Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

Default

This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

LAW AND POLICE.

The Criminal Sitting of the Supreme Court wa9 opened, before Mr Justice Richmond, on tha Ist instant.

The majority of the esses tried were of merely minor and local interest. Excep-

tion must, however, be made in two in-> stances, both of them cases of new trial. The first was that of John Riordan for attempt at arson—the second that of William Andrew Jarvey for murdering hia wife by poison.

Riordan, it will be remembered, was convicted on an indictment which charged him with misdenuanor, but on a point raised by his counsel, the conviction \va3 quashed—the Court ruling that the indictment was invalid, seeing that if any crime had been committed at all, it amounted to felony. It was also held, however, by the Court, that the prisoner, not having been, placed in peril under a valid indictmenr, could be tried again; and he was accordingly remanded for that purpose. At the new trial he was found guilty, and sentenced to six years* penal servitude.

We now come to the second TRIAL OF CAPTAIN JARVEY FOR

MURDER.

The former trial of this prisoner hr.d lasted over seven days, and the jury had been discharged without coming to an agreement, after having been locked up for 40 hours. On that occasion, one of the principal witnesses for the Crown was Dr John Macadam, Analytical Chemist to. the Government of Victoria, to whom, after the exhumation of Mrs Jarvey's body, the contents of the stomach were sent to be tested lor poison. Dr Mac-

adam's evidence tended clearly to establish the fact that strychnine was present in the stomach. But the sufficiency of the tests employed by him was challenged by Air .Tames Smith, the very able counsel for the prisoner. The presiding Judge, Mr Chapman, also did much to throw discredit on the Chemical evidence. Other points in the evidence were also powerfully attacked, :ind the result was as we have stated, that the jury had to be discharged without finding a verdict, ami the prisoner was remanded for a new trial.

At the last Criminal Sitting of the Court, application was made on behalf of the Crown for a postponement of the case, on the ground of Dr. Macadam's state of health not allowing him to undertake a. voyage to New Zealand from Melbourne at that season of the year. The doctor had sustained a very severe shook, from an accident that occurred to him on his passage to Melbourne after the previous trial. The application was resisted by prisoner's Counsel, on the ground that it was very improbable that Dr. Macadam would ever be able to attend the Court snd repeat his, evidence. That view was not sustained by the medical certificates read, and the application for postponement was granted.

Amongst the points of objection to Dr. Macadam's evidence that h<td been suggested, was the fact tint he could not s-.vear uninterrupted possession and watch of the s'omach sent to him for analysis, lie swoie that during thi intervals when he was not liimcelf preseut in the Laboratory, and that place was not locked, —his assistant, aMr Kirkland, wa3 present But the point insisted on by the defence, was that Mr Kirkland ought to have been, produced, and that his evidence was necessary to establish the proof that the substances operated upon, had never been exchanged or tampered with. Dr Macadam, accompanied by his assistant, Mr Kirkland, left Melbourne on board the steamship Alhambra, on the 28th August, b ing then in apparently fair health. The Alhambra arrived at Tort Chalmers, oa Monday, the 4th September. On the previons day, however, the melancholy intelligence had been received from the Bluff by electric telegraph, that the unfortunate gentleman had expired on board, early oa the morning o£ the 2nd inst. He was a man of high scientific attainments, anil liar l held many; offices of great responsibility in the neighboring colony of Victoria. He was Secretary to the Royal Society, at the time of the ill-fated Burke and Wills exploration expedition, and at the time of his death viai Government Analyst, Health Officer for Melbourne, &c. Dr Macadam had also held office as Minister of the Crown, representing the borough ofCaitlemaine in the Parliament of Victoria.

Dr Macadam's evidence on the repetition of this momentous trial \va3 thus excluded from the case the Ctown had to present to the jury. Another witness who gave important evidence on the first tria?, had, duriner the interval, been removed by death. "We refer to Mrs Sly, by whom the body of the unfortunate deceased had been laid out, and who bad deposed to the sympfoni3 presented by it. The trial commenced on the morning of the 11th inst, Mr Justice Richmond premrted. The Hon. James Prendergast; M.L.C., Crown Solicitor, conducted the prosecution, with him being Mr Kenyon, and Mr James Smith defended the priconer.

The case for the Crown was opsned in a very temperate statement by the Crown Solicitor. There was a singular absence of any evidence of a desire to press the case unduly against the prisoner. The evidence was purely o£ a circumstantial character, and the story was to a great extent left to develop itself. Barnird Isaacs, dispmsing chemist, proved that the prisoner had purchased strychnine from him, at a date immediately preceding the sadden death of Mrs Jarvey, under suspicion) circumstances. The witness also proved the purchase of a mixture of corrosive sublimate and strychnine, at an earlier date, and amongst other things bought by him in the ordinary course, and allowed to be placed to the debit of his running account, were quinine powders, cough mixture, coldcream, &c. Both poisons he said were required for killing rats on bowl the steamship Titraia, of whi:h he was at the time master. On procuring the pure strychnine lie stated that the previous poison bad not destroyed the rats, but bad only made them sick. The purchase of thg poison and the pretext alleged for it were points in the evidence virtually unchallenged by the Crown.

