly so, I think—as great as any murder ever committed has created. And for this reason : that it was committed upon perfectly inoffensive creatures living in the midst of a crowded street, surrounded by neighbours and friends, and trusting, as they evidently did trust, to the protection which living in such a position and in such a place would be expected to afford them. The absence of any apparent motive otherwise than to satisfy a thirst for blood, in the criminal, whoever he may be, should remove from your breasts any feeling of sympathy whatever with regard to him. But, gentlemen, whilst the3e feelings must be existent with regard to this murder, still you must be careful to see that the evidence which is brought before you is' such as to satisfy you that the prisoner is the man who committed this most diabolical act. Do not let the horrors of the crime induce you to fasten the giiilt upon the first person against whom suspicious circumstances occurred. Be satisfied that the man who is on his trial before you is the criminal. If you are satisfied of that, do your duty fearlessly and without, any, regard to the consequences that must ensue. That is only fair to the prisoner. He stands there undefendfed, and he has the right to be considered innocent until he is proved to be guilty.; Gentlemen, a great deat has been heard about this matter. I have no doubt that

you have read r a great deal about it in the newspaper*, andh'&ard a great dealabout-it j"' btit 'what you hay# read, and what you have heard it is your duty to banish from your minds how- that you are sitting in that box to try the prisoner. It isupon what you bear in" this Court, upon the evidence of the witnesses who are about to be called, that you will have to decide. , Listen to that evidence patiently and carefully, : hdte what ; tells in Javour of-the prisoner, and what tells "against ; himf and if the balance of that testimony "is suflh as. to leave in your minds the- honest conviction thatthefacts and the Circumstances' ?proved tendi to show .that the prisoner was the person-who committed ■this murfe"r,:then; r gehtiemen, you know your duty. •If,, oh the other hand, the Crown 'breaks down in any way—l "do no£ 'see, ■ and do not know, how it ; can ; I only say-if ; it does not establish > the facts which I have pointed out to you as fully and as clearly as.l have doh&—if there is left a doubt on your minds, then. P say the prisoner is entitled to the- benefit of -that 'doubt: ■■ Gentlemen* withdtit-any farther remarks I shall proceed to call the Witnesses Who "will establish the oase agairisfrihe prisoner." Prisoner: May I address your Honor?- ; r His Honor: What is it you have to. say? The ordinary'course is for the Crown Prosecutor to call hisi witnesses. .oil cross-examine them, and when the Crown case'is closed .then jou call your witnesses, 'if you* have any to call, and then'ydu address the Jury.'• Have you any further observation to make ? Prisoner : I wish to say a" few words to your Honor. ."*ou said Just now that you iwere sorry I .had not had counsel to defend me. Whilst the adage says " The man who is his own. counsel has a fool for.a client," I can only' say there is another, which says that "Thrice armed is he who has his quarrel just." I have to ask your Honor's assistance, and. beg. that you will not allow any irregularities to go against hie. ■ His Honor: Certainly I shall take care that you have fair play. Ido not think the Crown will press .unduly against you; but if there is anything which you wish brought out—any points that you think are in your favour, I shall certainly see that it is done. Prisoner; I thank your Honor. Mary Grant was the first witness called. She gave evidence similar to that already published. His Honor (to prisoner): Do you wish to ask this witness any questions ? Prisoner: Yes. His Honor: Go on. Prisoner (to witness): You say you know that the knife found near the house did not belong to your son ? —Witness: No. Are you sure that it did riot belong to him?—l am sure. . When did you clean the knives last?—l could hot .say to a day. How long ago, about ?—lt might have been two or ■thi;ee weeks back. , • . - Then you can say for certain that between the time that you cleaned the knives last and the time .of .the murder they did not become possessed .of this ?-r-N6; I am sure of it. You have given evidence, I think, before in this case?—l did. Prisoner (to his" Honor) *. I do not wish to make use of the depositions, your Honor, as evidence, but I wish to examine the witness on them. (To witness): ' Will you be good enough to read what is marked there (handing her" the, depositions). Witness: I cannot read'them. , His Honor: Those are the depositions, are they? You wish to call the witness'attention'to something she has said. Prisoner: She says she cannot read them. His Honor: You can read that particular part. Prisoner: If I read this particular part that I wish •to eall attention to, shall I be using the depositions as evidence ? His Honor: No; you will not be bound to put in the whole depositions as evidence. You can read a part to call, attention to it. Prisoner: I mean to say, sir, will it give the prosecutor a right to reply ? His Honor: Oh, no; not unless you put the depositions in for the purpose of contradicting her. You can say, "Do yoii say so and so ?' reading what she did say. Prisoner (to witness): Did you say, then, before the Magistrate, "I cannot say whether they became possessed of the knife in the interim between the last time I cleaned the knives and the murder." Witness : I do not mind saying that. Prisoner: I wish to call your Honor's attention to the depositions. His Honor: Give me the depositions, please. Of course you can conduct your cross-examination any way you like, prisoner; but I would suggest to you how far it affects your case, because we nave already heard from the Crown that they cannot connect this knife with you in any way. The. Crown Prosecutor has said that already. I do not quite see how this cross-examination assists your case if the Crown do not propase to connect you in any way with this knife. Prisoner: Well, your Honor. His Honor; You can conduct your case as you like ; I merely suggest to you. You wish to call my attention to the depositions ? Prisoner : To the cross-examination. His Honor: I thought she confirmed her previous evidence. (Reading from the depositions): "I am »ure the knife did not belong to my son. I cleaned the knives two or three weeks before. Cannot say that it did not come into their possession since." (To witness) : Did you not say that, Mrs Grant? Prisoner : She denied that. His Honor: I thought she did. (To witness): You say that you cleaned the knives two or three weeks before this ? Well, now, the prisoner wants to know if you are prepared to swear that they could not have become possessed of this knife between the time you last cleaned the knives and the time the knife was found. Witness: Well, I would not swear. His Honor: You will not swear that they did not become possessed of it in the interim, but you never saw it ? Prisoner: Then, for all you know, they may have become possessed of that knife ? Witness: I never saw it. ... Prisoner: I have no more questions to ask. James Nicholson, draughtsman in the Survey Office, deposed'that he knew the house which was occupied by the deceased James Dawar. The photographs produced were different views of the house. Witness related Who lived in the adjoining houses. He produced a ground plan of the place, prepared by'him, and one showing Cumberland street, Dewar's house, Grant's house, Robb's house, Gibson's store, a dwelling a short distance from the corner of St. David street, which causes an obstruction from a certain point; Leighton's store, Leighton's old store on the opposite corner; Scotia Hotel, that : part of the Botanical Gardens between the Water-of-Leith andthe'Northern Cemetery, a seat in the gardens pointed out to witness by Detective Bain, and a table showing the distances between various points. His Honor objected to a plan of the room in which the murder was committed being made use of. By the Prisoner: Between Dewar's and the seat, what would be the distance?—l have not measured it.