Charles William Kobinson, part owner of the Titania; James Curran, second steward on board at the time; R. Wijkinson Liddell, engineer, and Andrew jKingv chief-steward; proved that' tbe ship was neverknown to be, or complained of ajpbeingv infested with rats; that .the CaptCn had :.- . i

never been kcown to lay down poison, and never been he.trd to express his intention to do so. It was elicited that " a rat," and a rat hole had been eeen, snd the engineer, Sir Liddel!, Htated that he had found a hole eaten in his coat by vermin, and some note paper in his drawer " nibbled." James Edmund Fitzgerald Coyle, C.E., proved that a mode! of the house produced in Court was a correct one. [The object of the prorecujiorj was to secure the admission of evidence as to transaction.s taking plnce in one port of the hou?c being.heard in other part*.] Elizabeth Ann Jarvey, the reputed daugh'ir of the priaomr, bore the must important 10-t:inony usiainst him. She deposed *o violence ami unkind treatment of his wife id an eailk-r date; to his ufc of the expression on one occasion when she v,a3 fk-k, '' Sne is alw.-iys ill; if who is going to die, why doca she not die at once and have done with it ?" Coining down to the night of th-j tr.i^cdy, the (itpr-tcd to her fUther having prepinx-;! s imthing by mixing in a glaf-s (this she beard frutu another room), tfi her mother, who .i;rifj:e«iii!e'y afterwards mads cxc'amatLns aicu=ing the husband of nois^irug her, to her being seized with violent c:T.vul-ion«, a:>.d manifesting other Fymp:on;H, which t! c rnc-dipl witnesses .swore were- shnik.r to those wl.ich •would be produced by strvchr.ine. This part of the evidence; we furnish. The ■witne.-H said : "On the evening ef'Moncay, the 2Gth, I was in the kiicheu, or I went to the- door to receive father; tH the- family were at home. We ;;11 had tea together, after father came home. Tim convtmtion during teatimc, was cheerful; l-ik! mother raid flic thought, it was a good thing she could cat so well, as it wa3 a sijjn she wn? getting stronger. F:.thf r s-aid ho hud brought tome quinine- with him, to cure her limb?. After tea, by linker's orders', I wcr-t uretiirs to pat my brothers to bed. "While I war. in the room, I heard a jingling tound b< im-.th, aa of glnß'ea bt'iiig stirred; and I heard my niotlu r say, "Oh! dtar; it':- dr. a'.'fV.l bitter ; it'sbiirniii'X my tiir-'-ut." My ft.ther s't'd, " You will li.ive to t-.ke it tv;i<:-:" a v»-. tk before: it

■will have any effect." When 1 came down stairs, my uiofhcr w;;s f-rting on a chair, with her aim reHtin.:,' rm the corner of the table. As 1 cnttrcd, she looked up and Bald, " I fcvl dreadful f^'ddy. Bother you, da! for {,'iviii<r me such stuff. If 1 had known it w<n'd k;;v: m- in this staff, I would not have taken it.1' She tried then to turn round, tui-.I she- hm^hed iathc-r wikll}'; a d 'ihe s id, "Oh! whatever'^ the matter with mel-' 1 feel so funny, and

my limbs are till gtt-ing .s iif. I nei'er felt like this before." She theu clenched, or grasped nervously at the (a'.le and the arms of the chair ; and she tried to raise herself up, buLc-uld not. jUyfaiber said she would have to gi up to beJ. She refused to go ; and then he to.'k her forcibly in his annsa'ul c-iined her along fie passage, and until they pot up a few steps of the stairs. She struggled out of his arms, and tried to cateir hold of the stairs on

either side. She cried nut, " For God's * s-.ke let me to the air ! I shall si.ffocate." I asked my lather h IthottlJ open the dcor, but ho said, ' No, no." Mother looked at in}-father very wild, and s-aid, "Oh, da! you have cooked your Catherine this time!" I said to my fniher, " Surely, d;<, you have not made a mistake v.u.i what you h-ive given mother?' 1 He said,"(Oh! no, nonsense ! How could i make n. mistake? It's the brandy that's takin effect u[ion her." Then my father took her aj/ain, and carried licr until thej* got to the top of the stairs. She cried cut, "Let me [.•(>, murderer! 1 shall go into fits." He curried her along the passage into htr bedroom, and hud her crosswise on the bed. She s-traujhtcn-jcl heise:f txud went into a fit, v/oikiny; tier limbs wry hard up and down all dv: while. jNIy father ti:cn hc^'iti to lai.e oil" h.r c!-. th.-s. I asked him if '.ye should cut or tear them; but he said, " Ko, no, they must eanio oil' ttraight." My mother opened lur eyes then, and loykim; at my father said, "Oh! "William Jarvej ! You have coi:c it thi-j time. You hr.ye poisoned me for the big hat and cloak." [The wi::ie = s hurst into tears, end her evidence uai tlnt3 interrupted for a raiuu'e or two.] My father was standing at tlic font of the bed. lie said, "Go to sleep, mother! go to sleep!" She said, " Yes, 1 will soon be irt the long sleep, and then the wonnn with the big hat and cloak will come in my plficc." I tried to soothe my matlur; and she said, '"It's no use, ]J//z\v, I mv poiioncd; your father has poi.-ot.ul ire fir another." Mother asked me to wet her lip.-) ; but directly I touched them she seemed to tremble in a.-'cin'. Father a-.10.d her to have a little brandy; she raid, " Ihi I no ! no more brandy fi.r me ! " She kept screnini'.ig at intervals. '■ Oh !my God ! oh! my children ! (Jo for a doctor ! "\\ ill nobody go for a doctor '! " I asked my father if iie would go; but he only answered she would be better prepcnt.'jI—it was the brandy. My mother said, "Oh! V/il'itr.n Jarvcy, I could call God to euisjyou ; but no, you ate ray husband end the father of my ehik!ru:i, and may God forgive yi;u. Oh! yea, may God forgive you for your cruelly to me thin night." "When I spoke, mother said, " Where are you, Lizzie ? I e'ui hear you speak, my child, but I can't tec you." Ne-irly the last wortU I heard her Eay v.-ere, " Good bye, my faithful Li;::-:ie; may God ble^s yoi.l, my child. Jiliuil my Kalie, end tell everybody your father has poi::oi:cd me, for the \voir.an with the bij hat ami cloak." 2.1y mother ceased speaking, nnd seemed to havo fallen into r. deep sleep, raid I went down to quiet my tister, who was crying. Father canio down shortly, and told me not to go up again, for mother v,\;s asleep, and 1 should only disturb licr; that she would be Letttrwhen slie woke, and that he was going for a doctor. From (he time I eatuc do.vn and saw mother sitting at the table, until slu appeared to go isito a deep bleep, about half an hour would huve clap.-cd, "When rcy f-Uher came home, he lnd some powders v.ith him; I §:;wr him take them from his pocket and put them on the mantel-piece. He i,ho brought some pomatum and coujji tnixtuiv. Miss Jarvey proceeded to describe minutely the symptoms exhibited by her mo.her. She alsa spoke of t#c conduct of the husband vi'h reference to delay ia procuring the services o( a doctor. In ci o^s-examination ahc- was strongly pressed upon the reasons of her withholding the statement made in Court until so long a period had elapsed ' since the death and burial of her mother. ) Her detail of circumstances on the present was compared by Counsel with " ij-hat made at the former, and ou the ground •,of various alterations, omissions, and ad-