Give a rough idea ?—lk is 44 yards across, according to scale. His : Honor: You have not got a scale in your pocket?—Noif I had a foot-rule I could tell accurately. A juror having produced a scale, witness measured, stating that it was 15in., and 44 yards to the inch, according te scale. His Honor: The distance is 660 yards, then. Prisoner: You say there is an obstruction between the seat and Dewar's house?— Yes ; only half of it can be seen. The front of the house cannot. The roof can be seen ? —Yes. Then, of course, the yard'in front cannot be seen?— No. You cannot see anyone moving inside of Dewar's. You can just see the gate leading to Grant's. Then from the seat there is not a fair view of the house? —No ; only of the roof. Mr Haggitt: You were speaking from the seat ? —Or within 10 yards of it. Shortly after 1 o'clock the Court adjourned for luncheon. On resuming. Sergeant Shirley was examined. Cross-examined by Prisoner:— Did you examine the rooms ?—Yes, all of them, particularly the one in which the murder was committed. What signs of a search did you notice about tho house ?—What do you mean ? What signs of search having been made? —Well, I noticed that the drawers had been opened, that the clothes had been all tossed as if they had been examined; Were there any other signs of search besides thoso you noticed in the drawers?— No. If there had been any other signs of search would they have escaped your notice ?—Well, if his pockets had been searched the fact would escape my notice. I am speaking of the rooms. -r-I could not say, becausa something might have been taken away. Well, was there any disorder about the place?— There was no disorder about the place other than what I have already referred to. You say there were clothes in the drawers ?—Yes. Anything else ?—I did not notice anything else ia the drawers except clothes. ■ in the drawers there was nothing but clothes ?—I did not notice anything else. Did you examine the appearances caused by the fire —I did. How would you say the fire had originated ? would say that there was a candle in the candlestick, and most likelj' the person who put the caudle undor

tha b«i ripped part of the bed and put the candle in to set iton fire. _ _ Yes. Well, win the Boor burnt ?—Yes, the floor, where the candlestick was, was burnt. Much?— Well, about that size (measuring the size of the hole with his fingers). Cnder the bed ?—Under the bed. What was the appearance of the floor about the side of the bed I—lt was covered over with water and burnt debriif—the remains of the mattress. Prisoner (to the Court): Allow me to look at the plan of the room. t .„ His Honor: If yoa examine on that plan it will have to be put in in evidence. It occurred to me, in your interests, to disallow it to be shown to the Jury because of the splashes of blood shown on the wall, as perhaps tending to influence the Jury. Prisoner: I will not take it. (To Witness): Well now look here, sergeant—this is the bedroom (showing witness the plan of the building]. The debrii was about the side of the bed ? Witness: At the edge and side of the bed. Did you examine the debri'* ?—Yes. And yon found ?—Burnt straw and burnt boards. Ha Honor: You examined the debrii. You found what? Witness: The burnt straw, your Honor, that came from the mattress, and the burnt floor underneath it, and the candlestick; this candlestick (produced) showing that a candle in the candlestick caused the place to go on fire. It had that appearance. Prisoner • Was there any kerosene about the house? , . . Witness: No; we searched for kerosene, but we contd not And any. There was no smell of kerosene. There would scarcely have been a smell when the flr» had burnt away.—lt would be impossible for me to notice. . .... There was nothing that might have held kerosene —No; I did not notice anything. Were there any kerosene lambs in the house. — Yes; there w»3 a keroaone lamp in the house. Wa3 there any kerosene in it?—lt was in the sittingroom ; I could not say whether there was any kerolene. ... . , In this debris you examined there was nothing but the straw and the burnt material of the mattress and the lining?— The burnt debri* and the mattress. You say that the debrii showed nothing but the burnt straw and other materials of the mattress and a part of the lining which you saw torn away ? I only imagine, of course, that whoever put the candlestick under the bed ripped the mattress. . 1 ask you were there any signs of any other material except the straw, the ticking of the mattress, and the portions of the curtain burnt away? Was there any sign of any other material? —I did not notice anything. .. .. ». . . Was there a button ?—I did not notice it. I brought the deceased to the Hospital. You cannot say from your observation that there were no other materials used for making the fire except the mattress You cannot say from your observation that there were no other materials to create a fire than simply the mattress and curtain burnt away?—No, 1 cannot. Richard Sweetraan Howard, the deceased's employer, cave evidence, but was not cross-examined. William M'Guire, tramcar-driver, gave evidence as to seeing the deceased man, Dewar, going home in the car on Saturday night. Prisoner: In what direction did the deceased go after leaving the car? Witness: In the direction of his house. How far from hi 3 home was he when he got out of the car?