ditions. A strong effort was made to impeach her credibility as a witncs;. " Revenge" was imputed as a very probable motive for her coming fbrwnrd to swear away her father's life, he having introduced into the house immediately after the death of Mra Jarvey, a female as his housekeeper, to whom tbe daughter was told she must henceforth be subservient. It may be here added parenthetically that tbe -connection of the prisoner with this woman, and his possible desire to get rid of his wife as an ineumbrance and an obstacle to his intrigue, was the "motive" suggested by the Crown case for the allcdgcd poisoning. Dr Worrali and Dr Hardy, the medic.il men summoned to the death bed after what the prosecution alleged to be a suspicious tardiness, gave evidence as to the symptom.* they saw, and :is to the demeanor of the prironer, especially his insisting on- the deceased being bled —a treatment hi .declared had on a previous occasion restored lur from a fif. They both declared the symptoms they saw to be g-merally consistent with those occasioned by strychnine poisoning. Dr Alexander and Dr Hocken gave simitar evidence with respect to the symptoms they had htard the witnesses present at the death scene describe. Ti>e exhumation-of the body, the deppsteh of the stomach to Melbourne, and its receipt by Dr Macadam at his residence, and its removal to that gentleman's laboratory, hiving been proved, tbe mxt important witness examined was Mr John Drummond Kirk'umd, who stated that he was a medical tstulent, formerly of the Cecilia street School ofMedieine in Dublin, and now oi the University of Melbourne, where he had matriculated ; that he had been engaged for sixteen years in medical ; todies; that he became a°tistaut to Dr Mucadam in the Government Labora'ory at Me!bourn.?, in 18-59, and that he had since taken part in upwards of 200 analyses of the contents of the human stomach to ascertain "the presence of pr,kon. Mr Kirldnr.d described tha tests employed and the results obtained with greit minuteness of particularity. Before doing so, Mr Smith niad'j a tt'ong endeavour to j git his evidence excluded altogether, on the ground that the projf was insufficient of the jars containing the viscera not having been tampered with. The judge overruled the objection aud left jit for the jury to consider whether the proof offered on tins point by the Crown, was not reasonable and sufficient. From another point of view, the prisoner's counsel objected to some of the evidence rendered by Mr Kirklai.d. lie maintained that the effect of strychnine experimentally administered to dogs should not be put in. On this point, Mr Justice Chapman, on the previous trial, had entirely gone with him, and stopped Dr Macadam's mouth when he came to this part of his evidence. Mr Justice liichmond on the other bund hell that the evidence wis admissible —having tiret put a question to the wiimss. as to whether as a chemist, he knew of any reason why poison should act j differently on the body of a doz_ to that of a human being. Mr Kirkluid replied that he knew of none. [ This dog evidence was of some importance.* lin two respects—first, as affording proof of | the infinitesmal quantities of strychnine, j which chemical analysis is capable of I detecting; second, as to the effect of the decomposition of animal matter in developing certain chemical changes in fcubstatic?s brought into contact with it. At the former trial, counsel had en'Je.ivorel to j ts'ablish the possibility of the elements of I ; quiiiii.e becoming converted into the ! demenfs of strychnine in the stomajh of a deceased p rson—to a sufficient extent at least so answer the chemical tests relied ou for the detention of the latter substance. Mr Kirklaud stated that a dog to which quinine Lad been administered was killed and buried in a box, and being exhumed, after an interval of two months, I ad the tame strychnine test? applied to i its viscera ns were applied i;i the case of I .Mrs Jarvcy, without developing the slightest traces of strychnine in any of ! its forms. The tests relied on, were chiefly thobe of Stas, and of Kodgers and Girdwood, lv Loth cases the poison was discovered. The tes:s are alike up to a. ccr(airi point, bat after that the latter becomes tbe more conclusive, as it secures the destruction of all traces of animal matter in the substance operated upon. Mr Kirk - ]md, s'atcd from his own experience, that he could detect the 20,000 th part of a •nain by Ixodgor and Gird wood's process. Thj residuum operated upon was a small \ film left after evaporation upon a n.irrow s'rip of glass; prisoner's counsel endeavored to throw ridicule upon such evideuci cs sufficient to hang a man, but the judge checked him on this point by laying down the principle that if experts were place t in lli-j witness box, their competency in that capacity being acccp'ed, it was not for the judge or jury, mt being themselves c-x----peitd, to call his scientific evidence into question. Such was the subsiama of the evidence presented by the Crown. Xo witnesses were called for^ the defence, but Mr James Smith made a very-eloquent r.nd powerful address to the ju."y which occupied three hours and a lnlf in the delivery. It was an elaborate attempt to break down the casj for the Crown by exhibiting the weak points of the evidence. At its conclusion. The learned Judge coramenccd'his summing ip, and, r.fcor urging upon the jury the importance of striving to arrive at aa unanimous judgment, proceeded : — The way in which I shall put the Crown cass to you will be to divide it uiukr heads. I will take first, thesj—l. Strychnine was administered by the prisoner to his wife. 2. That strychnine was wilfully administcre.l. Let us consider the first point — Strychnine w;i3 administered by the prisoner to hi-; wife. That something was administered on the night of the 2Gth September, is very probable. I wa3 going to say, it was almost admitted by the prisoner's case; but 1 will not say that. I will only say that, from circumstances which you will recollect, it is very probable that something was administered to the prisoner's wife on the night of the 26th. The prisoner docs not admit that anything was administered ; but he says that if anything were administered, it was either quinine, or it was strychnine given by accident. The Crown says that this something administered was strychnine. Why ? Firstly, because the prisoner purchased strychnine on the 23rd, the death occurring on the 2Gth; secondly, because the symptoms of the fatal fit, a3 described by Elizabeth Ann Jarvey, generally resemble, not absolutely, those of poisoning by strychnine $ thirdly,