—He was at the corner of St. David street and King street, leading down to Cumberland street. \Va3 he proceeding in the direction of his house when yoa last saw him ?—Yes. Harry Hollander, carter, was the next witness. He had noticed a light in the deceased's house at XI o'clock on Saturday night, and next morning he wa3 awakened by a cry of fire. Cross-examined by Prisoner: Will you look at the photograph before you. On the ris»ht-_hand crossing there is a house marked F. Was it occupied at~ the time of the murder? —Yes; there were people in it. Living in it, then, at the time of the murder? Did yoa notice if the deceased, James Dewar, was in the horiae at 11 c'elock, when you passed?—l do not know anything at all about that bid you go into the house in the morning?— When they cried out fire. Yoa went in?—l went in after I went for the doctor —about 7 or 3 o'clock. You went in then ?—Yes. . . Did you form any opinion as to how the fire originated ?—No. None at all? and you have no idea now? —NoMr Haggitt: You were sent away immediately almost for the doctor? Witness: Yes. James Haydon, expressman, deposed that he wa3 awakened about ■! o'clock on the morning of the murder by hearing a loud nouc, which he attributed to the slamming of the stabte-door. Getting up to satisfy himself on the point, he discovered that such was not the case. By the Prisoner: Had it been raining that night?— Not to my knowledge. You were asked just now if you knew the deceased man and wife, and if you had been in the home. \ou said. " Welt. I have been on one or two occasions—taking wool into the house." Is that so ? c*. What foundation have you then for saving so decidedly that they were living together on very good terms I—What reason have I ? What foundation have you for saying they were on such good terms with one another ? The fact of your only having taken wood into the house on one or two occasions implies very slight intimacy ?—I have seen them—the one with the other. Where have yoa seen them?— Well, among3t themselves. You could have scarcely observed that in the street, and you were only in the house on one or two occasions ?—I should imagine that a man was on good terms with hi 3 wife when he would always kis3 and hug his child. Prisoner: Well, I don't see that at all. I have no further questions. Charles Robb, carpenter, living in Lambeth road, opposite the scene of the murder, gave evidence 33 to discovering the fire. The prisoner did not question this witness. James Robb, a son of the last witness, and a member of the Fire Brigade, was examined as to his extinguishing the fire, and to the finding of the bodies of the deceased. By the Prisoner: There were two pillows to the bed?— There were. Blood on both of them?— There was blood on both. On Mra Dewar'a pillow there was blood, you say. From the appearance of the blood on Mrs Dewar's pillow would you conclude that she had been struck white her head was on the pillow?— There being a great quantity of blood, of course one would come to that conclusion. Was there any blood lower down the bed where she wa3 lying?—l cannot say. Dr Sivcn repeated in substance the evidence given by him before the Coroner. Prisoner: The deceased Mr Dewar seems to have been totally unconscious of his danger?—l should imagine he was. Yes. You examined the wounds I—Not of the nun. When I found he was dead I did not consider it was necessary to examine his wounds. Welt, you examined Mrs Dewar's wounds? —To a certain extent I did. You examinetl them sufficiently well to be able to recollect now the direction they took?— Yes. Was she struck on the right or left side of the head ?—On the left side. She was struck on the left side of the head ?—Yes. His Honor: Towards the front or back ?—She bad one wound in front on the left ear, and two wounds on the head —one on the top, and one more towards the back of the head. Prisoner: There was one on the ear, you say; another ?—Another near to the top of the head. And the third?— Somewhat behind that, further down. Welt now, the one that was nearly on the top of the head : can you describe exactly its position ?—lt was just about that position—(witness pointing to a corresponding part of his own head)—between the parietal and the occipital bone. That would be rather to the side of the head?— Somewhat to the side. Would you call it a downright or a side blow?—lt would be half-and-half —between a lateral and direct blow. Of course yon must remember that in putting those questions to me I am at a considerable disadvantage, because the Coroner acted in a peculiar manner towards me in my connection with the case, and lam not in the same position as if I had been allowed to make a port-mortem examination. His Honor: You will understand—notwithstanding If the Coroner behaved badly to you, and we don't want to go into that question—that you must now tell everything that you possibly can tell. Of course yoit are aware of that. Witness: Yes ; that» what lam trying to do. Prisoner: Yoa say yoa would take the state of the house and floor as being at right angles: what angle would a blow such as yoa have described take?—An angle of <5 degrees would have described the blow. Then it wooid have been such a blow as could have been caused by a direct blow?—I don't understand what you mean by a direct blow. If the man had been above the woman he could have produced such a blow. If her head had been on the pillow, could he have produced flu t blow I—Yes; hj» could, mo«* (Mdejly.