became Mrs Jarvey's dying declarations!, in i tbe presence of the prisoner, conjoined with bis conduct at the death-bed, point o jan administration of a poison by the prisoner to her; fourthly, because strychnine was found in tbe body after death. These are the main heads of the first part of the Crown's case—-those on "which the Crown, 03 I understand the case, asserts^ that strychnine was administered by the prisoner to his wife. Now gs to—2. That it was wilfully administered. The points appear to be these:—Firstly, previous acts and expressions of cruelty; secondly, a false pretext made for the purchase of tbe poison; thirdly, the wife's previous illness on the 18th September, occasioned, siys the Crown, by corrosive sublimate and strychnine administered by the prisoner; fourthly, his conduct at the wife's deathbed, excluding tbe notion of mistake— mistake suggested then and there by the daughter, but denied by the priaontr, who nays, " It is only the brandy"—and again, when he was implored to send for a doctor, his reply, "No, no!" and he would not go or send ; lastly, the motive shadowed out —it is not much more than that— desire to get rid of an annoying encumbrance, an ailing and jealous wife, perhaps not a very fit or attractive object for the priFoncr's paesion; his intimacy with Miss Little ; and her introduction a3 housekeeper. This is the Crown case, so far : you will take it for nothing more. There i 3 one great question which underlies not all, but a great part of the Crown's case, to which your attention has been most properly and ably directed by Mr Smith. It is the first great question in this case; and I shall put it to you thus —"Do you believe Miss Jarvey?" There is a second question, subordinate tut of hk'h importance chiefly from its connection with and relation to the first—"Was strychnine found in the viscera after death ?" These two questions are connected iti this way: if you believe that strychnine was found, then it is highly probable that Mi-s Jarvey is telling the truth. On the other hand, if Miss Jarvey is telling the truth, it ia highly probable that strychnine was found ; but if strychnine were not found, if you disbelieve the analysis, or if you 'do not think that they were the contents of Mrs Jarvey's stomach which were analysed, then the muchneeded prop of Miss Jarvey's evidence is gone. These tivo parts of the Crown case, then, help each other ; and each of the two is aided by another part which I may say b certain—the prisoner's possession of strychnine. The case, then, thus consists of three parts, which mutually interlace and help each other. It is like, say, a triangular brace. The strength of su;h a structure is nst the strength of the tingle timbers composing it: you must test the strength of the whole together, ior the pirts afford one another mutual support. That, indeed, constitutes the difficulty of this clasj of cas-js : you are obliged to keep the whole more or less before you in cjii-ider-ing each part. I shall first deal with that most important question, the credit due to Miss Jarvey. Tbe Crown has proved, or has tried to prove, a number ot extrinsic, independent facts, tending ts establish her credit. To two of them I have already alluded. The first is, the established (act, as I think I may call it, of the purchase of strychnine by the prisouer. But the power of this fact would be greatly strengthened, if the purchase were on a false pretext —if there were no rats ia the Titania, or if the poison was never u«:cd or purchased for the purpose of destroying them. The way in which these facts of the possession of strychnine by the prisoner, and its purchase so shortly before the death of hu wife, are connected with Miss Jarvey's evidence, is obvious enough. The symptoms described a3 attending the death are those, say the medical witnesses, ot strychnine poisoning; and there is also the alleged fact that strychnine- was fouad in the body after deith. If that were true, no doubt, conjoined with the prisoner's proved possession of the drug, there would bj the moat powerful corroboration of Miss Jarvey's testimony. Young Sly gives evidence as to hearing screams, a3 he passed the house, at a time corresponding with the lima when Miss Jarvey swears that her mother was in thcie paroxysms. The witness, Elizabeth Ami Jarvey, again, speaks of hearing n spoon stirred in a glass. The Crown goes on to prove that such a thing was possible—that if it occurred, it might be and would be heard upstairs, in the room from which Miss Jarvey says she heard it. Miss Jarvey swears to an exclamation by her mother, that the ttuff she had just taken .was dreadfully bitter. It is highly probable that something l/.tter was given by tha prisoner to his wife ot that night. Ha had quina and strychnine, both bitter drugs. His counsel suggests that the quina was taken ; but, whichever way you put if, it becomes highly probable that Mrs Jarvey did exclaim about something bitter—the prisoner, according to Isaacs, expected that she would remonstrate against the bitterness of a drug. That is the fifth extrinsic corroboration offered by the Crown. The sixth is this: Her mother, Miss Jarvey says, in vain implored her father to go for a doctor. Thi3 statement consists with the fact that the woman was dead when the doctor ca;ne. You heard Mr Parscns's evidence as to his own sensations when he was sjized after taking strychnine. It is highly probable that a peison so seized would do what Miss Jarvey says her mother did ; and it is certain that when the doctor did come, Mrs Jarvey was dead. Again, the syasptcnui of strychnine poisoning are described by Miss Jarvey with great general accuracy. She speaks of the taste, bitter and burning—of the rapid effect—of the feeling of dreadful »iddiuess—of the limbs getting stiff": ell symptoms which are immediately produced by strychnine. She speaks of the sense of suffocation experienced by her mother; she gives a general description of the spasms, which, though imperfect, is recognised by the medical men as a description of tetanic spasms; she describes the intervals of relaxation, of consciousness and power of speech: all ficta consistent, say the medical men and toxicologists, with strychnine poisoning. She speaks of spasms on her mother being touched — another notable feature of strychnine poisoning: when vinegar and water was put to tbe mother's lips, she exclaimed with paiu. Lastly, the sense of impending death she describes as having been most vividly lelt by tbe patient. That, again, says Dr Alexander, is a symptom of strychnine poisoning. Geae-

rally, therefore, Bubject to an observation hereafter, the fymptoms of strychnine poisjning are described with accuracy by I Miss Jarvey, and may be considered as tending to corroborate her narrative. Now, let us look at what may be called the purely internal evidence. I should say, on the whole, that the narrative i 3 not suspiciously strong; but that is said subject to some observation as to the additions made to it at this trial. On the whole, however, I should say that if the narrative as it stands had now been given for the first time in Court, it is not suspiciously .strong. She docs not pretend to have been an cye-witnes3 of the administraion of poison. Lastly, the story is certainly life-like,in my opinion, to an extraordinary degree, and is a picture of extraordinary power. I now pass to certain countervailing considerations, which it will be your duty to entertain most seriously. Firstly, as to the narrative itself One of the notable symptoms of tha tetanus of strychnine—or of tetanu9 —is not perfectly described by Mi-s Jarvey ; I mean, the arching of the body. She used no expression indicating arching of. the body. Po-sibly some vindictive feeling—whether well founded or not, we have not been able to judge or been called upon to enquire—may have operated upon her mind; but has it prompted her to swear to a lie, or urged her to the disclosure of the truth ? Under thi3 head, however, it is quite fitting that you should consider Mr Smith's remarks—which I would have made if he had not made them — respecting certain statements here added for the first tirao by Miss Jarvey—additions to her evidence, increasing, if that were possible, the sting of her former statements. In the first place, said Mr Smith, she supplies a gap. She did not remember what her father paid before going out for a doctor —she doc 3 remember that he said, " Tell any one who come?, that your mother has had a fit, and that she has been subject to them." She remembers now her mother's exclamations, " Go for a doctor ! Will nobody go for a doctor ?" She volunteers an addition to her mother's statement as to her mental aberrations, while pregnant, that they were occasioned by an intrigue which her father had with a servant girl. That was, I may Eay, the only indication I could catch from her manner, in giving cny part of her evidence, of an animus— my attention was attracted by the way in which she made that addition. We shall all, I think, agree that the witness is a strong-minded girl, quite capable of concealing her sentimeuts, and, therefore, any feeling of bias which she may have manifested should be carefully watched. You will think, I have no doubt, that this question of the credibility of Miss Jarvey, as I have put it, is a hard one to solve. If no, you are not bound to attack it at firsh. I have called your attention to the fact, that the questions whether str3 rchnine was found in the viscera, and whether the girl speaks truly, are remarkably connected. You may find it better, first to attack and to solve the question, whether strychnine was really found in the body. I should say that the evidence on that point is better able to stand alone* than is Miss Jarvey's ; but that question is wholly for your decision, and you will solve first whichever of the questions you think the better. As to the finding of poison, then. Were the contents of Mrs Jarvey's stomach really subjected to analysis at Melbourne? Mr Smith desired tint I. should treat that matter aa so doubtful —that so little proof of the fact had been offered t j you—that I should altogether withdraw that part of the evidence from your consideration. I am clearly of opinion that I could not do that—that the question is for you, and not for inc. You must depend on reasonable probability in all things; and it is for you to consider whether there is not a very reasonable probability of the identity of the viscera subjected to analysis. What were the results ? They were very learnedly impeached by Mr Smith. It is said that the color-test 3, standing alone, are very weak : but I must warn you that, in this part of the argument, there is that fallacy which I have before mentioned, that you can Us; the strength of a bundle of sticks by taking out and testing each stick separately. The convincin; proof of the?e tests, i:ideecl, is their un?ted strength—in the fact that all the test? point to oae thing. Four of the tests spoken of by Mr Kirkland are calied color-tests. You are told that they are not to l>3 relied upon, for that they will not distinguish strychnine from certain other substances, or thut there 'v great chance of deception on the point. 5^ n. 2 substance is named—aniline —which it is said i* not discriminated invariably by these tests ; and it is added that there may be other substances—perhaps some unknown substance, resulting from the decomposition of animal matter —which might answer the color-teats with a deceptive resemblance to strycbuin2. But then comes the bitter taste, which is one of the te*ts. Would that be answered if only aniiinc existed ? No ; we are told that it would not. Mr Smith says that the bitter taste would not discriminate quinine from strychnine; but the analyst replies that quinine would answer to the color-tests quite differently from strychnine. A great deal has been said by Mr S:nith, upou the supposition thit quinine might hi present in the stomach. I3c it so, says the analyst; that would not in the least degree embarrass tlio test for strychnin.-. The question for you is, not whether quinine was present, but whether strychnine was; and Mr Kirkland says that it was, and that it would signify nothing if quinine had run the gauntlet of all the tests. Mr Kirkland says, al*o, that the processes used—Stas's, and Rodgers and Girdwood's—are tha b?st known. I warned Mr Smith that these are not matters for you or for me. You have a slide of gl^s, 3in. by lin., presented to you ; aad it was asked, " Will you believe that a man's life is to depend upoa ths minute film on this glass ?" I say to you, that scieatirb facts cannot ha judged of by commonsense, without special knowledge and preparation ; that when Mr Smith appeals to the common-sense of uninstrnctedmen, he is appealing to an incMipteaut tribunal, so far as those iacts are concerned. The very reason why scientific man are called as witnesses is that such matters are not matters on which judges and juries are competent to form an opinion. I stop a scientific man directly he begins helping you upon a common fact, to judge upoa which is an endowment of all mmkind. When a scientific man has state! an opinion—although the grounds of it are to be folly tested—although, it is competent