His Honor: Supposing such a wound had been given while her head had been on the pillow, could she have got up afterwards? —I think not, your Honor. I don't think she could have got up either after the blow given in front of the ear or at the top of the head. Prisoner: Then you say she was struck immediately , on the car ?—Yes. Her face must have been turned towords the wall ? —Very probably. But then you must remember Ido not know what blow was struck first. I cannot tell that. Yes. Well, we will leave that. Can you recollect the direction the blows took on the head ?—Well, it is almost impossible to say which direction they took. To all appearance they came downwards. Taking the marks as they stood, without reference to how they were given ?—They were lying from above downwards. Straight downwards?—l think so. Pretty nearly so. I would not be quite sure about that. They were lying down that way ? —Yes. I wish the gentlemen of the Jury to notice this fact particularly. You say the marks were lying from the top of the head towards the ears—the line was in that, direction ?—Yes, so far as I could gather. The line was from the top downwards?— Yes; that is, so far as I can recollect from the position of the wounds. Sarah Gillespie, servant at the Scotia Hotel, next gave evidence. Cross-examined by Prisoner:— You say that on the Thursday night I left the Scotia Hotel, saying I was going to the theatre?— Yes. I did not go to the theatre ?—No. How do you know I did not go to the theatre ? Because you came back shortly after 3'ou went out. What time did I go to the theatre ?—You went out after 6 o'clock, and I saw you again between 8 and 9. How do you know I did not go to the theatre ? You cannot say whether I did or not. You gave evidence before in this case. You said that X was very pale, and you said that I looked afraid, and you said I was restless, and that I was trembling, and that I ran straight out of the door?— Yes. You gave all this evidence before ?—Yes. Prisoner: I wish to call your Honor's attention to the depositions. This witness says that at the Police Court she said that I was trembling, and that I went quickly out of the door. Ido not think you will find that down in the depositions. His Honor: No, I do not see anything about the trembling. Mr Haggitt called his Honor's attention to the fact that the witness' evidence in that respect had been given at the Coroner's inquest. . Prisoner (to witness): How far up the street did IJgo ? Witness : I did not notice. How long was I in the Scotia altogether ?—You went In to the Scotia between 9 and 10. I mean on Sunday morning ?—You were in at live minutes to T. Out of the five minutes, how long was I in your company?— Four minutes. I went up stairs, put on my coat and muffler, and got my parcel, and went into a room to get some music? That is true, is it ?—I do not know whether you went in to get the music. You went as far as the room door. I did all that in a minute ? Did I complain about a sore throat the day before ? You remember me saying, "It is the worst cold I ever had " ?—I could not j say. And I complained of having had no breakfast on the Sunday morning ? —Yes. I said I was anxious to catch an early train ?—You said vou wanted to catch the 10 minutes past 7. When you drew the beer for me you remember running some of it off and splashing it ?—No. You do not remember splashing it that morning when you were drawing it for me?— No. Do you not remember nie joking with you about wasting the beer?— You never said anything. You simply asked for beer. I never spoke at all. What do you mean about my never speaking? I must have spoken if I asked for beer.—You never' said anything after you asked for the beer. How long after this did you hear of the murder ? I heard of the murder before S o'clock. Then you say you suspected me?— Yes. Did you tell your suspicions to anybody?— No. Xot to anybody at ail ?—No. You did not send for tiie police?— They came of their own accord. The detectives came down. Did they make any inquiries from you?— They asked ine for the description of the man who was staving there. That was all they asked me. They spoke to you first?— Yes. I suppose you thought it very likel}- that I was the man who committed this murder? —Yes. At that time—a3 soon as you heard of it?—As soon as I heard of it. TTien if you thought it so likely that I was the man, did not you think it was your place as a good citizen, not to say a3 a good girl, to place the matter in the hands of the police ?—No. You did not think so ? You seemed to have thought you had a very good clue. I a-k you why you did not glace the matter in the hands of the police. It would ave done me no harm if I was innocent. Is that the hat (produced) I was wearing ?—That is the hat you were wearing when you came to the hotel on the Sunday morning. And on the Frid.iy ?—Yes. Do you recognise this (necktie) ?—I never law that before Was I wearing that on the Thursday when I came ? —I did not notice your scarf at all. Did you notice any disorder in my dress that morning?—No, I did not notice any disorder, except that your coat was buttoned up to your neck. If there had been any disorder you would have noticed it, I suppose ?—I think I would. Then that amounts to saying that if my cravat had been in a disordered manner you would have noticed it ?—Not at all. I could not have seen it, because your coat wa3 buttoned up over your scarf. The coat wa? buttoned over the scarf, and that would have prevented you from seeing it?— Yes. You swear that. Will your Honor allow me to put that coat on for a moment ? His Honor: Yes. Prisoner then put the coat on. Witness: Oh no. The collar was turned up all round—buttoned. Prisoner: And buttoned ?—Yes. Prisoner,looking at the coat,said there was no button near the neck. Witness: It was turned up all round. Prisoner: You see she is trying to get out of it now. (To the witness): But if I was walking, would not that turn the collar down?—No, it would not. Prisoner: I put the probabilities of this to the Jury. There is no evidence of the collar having been turned up at all. She first tells the gentlemen of the Jury that the coat had been buttoned up, and then that it wa3 turned up all round. That is on a piece with one or two other items in her evidence. (To the witness): That will do. George Lcighton gave evidence that he sold five tins of salmon to the prisoner on the Sunday morning at a store at the corner of Castle and Dundas streets. Prisoner: What time did you say it was when you first saw me ?—lt would be about 10 minutes to 7. Ten minutes to 7?— When I first saw you it would be a few minute-i before. His Honor: He said, you know, prisoner, that he could not swear to you as the person. He said he could not identify the man he saw in the Gaol. Prisoner: Yes, lam aware of it, your Honor. lam quite willing for it to be granted that it was me. (To witness): Is the private door concealed from public view ?