to prove that the witness is an expert and not a mere pretender—yet, when once his character and credibility as a scientific mm are established, we mast perforce take h'i3 opinions; we are to take them, aud we are to believe them unless they are contradicted by men of equal authority. I have said that the facts of science are not to he judged of by common-sense. Why do we all believe that the earth goes round the sun ? The evidence of every man's sense is against it, aud in favor of the opinion that the sun goes round the earth. Yet, who does not believe the contrary, upon the evidence of scientific men. You have been appealed to, on the minute quantity of matter with which chemical analysis deals ; but we may almost say that there is no great and no small to the microscope. The conclusive answer to all objections to the analysis 'v this—lt is sworn that the procsses followed arc the b:st known; and there is not a tittle of evidence to the contrary. Mr Kirkland swears that strychnine was found. Should you come to the conclusion that that evidence is reliable, it supplies a most powerful corroboration to the most important parts of Miss Jarvey's narrative. In no way could the girl, however artful, contrive that strychnine should be in the stomach, unless the was the poisoner, which is not suggested, and which there is not the slightest grouud for suggesting. If you believe that strychnine was fouud,' there would ba established a strong corrobjration of Miss Jarvey's narrative—one that would go a long way to relieve it of the very grave doubts that would otherwise beset it. You must look at the whole case in the way I have suggested. You may pick it to pieces, if you like; but if you do, you are bound to put it together again. I must revert to the Crown case again, for a moment. If you assume that Miss Jarvey's narrative is confirmed by the finding of puison, no doubt a very strong case is established by the Crown. I shall now pas 3to the second part of the Crown's case—That the poison was wilfully administered. The first head I stated was, certain previous acts and expression? of cruelty. Here, again, Miss Jarvey is the important witness. The most important occurrence of which she speaks, are a cruel assault by the prisoner upan his wife, in Cumberland street, resulting in her seizure with a fit, which the dectors call hysterical. That some injury was inflicted, there is certain corroborative proof. Then, there was the brutal declaration, if ever it was made, "She's always ill; if she's going to die, I wish she would die at once, aud have done with it." The false pretext for the purchase of the poison is the next point in the Crown's case of wilful administration. That leads to the question of whether there were rats on board tha Titauia, to destroy which, accoi"ding to Isaac's eviJcnce, the poison was obtained. If ever tlu prisoner used it for such a purpose—or if any of it ever made rats sick —nobody who ha 3 been called knows anything of either fact. I come now to the third part of the Crown's case—the wife's illness on the 18th of September. If that part of the Crown ca-e stood alone, it would be utterly worthless ; but. as it is, I am not prepared to say that it is not entitled to consideration. The strength of tli2 case consists in the agglomeration of a vast number of facts; and that one fact stands alone, is uo reason why j'ou should reject it. I come, novv, to the fourth head of the Crown's proof of wilful administration, and it i 3 a very important one — The prisoner's conduct at his wife's death-bed. If Miss Jarvey v to be believed, she suggested po-sible mistake in what had been given to her mother ; and the prisoner at once said that it could not have been. This came immediately after the wife's declaration that «he had be^n poisoaed ; aud Miss Jarvey's statement was, tint the prisoner replied, "It's only the brandy taken effect upon her." Could he have believed that supposing the evidence to be true ? Could he have mistaken such symptom? for those of intoxication, with his experience ai a seaman of what the symptoms of intoxication really were ? lie must have seen that the seizure was an awfully severe one; yet a doctor, though at hand, conies only to find the patient dead. Why did he not go for the doctor immediately? More than that is now addel by Miss Jarvey. The wife was exchimiig, l> Go for a doctor ? Will nobody go fur a doctor ? " Yet Miss Jarvey says that the prisoner absolutely refused to have a doctor sent ior, Baying that "she would be bitter presently—it was only the brandy." If that is to be believed, it is difficult to adopt the hypothesis of mistake. Lastly, of the Crown's reis>n3 for asking you to believe that ths prison was wilfully administered, come3 —Motive. As I have said, that was but sketched out by the Crown ; and it ii always, or nearly so, a great difficulty to the prosecu.'iou. Mr Prendergast rightly said to you, that the first presumption is, that when a mm does an act the probable consequence of which is to indict dea'h, he intends Ul2 death which his hand iuflicts. Butnotire is very properly looked for by juries in all such cases.

His Honor proceeded to read the evidence, after completing which he continued .-—That is the case for the Crown. I must bespeak your close attention for a short time longer. I will put the case to you in this way. Suppose that you should be convinced, on grounds independent of Miss Jarvey'a evidence, that strychnine was found ia the body after death. What follows ? Does it not f jllow, that Mrs Jarvey was poisonel by strychnine ? Would it not be absurd, if you are convinced on that important point which I have just mentioned, to pretend to account for Mrs Jarvey's sudden death in any other way ? I ask you this, without relyina on Miss Jarvey's evidence—put that aside for a moment —whether the circumstances proved by other witnesses do not lead plainly to the caaclunou, that the poison which was found ia the bo:ly was the ciusi of Mm Jarvey's deith ? This, then, is tha first step :if poison was found in the body, Mrs Jarvey died by strychnine. Now for the second step. By wlioti wa3 the strychnine administered? Again put aside Miss Jarvey, far a time. Firstly, Isaacs proved the prisoner's iateation to go home on the evening of th.3 26:h September, when he called for tha pawders; secondly, William S!y prove! thi prisoner's alighting from a car at tha doar of his home; thirdly, to cleacb. ths nutter, Andrew Jarvey proves his father's pressnee at the time of his mother's seizure. It is, then, I think, incontestible that the prisoner was present immediately before the seizure. The prisoner was then in posies-

eion of strychnine, recently purchased. The prisoner that evening obtained from Isaacs, quinine, a bitter drug, resembling strychnine externally, and resembling it somewhat in taste. He bad purchased the quinine, professing an intention to administer that drug to his wife. It becomes, therefore, highly probable that the strychnine found in the body—if found—was given by the prisoner. All this prepares us to believe that part of Mus Jarvey's evidence, which, if true, may ba taken, I think, as proof positive that the prisoner administered the strychnine. Thi3 13 the second step. Xow f>r the third step. Was the administration wilful? On the supposition I have been making, that sti-ychninc really was found in the body of Mrs Jarvey, it follows that the prisoner had witnessed the whole fores of his wife's symptoms —that ij, on the supposition I have been miking, of the frightlul symptoms of strychnine poi-oning. He, of course, knew he had strychnine about him; yet he only fetched the doctor, who lived close by, and who swears that he promptly attended to the call, in time to see a corpse. By applying to have Irs wife bled, the prisoner seemed to avow his belief that the fit had been of a usual kind. Is it possible that he did so believe ? Having been an eye-witness of her frightful spasm?, h it possibfc that he did so believe, that prompt bleeding would save her? Why, then, did he not send Andrew for the doctor at once. The conclusion, if you follow that reasoning—if it commends itself to your minds—would be, that it is highly improbable that he did £0 believe. We have him, then, at the death-bed, declining to call for any medical witness, until all is over; we have him, at the deathbed, acting a part and simulating a belief. This is the third step. Without recurring to the other proofs offered by the Crown, imny of which dep.nd on Miss Jarvey, this h weighty evidence of malice prepense. In all these three steps, it is only necessary to recur to Miss Jarvey for the simple fact that the prisoner, on the night of the 26th, did administer a bitter draught to his wife—a statement consistent with all the probabilities of the case. Kcmeniberthe hypothesis on winch I put this view of the case—that you are thoroughly convinced strychnine was found in the body. The points in the prisoner's defence which most impressed my mind, as the best points made by Mr Smith, were—First, his criticism of Miss Jarvey's evidence regarding the statement that her mother's eyes were closed during the fit—that her statement of the symptoms was inconsistent with the symptoms of strychnine poisoning, because she said her mother's eyes were cosed, whereas, in till probability, in ca-ei of strychnine poisoning, duringthe fit, the eyes are wide open, staring. The second best point mide by Mr Smith, to my mind, was what he said about the bias of the witness; and that point is entitled to a good deal of wJ-»ht. It is because those points affecting Aliss Jarvcy's evidence arc of such weight, that I have put the case to you as I have don?. The next point that impressed my mind in the defence, was the suggestion of a possible mistake on Isaacs's part. You will consider how fir the observations I have just addressed to you meet that point—how far the prisoner's demeanour by bis wife's deathbed, as psoved, not by Miss Jarvey, but by other witnesses, consists with the possibility of this theory of mistake. Gentlemen, that prisoner at the bar must be condemned— if he bs condemned—not upon any chain of;artificially refined reasoning; he must be condemned upon the broad grounds of common-sense, and by the plain judgment of common men. If, after considering a!l that you have heard on this lengthy trial, you should have any substantial doubt as to thi guilt of the prisoner at the bar, I n-ed not say to you that it will be your duty to give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt. I now dismiss you, gentlemen, to consider your verdict; and I p:ay that you may be guided to a right determination.

The jury were absent from Court about four hours, rcturniDg into Court at halfpast four o'clock. • The Foreman, in reply t:> the U3iial question, pronounced a verdict of—Guilty. Sir James Smith : I wish to adc your Honor whether the points I raised as to the admissibility of the evidence, are of sufficient weight to induce you to ressrve a case for the Court of Appeal. The J.idgs : No, Mr S:nith ; I have not a shadow of doubt on the matter.

lining asked hi 3 age, the Prisoner replied, "Forty-two;" and being further aiked, " Have you anything to s.iy why s;n!ence of death should not ba pasted upon you," he answered, " Yes." lie then with great firmness,-except that he several times' wept, and seemed much affected, addressed the Court a? follows : — I have to say, in the first place, that, in the presence of my Go J, I urn innocent. I have been convicted by the laws of mm, but not by the la.vs of my Go.l. I am aware tint your Honor's sentence — The Judge (after a p-uise): Have you anything more to say, prisjaer. The Prisoner: I know that your Honor's sentence will soon place me in susa a po.-i----tion, that I will meet my wife, whose murder I am accused of. 1 know that your Honor's ssntdnce will soon send mn. where I will have her for a witness; and I do respectfully say, that that will be before a judgment scat, more seeing thau yours, your Honor, a? to what is justice. 1 am not afraid of death, your Honor. My career has been, all my life, where I have been in the habit of walking with only a plank between me and eternity: where I could louk over my ship's side, and see deith staring me ia the face : I am not afraid of death. What I grieve lor, is the unfortunate orphans that I will leave behind. However, I will dia with a clear conscience, your Honor; and, aj I said before, I know your Honor's sentence will soon place me ia such a position, that I will have my wife for a witness, whether I am her murderer or not. —— I suppass this is the last time I will have an opportunity of addressing my fellowcrea'ure3; aatl, that being so, I will address them. I catna to the Gubniei 23 years ag>. I casus out iv the sani2 ship with mv wife ; and u-heu we came to the Colonies, I nnrrie;l her. Oar first child died. That unfjrfcvinate girl who, in that box, has sworn away my life, knows that she is not my daughter—that she. is not the daughter of ray wife. She is the child of a young lady in Tasininia, who haithe misfortune to bosoms,'pregnao* by her father's assigaed servaat; and. Tor the cousideration of a satn of mop.ey, my poor wife aad I took her^ to, cloak tha sia-ha of her mother's family. Aad I have daae

my duty to her, as if I had been her* father. '.