—No. Is it in the open street?— Yes. Anyone going there would have as much chance of being seen as by going to any other door? —If he stood in the street. If he stood in the street he would have more chance of being seen, you say ? And you closed the door after the man and "did not watch him—did not take any notice of him after he went away ?—No. Did you think it worth your while to trouble yourself about me at all ?—No. Did you notice anything peculiar about him?— No. Was he excited? —No. Was he restless?— They are both of the same meaning. Are they?— Very much the same You noticed nothing in his manner, then?— Nothing except that he was quiet. When you heard the rap first, you came out into the street, you looked up and saw a man standing at the corner of Cumberland street ? —No; ho was not at the corner when I went out. Well, in that direction. Did he look back and see you?—l did not notice. But immediately after a second rap came to the door?— Yes. John Wadsworth, milkboy, also gave evidence as to seeing prisoner shortly before 7 o'clock the same morning. He was then looking up Cumberland street. Cross-examined by the Prisoner: — The Prisoner: When you first saw me, what street were you in ?—I was in Cumberland street. And I was in ?—You were crossing from the corner of C&stle street to Dundas street. You were in Cumberland street and I was in Dundas itreet?—Yes. Now, look at the plan and point it out.—(Witness pointed out their relative positions on the plan.) What time do you say you saw me?—l could not be •ertain of the exact time. Could not tell within five minutes, I suppose?—No ; I could not tell within 10 minutes. Yoa say you noticed me because I (tared at you ? Tiut wn the r*aso> I netioed

There is no other reason ?—No. I thought, perhaps, you were like any other man in the street and wanted some milk. You noticed me because I stared at you; there was no other reason ?—No. Immediately afterwards you saw me throw some stones at dogs ; that called your attention ?—Yes. Because I was misconducting myself, throwing stones in the street?— Yes. If I had not stared at you first, and if I had conducted myself properly, and left these dogs alone, I suppose I mav conclude you would not have troubled about me at all ?—lf you had not stepped forward to the front of the footpath, I might not have noticed you. That is another reason for noticing me. You said there were only two reasons for noticing me; now there are three reasons for noticing me?— Yes. Any other reason ?—Not that I know. No other reason you are aware of. You gave evidence before in this case ?—Yes. Now recollect the evidence you gave. You have said you had no other reason for noticing me than for my throwing stones, stepping forward, and staring at you. Did I appear exhausted or frightened ?—Well, I could not be certain of that. Whether you were excited or frightened, you looked a good deal whiter on that morning than I am not asking about my colour. I am asking if I looked frightened or excited. They are prominent features in a man; if I looked frightened or excited surely you would have noticed it?— You did not look frightened when you stood on the footpath and stared at me. No; I did not look frightened. You say I stepped forward towards you ?—Yes. In that case I did not try to avoid you—did not seem to care whether you saw me or not?— No. Did you see the dress I wore under my coat?— To the best of my recollection, I did not take notice. Was the overcoat buttoned ? —lt was buttoned close to the chin. How many buttons?—l cannot say. You cannot say how many buttons were buttoned ?. —No, I cannot. You can scarcely have forgetten since you were examined last what took place, so that it will be well in your mind since. I gave you so full an opportunity of seeing me that at a future time you had no difficulty in recognising me ?—I had no difficulty in recognising you. When I stood at Mr Leighton's corner you were standing, you say, at Leighton's new store ?—Yes. You saw me looking in the direction of Dewar's ? Yes. You were looking in the direction where the fire was. Dewar's would be to the right or left hand ? —To your left hand. As I was standing at the corner of Cumberland street, you would be at my back?— Yes. Did I look to the right ?—Not that I saw You are sure, now, mind?—To the best of my recollection you did not. You swear I did not look to my right; you say I did not lbok to my left?— Not that I saw. Were you watching the whole time ?—Yes. Now I ask you again. You swear that I looked in this direction (turning to the right), and that I did not look in this direction (turning to the left)? —Not that I saw. If you were watching me the whole time can you doubt whether I did or not ?—I did not see you. Don't give these shuffling answers. You don't mean to say I could look in that direction (to the right) and not in this (to the left)? —I could if you had turned round in that manner, but you did not do so as I saw. | You want to make me believe you could see me looking to my right hand, and could not say if I was | looking at my left hand, and you standing at right angles to me, and never taking your eyes off me. George Hutchinson, son of Mr Hutchinson, hotelkeeper, King street, deposed to having found two tins of salmon in the Botanical Gardens on Sunday, the 21st March, and pointed out on the plan the place where he had found them Cross-examined : Were they (the tins) lying on the footpath or on the grass ?—They were lying on the top of some leaves. Off the footpath ?—Yes. Did they seem as if they had been dropped by anybody pass'ingalong?—l do not know; they were just lying down. Were there any marks of anybody having been there ?—No. James Henry Youngihan, ranger, deposed that he found the salmon-tin produced on the Town Belt. It was different to the other tins exhibited in Court. Witness also gave evidence as to finding the clothes of the prisoner. Cross-examined by the Prisoner : Saturday was the first day you searched?— Yes. What did you find on the Sunday?—l found the salmon-tin first, afterwards the coat. When you found the coat and salmon-tin. what did rou do?—I took the salmon-tin up and laid it down again, then went forward and picked up the coat, and took it direct to the Police-station. I suppose you came back for the salmon-tin ? Yes. When you found the salmon-tin, did you go away again ?—I took the salmon-tin up and laid it down again, and went hack in company with Detective Bain. There was no undergrowth about where the trousers were found?—No; where the trousers were found it was overgrown densely with lawyer bush. There was no undergrowth of grass ?—No. Foreman of the Jury : The Jury would like to know if the brand on the tin found by Youngman was the same as the brand on the tins sold by Leighton, junior. His Honor: I think not. Mr Haggitt: I am going to recall the boy Leighton about that directly. George Leighton, recalled, deposed: When I sold the prisoner the tins of salmon I only noticed the fifth. We keep three brands in the shop. The tin produced (the one found by Youngman) bears one of our brands. George Donne was sworn, and repeated the evidence giren by him at the preliminary investigation. Cross-examined by the Prisoner: — I think, by your account, I entered the dining-room and sat down ?—I said I first saw you sitting in the dining-room. In a restless position, and apparently thinking?— Yes. Are you sufficiently acquainted with the English | language to know the meaning of the word restless ? I think I am. Will you please give me the definition of it?—A man, as you were, evidently sitting thinking and waiting. If I was sitting like this (reclining his head on his arm), I should say I wa3 sitting in a listless position. That is a very lame explanation. Do you think the word listless applies to the body or the mind, or to both ? As regards the body, do you think it applies in the same sense to the body as to the mind ?—I don't quite understand you. If I am listless in body I am leaning so, and if I am listle33 in mind I am leaning and thinking : is that what you mean to say?—lt would be impossible for me to say whether your mind was listless, because you might be thinking actively, and still be listless in boiy. Now when is a man listless in mind ?—I should call absence of thought listlessness of mind. I say you were apparently thinking. It seems to me you use words you scarcely understand. In addition to all this, I was waiting for my supper—for how long?— Probably 12 minutes. That is a long while for a weary and a hungry man. Did you ever see a sleeping man wake ?—That is an Irishism. Well, I won't press the question. I agree with you it is an Irishism. I suppose if you were hungry, weary, and listless in mind, listless in body, and kept waiting for your supper, you would feel happy and contented ?—I may at once say that I was never in such a position. I need scarcely ask questions. I can hardly get an answer to a question. Was this remark about the murder made before my supper was served ?—lt was. Do you know if I ate a hearty meal ?—I did not see j-ou take your supper. I have already stated in my evidence that I left the room when the supper was served. You gave evidence, I think, before in this case ? —I did. Do you remember the terms of the oath you took ? You were sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?—Ye3. Did you keep the terms of that oath in your former evidence ?—To the best of my belief I did. Is J'our evidence given to-day the same as that given formerly ? —lt is a repetition. You have not added to it or taken from it?—At the Gaol inquiry? At the police investigation ? —Whether I have stated more than I did on that occasion ? Whether you had sworn to tell the whole truth.— Th» evidence at the Police Court was abstracted by Inspector Mallard. A man of truthful mind can speak it out at once. Why did not you tell the whole truth then ?—I was making my statement when Inspector Mallard stood up and said "That will do," and of course I | stopped. I think, if I remember right, Mr ; however, | we will see afterwards, when Inspector Mallard is called. Do you think the items of information that you impressed on a former occasion were important? —You mean at the Gaol inquiry ? I think not. Well, you say now—l think you said then—that I was in »listless condition and very weary, and uneasy ,

[ in my chair, aad so forth. Do you think that is important evidence?—l am not supposed to give my opinion on the importance of the evidenee I give. - Tou say now that I shaded the light with one hand, and stared at you through my fingers—like this, for instance (shading his face with his hand as indicated). Do you think that was very suspicious ? did you think it was suspicious at the time ?—No. It was done quite naturally, then—just as a tired man would be likely to do ?—Yes. Did you state at the former investigation that after the murder had been ment'oned that I commenced to shade the light ? —I did not. You did not say that I kept looking at you through my fingers ?—I did not. I stated it just now, but not at "the Gaol inquiry. Constable Townsend was next examined. Cross-examined by Prisoner: — Did you get the revolver presented at you ?—Yes. I was under the impression at first that you moved it from one to the other, but I have been thinking it over, and from a conversation I had with the other constable I think not. Then you have improved your evidence by a conversation with the other constable ?—ln that respect. Well, I said when you said you were going to charge me with attempting to .shoot you and Constable Colboume, " If that is all I do not care " ?—-Yes. And something kept me from shooting you ?—Yes. That I did not shoot you because I had got enough on my hands already ?—Yes. Well, when you stated this in the Police Court, I believe I denied it?— Denied it? Yes. No. You said the only thing you had to find fault with Prisoner : Wait a minute. Mr Haggitt: Take his answer. Prisoner: You said 'I said, " I am glad I did not shoot you, because I have got enough on my hands already" ?—Yes. Very well. You stated this in the Police Court, and you said I denied it ?—You said the only thing I That was not in this case at all. You stated at the Police Court that I said I was glad I did not shoot you, because I had enough on my hands already. That is so, is it not ?—I do not know whether what I stated was in the Police Court or not. No ?—I am not sure I said it now. Did you state that in the Police Court ?—I do not think I did. You did not state it in the Police Court I—l do not think I did. Then this is the first time you stated—you seem to tell—■—l was curtailed. Who curtailed it ?—The Magistrate. Do you mean to say that the Magistrate curtailed ?—Yes. I do not think anybody ever heard that before.— Well, I say it now. You have given a lot of fresh evidence now.—That is the only evidence. You are not the only witness who has introduced new features into the case. You saw spots of blood on the shirt; how many ?—I counted three. You did not charge me with murder ?—No; I did not. Did you know about the murder?— Yes ; but I had not got full particulars, and I did not charge you with it. I went out to arrest you. on suspicion of murder. That is what I went along the road for. Did you receive instructions to arrest me for murder ?—No; I did not. Did you mention the murder to me ?—No ; I did not. I knew I had a charge against you for attempting to shoot, and that was the reason I did not tell you at the time. If you had not attempted to point "the revolver, I should have mentioned the murder You did not mention the murder ?