The Judge: Prisoner, it is idle, your going into these matters, now? The Prisoner: Your Honor, the Registrar's books in Tasmania, will show what I have abated, and I have no doubt some persons will be curious enough to enquire whether it is the truth. I am not now in a posi'ion to tell a falsehood. Bat I wish particu'arly to observe, and there must be persons in this Court who know, that at the last trial, that girl gave a imtnn to her mother's arms, like this [moving them] —like pulliug two paddles in a boat; this time, she gives it as up and down, like this [imitating the movement]. As to my conduct to my wife. I have lived for 23 year?, or very near it, in Tasmania. I hive always endeavoured to conduct myself as a man and a gentleman. As such, I came here. When I left Tasmania to come here, I was comparatively independent; but I came, thinking to do good for my family. Ever since I have been married to my wife, I have always proved myself an affectionate father to my family, and at any rate, a loving husband. Ido not for a moment pretend—l am not in a position to be hypocritical —I don't pretend to have been a saint all my life. As most sailors do, when. I have been away from my wife, I have been going on free. But there is one thing I feel it my duty to say, in regard to the female on whose character a stigma is attempted to be cast; with my last breath, I say that it is a falsehood; that the stigma cast upon her—Miss Little, I mean—is not due to her. 1 again repeat, your Honor, that I am innocent of the crime of which lam convicted. I stand convicted by the laws of man ; but I am not afraid, to meet my God.

The Judge : Have you anything to add, prisouer ? The Prisoner : I wish to add, that L forgive all those who have had a hand in my destruction. I forgive that unfortunate girl, and may God forgive her. May God. forgive all tho^e who have had a hand in. my destruction : I forgive them. They have tbeir end—they have what they have tried for—they have the life of a followcreature 1 would, as far as I can, commend my poor orphan chilren— I do commend them to tbe sympathy of those left behind 1 do again wish, your Honor, to call the attention of the public, or of those who were here at the last trial, to this—-.7hether that girl did not describe the motion of her mother's arms ia this way [like rowing], and now she describes them as goinj this way, [up and down] Your Honor, I know what your sentence will be—that it will soon, pace me in the presence of God, where T will have my wife fora witness that I am not guilty. 1 submit myself to your Honor's sentence.

The Judge put on the black cap, and said, with much emotion : Prisoner at the bar, —I should be doing an injustice to the jury who tried yon, and I should be false to my own conviction, if I were to abstain from saying, at the present moment, that my mind is entirely unmoved by anything you have addressed to the Court. I must also state tint I entirely concur ia the verdict which doonn yon to the scaffold. You are wrong, very wrong, in treating that verdict as if it stood wholly, or ia any great part, on the testimony of the girl called Elizabeth Aim Jarvey. The verdict against you sands upon grounds almost independent of that girl's testimony So far as, in my judgment, it stands upon her testimony, tint testimony is confirmed by the indubitable testimony of facts. I believe that you have been most righteously convicted of the crime of murder, in one of its most heinous shapes ; and that you are no*' adding to that crime the guilt of hyp:>cri<y. The poisiaer 13 of all crimimls'the most detestable. His crime is generally most cruel, generally most treacherous. Tint is the character of an, ordinary poisoner. But you are no ordinary poisoner. Your victim was one whu:n you were not only bound to protect by the common ties of humanity, but to whom you were united by ties of th.3 closest nature, and by the lmst enduring solemn obligation. Your victim was your wife —the mo'.hur of your chilJren —one who, as Far as app3ar3 here, was a much enduring and a forgiving one. Such horrible wickedness is yours —ot it you have been righteously convicted1. Your conviction cos's this country a large sum of money: it is money well spentIt h one of the most necessary purpases of Government, tint crimes like yours should bs detected, pursued, and finilly punished. To satisfy the righteous desire that Gjcl hiaiielf has placed __ ia every human mind, to secure society ag-iin3t crimes like yours—these are the proper ends of the dreadful punishment of death. It would be well if the prospect of that cl.'iith worked upon you. in a proper way, doing what nothing elss can do so well—bringing you to a due senss of the enormity of your crime, aad to a contrite confession of it. Should that bz the effect, you will noi wish to lengthen your wretched life; but you will welcome your mo3t just doom for the commission of a mo3fe cruel murder. A3 the mouth-piece of the law of the land, I now pronounce upon you Its last sentence: which i?, that you, William Andrew Jarvey, bi taken hence to the place from whence you cime, and thence to the place of execution, and that you bi there hanged by the neck, until "yon are deal; and that your bo3y be buried within the precinits of the Gaol within which you shall be coafined after your condemnation. AnJ may Gid have mercy on your soul. Toe prisoner was removed. The Judge thanked ths jury for their services, aad released them from, farther duties.

We raantioned la^t month, that t'lc Governor hid co.iunated to p?nal s;rvi:ude for life, the sentence of death passed byMr Justice Richmond on the maa Whitehead, for murdering his mite, Stewart, ia the Mataura Bti3h. Mr "Vogel, in the Hou32 of Ksprcs3rxtative3, obtained the produjtioa of ths Judge's latter on the subjict; and thij contraiicta the impressio.i, creitcl byaa a;is>ver oE th-2 Ar.torn3y liener.it, that t-ie co.'aEnutation ww ia. uc:ordti:ice with his Honor's viowa. fc for»varJiag his notes of th-i trial, Mr Jos* tica Richmond wrote, "In pajsiag sentence I held out to the prisoner no Inpe o£ tnarcy, nor am I aware that any reajoa. exists ia this cms for the total o? partial. rem:s-iion or commutation of the sentence.' The Judge was not at all " consulted" oa the casj, prior to the commutation; and this fast has led. to a great deal of comment.

•of store wethers. In breeding sheep we do not expect any improvement, as there is no doubt many of the stations in this and the adjoining provinces arc getting well stocked. Station Properties.—The only sale of note this month is the Strath Taieri Station, which 2jss been purchased by a Mr Gordon, from Queensland, we believe, for the sum of L 15,90- We have disposed of a small run at the Waikava, with a few head of cattle, for kiioo. Powee, Pantlin and Co., Stock Salesmen and Station Agents.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item
Bibliographic details
Word Count
9,430

LAW AND POLICE. Otago Daily Times, Issue 1158, 18 September 1865

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.

Working