—No ; I did not. Will you give a reason for not mentioning it ? —I have told you already I did not get full particulars about it. Did I say that I did not know how evidence could be brought against an innocent man?— You said something to Mr Mallard about that. Did I say I could not see how evidenee could be brought against an innocent man?— You made a statement in the lock-jp to Mr Mallard, but I am not sure what it wa3. Did I make any remark about the Octagon fire ? No ; you did not. You are sure ?—I am sure. Did I say that the idea of women and children burning there had haunted me for long afterwards 1— Yes; you did. I remember you saying something about that in the lock-up. Then in that case I must have mentioned the Octagon fire ?—Yes; I believe you did, now I come to think of it. Did I go on to saj r that if this had been so, that it would not have been the case if I had been capable of murdering women and children myself ?—No; I do not think you said that. Well", I scarcely see the point of my making the other remarks if I did not follow it up with something like that. Who charged me with the murder ? Mr Mallard, in the lock-up. What did I say then I—You said something about no doubt you would be found guilty, and Mr Mallard would find you could die like a man—something to that effect. Did I say, "Well, if that is all you have against me I do not care, for I do not see how you can find evi-, dence against me"?— Yes, I believe you did. Was Mr Stamper's fire mentioned ?—I do not think it was. Did not Mr Mallard say, "There is Stamper's fire, too " ?—He might have said that. I did not pay much attention to the conversation that took place between you and Mr Mallard. If you knew you were going to be examined, it was your duty to pay every attention ?—I paid every attention to what you said to me. Did you know I was armed before you arrested me ? —I did not. You say the soles of my boots were removed when you arrested me?— They were. And you saw the nails sticking up ?—I did. From what part of the boots were the nails sticking up ?—From the side. Where did you see them ? —At the lock-up, when I took them off. That paper which is said to be a mask, may I have it produced ? At the request of Mr Haggitt the paper was produced, and proved to be an oblong piece of paper, about eight inches by four, freely punctured with holes about three-quarters of an inch long and a quarter of an inch in width. The Prisoner : Hand that to the Jury. Gentlemen, please just to examine that—a very slight examination will do. (To the constable): Do you seriously think that that was a mask meant for concealing the face ?—lt is something like it. Do you say that it is so ? —You can make a mask of it if you like. Suppose you picked it up in the road or any ordinary place, what would you have thought it was ? Might have thought it was a mask just the same. It would not be hard to make you believe it was a mask. Suppose I was to tell you it was the key to a. secret mode of writing, would it be hard to make you believe that ?—lt would. I do not think it would be hard to make anybody else believe it. You say it would bo hard to mike you believe it was a key to a system of secret writing. Say I got a piece of blank paper—l could prove, if I chose, what it is ■ His Honor : The constable can hardly answer those questions. Would it not be more convenient for you to wait till you address the Jury ? It will be for the Jury to consider your statements. Prisoner : Very well, your Honor. His Honor suggested the advisability of adjourning, but the Prisoner said: " I should wish your Honor to have the other constable examined to-night. You see he has already spoken of consultations with the other constable." His Honor : Very well. Constable Colborne gave similar evidence respecting the arrest of the prisoner. Cross-examined by the Prisoner: — Did I say anything to the Inspector about how I did not see how evidence to convict an innocent man could be found ?—As far as I remember, you said what I stated : that you did not care, as, if that was all the evidence, there would not be evidence enough to convict you. And did I not say that I did not see how evidence could be. brought against an innocent man ?—I did not hear you say it. I don't remember it if I did. If I had, then, do you not think it likely you would remember it ?—I don't think so. Then you think it probable I did not say that?—lt is, as far as I am concerned. Did I make any remark about the Octagon fire ? No ; not in my presence. Not to Inspector Mallard, when he came to me in the lock-up ?—I did not hear it. If I said it you would have heard it, surety?—No; not necessarily. I was not in the lock-up throughout. Then j'ou think it is probable I did not say it ? If I had said it you would most likely have heard it, and not forgotten it?—l think if I hail heard it I should not. have forgotten it. His Honor: I thought you said just now, witness, that prisoner might have said so—that you were not in the lock-up all the time; that you did not hear all the prisoner said. Witness: I was not in the lock-up, your Honor. I could not hear distinctly what the prisoner said. I heard a great deal of it, and I am only trying to remember what he did say. Prisoner: Did you hear me mention anything about women and children who had been burnt there?—l do not remember. Could I have said such a thing: as that without your

having heard it?—l don't think you said anything about that. My memory is not too good. Then we eannot'trust your evidence if your memory is not so good.—l can only speak to a few things; but those few things I took particular care to remember. Was Stamper's affair mentioned? Did Mr Mallard say, "And there is Stamper's affair"?—l think Mr Mallard mentioned something about Mr Stamper. Von say you traced me along the road until you came up with me. How did you trace me ?—By people who had seen you. How many ? —The first trace I got of you was coming over Kilmog Hill. A man saw you enter the bush there. Yes. What was the next ?—The next trace I had was two little girls seeing you coming out of the bush. What was the next ?—I got no further trace until I came up with you. Did you inquire at the Kilmog Hotel ?—Yes. Did they say a man answering to my description had been there?— They did not. Of whom did you inquire ?—Of a woman. And what was the next trace? —When I saw you within five miles of Waikouaiti. Did you inquire at the Merton store? —I did not. Well, one would have thought it was your place to inquire in such a serious case as this. Have you had any conversation or consultation with anybody since you gave your, evidence concerning this matter?—No, not with anybody, not even with the other arresting constable. You have had no conversation about your evidence ? —None whatever. You have not compared your evidence with anybody ?—No, I have not. In reply to Mr Haggitt, the witness said that at the gaol inquiry he had spoken to the other constable, as to the shifting of the revolver, but not upon any other matter, and also repeated evidence formerly given respecting the clothes the prisoner was wearing at the time of his arrest, and the articles found on him. The revolver which the prisoner had presented was a self-cocking one, and was loaded in six chambers. Prisoner: When were the boots taken off me ?—At the Gaol. I was not asking where, but when ?—I cannot tell the exact day, but you had been wearing them for about a week after you had been arrested. You say some of the nails were taken out during that week?—l did not mean taken out; they might have dropped out. To Mr Haggitt: I first noticed his boots in the lockup. Prisoner (to his Honor): There are three witnesses whose evidence seems to be inextricably bound up with each other, and I have to request, although it is getting late, that your Honor will, before adjourning, hear the evidence of the third one—lnspector Mallard. Mr Haggitt: I have no objection. His Honor: There is only one point to which these three witnesses speak. Ido not know that there is any particular reason for taking it now ; but I suppose Mr Mallard's evidence will not be very long. Mr Haggitt; lam afraid it will take some time. I am going to examine him as to other things which do not appear in the depositions. His Honor: Then it is impossible to conduct the case further to-night if there is to be a long examination. The Prisoner : May Mr Mallard be examined on all the points referred to by the two previous witnesses ? Mr Haggitt: I will call Mr Mallard and let the prisoner ask him any questions he likes. Prisoner: Shall I have the right of cross-examina-tion if I examine him now ? Mr Haggitt: Yes. Frederick Mallard (inspector of police), was then sworn, and directed to answer the prisoner's questions. Prisoner : At whait time did you see me after my arrest ?—I think it was about 8 o'clock. 1 was arrested at what time—do you know? — I think it was between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon. You saw me at 8 o'clock, and charged me with the murder?—l did, after you asked me what was the charge against you. Did you say there was evidence to convict me ?—I cannot speak from memory. I have had my notes with me all day, but have just left them at the office, as I understood I was not to be called to-day. Every other witness examined to-day trusted to his memory. I should think you could do the same.—Mr Mallard: The first question you asked me when the cell door was opened was, " What is the charge against me ?" and I told you you were charged with committing the murder in Cumberland street. Then, I ask you ?—Then, you replied. Ido not wish to know what I replied. I ask you did you not tell me there was evidence sufficient to convict me? Surely you can recollect?—No; you told me there was no evidence to convict you. I am not asking what I told you, but what you told me.—ln reply to your remark, "There is no evidence to convict me," I said " There is evidence, because the fire was put out." That is what I wanted to know. Then you did say there was evidence to convict me. Did you mention Stamper's fire ?—I did not. You did not say, "And there is Stamper's fire?"—l swear positively I did not. Prisoner: Very good. Witness : I communicated my ideas to my superior officer afterwards ; but I swear most distinctly I did not. Prisoner: Oh, thank you; I did not want that. Did I say " I do not see how an innocent man could be convicted " ?—You said, " If I am convicted I " Answer the question. Did I say I could not see how an innocent man could be convicted ? I either said that or I did not.—l cannot exactly say. I noted it down in writing, and it is now in my office. The memorandum having been sent for, Mr Mallard, in reply to his Honor, said it had been made at 2 o'clock in the morning, after his interview with the prisoner. The Prisoner : Well, you noted all that passed when you wrote that note ?—Yes, I noted all that passed as fairly as I could remember. Did I say to you that innocent men had been sacrificed before, and that I might be sacrificed so, too ? No. What you said was this : " There is no evidence against me ; but if I am hanged for it I shall die an innocent man, whatever other crimes I have committed." I said, " There is evidence to convict you : the fire was put out." That will do, thank you. Did I make any remark about the Octagon fire ?—No. No! you positively swear that? You said a very positive " No!" Surely you do not want to think again.—No ; but in another conversation in my office you made a remark to the effect of how easily all traces of crime could be eradicated by fire, aud illustrated it by referring to the Octagon fire as an example. We are not talking of any conversation in your office?—l have no recollection that you alluded to the Octagon fire in the cell at Waikouaiti; but you alluded to it Never mind about the other. I did not say then that the idea of women and children being burned had haunted me afterwards ?—Certainly not. Never mentioned anything about women or that I am positive of. Did I ask if the murder was all you were going to charge me with?—No; there was nothing else referred to. You said, " What are you going to charge me with ?" What did you reply?—l replied, "For the murder of the man and woman in Cumberland street," or " the Cumberland street murder." Is that your first answer ?—That is the answer I gave you as soon as I opened the door, in reply to your question. Then you became terribly agitated. I will not trouble you about the agitation now. I understand that the first charge you mentioned was the murder ?—Yes, I positively swear that. I swear it was. Did you in the police investigation take pains to unravel the whole affair as much as possible?—l did. Did you curtail or cause to be curtailed any part of the evidence?— Not that lam aware of. Were the proceedings curtailed at all ?—Well, I do not think so. I think they extended over a very great time. In fact it was remarked to me afterwards that they were very lengthened. I do not remember curtailing anything. Then the investigation was pretty exhaustive?— Yes; I think so—that is, .as exhaustive as I could make it When witnesses concluded their evidence, I think it was your practice in order to make the thing as exhaustive as possible to say. " Is there anything more ?" " Can you recollect anything I have not asked you?" I think that was done as a rule ?—I think on one or two occasions I did say that to one or two of the witnesses. You did not repress or restrain any witnesses?— Certainly not. You took good care to get, as far as you could seo, from the witnesses everything concerning this murder?—l did. Prisoner: That is all. The Court rose shortly after 7 p.m., and adjourned till 10 a.m. the following day.