TIMARU MURDER CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7784, 31 January 1887, Page 4

TIMARU MURDER CASE.

{Continued from Srd Page.)

To Mr Haggitt: The notes were prepared at your request, and for your use. I was not examined in this case till yesterday. In Scotlaud, the practice is to make a report of the post mortem, which report must be made within three days. Except in Scotland, that practice does not prevail. The decision not to search'for vegetable poisoDS was made during the porf mortem, and during the analysis. On the last occasion Dr Black was present, aud was consulted.

Dr Black deposed: I am a professor o chemistry at the University of Otago, a doctor of science of the University of Edinburgh, &M extra-mural lecturer in chemistry for the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen. I recollect ConstableJ)aly bringing me a box to Dunedin on August T8 last. It was a wooden box, closed and sealed. The box contained several articles, all of which I analysed.' I was careful to see that everything I used for the purpose was clean and free from antimony. The first thing that I analysed was the contents of a small phial, which I found to contain a soluble salt of antimony—tartar emetic, or tartarised antimony. The next thing I analysed were two pockets cut from trousers. I analysed the two together, and found antimony in some soluble form—certainly tartar emetic. Next I examined apacket of tartar emetic from Gunn's, said to have been found in trousers-pocket. I found it was tartar emetic. I also found a small packet of powder, found on the floor of the diniug room. It contained tartar emetic. A bottle said to be found in Hall's bedroom contained a solution of tartar emetic. A small bottle containing a white powder I found to. be common saltpetre, otherwise known as nitrate of potash. Next I examined a small bottle containing weak lime water, and a small packet which contained bismuth powders. The next thing I examined wasa bottle containing brandy for injections. I examined it, but found no antimony. The next exhibit was labelled " Ice water for sick room, prepared only for use there." It contained no antimony. A piece of cork which was cut lengthways I next examined. Some white powder was attached to it, which I found to be tartar emetic. Ice water taken from the cup, sealed by Dr Macmtyre, wes then analysed. It was a solution of tartar emetic.at the rate of eight grains to the ounce. Vomit, labelled 12th August, was found to contain autimony. A bottle said to contain urine passed on "the 12th August was also fouud to contain antimony. From Constable Egan I received a packet containing five articles. There was first some vomit of August 13, which was found to contan antimony. There were four other articles—a colander, three pieces of flannel, a piece of gauze cloth, and a piece of sacking—which did not contain autimony. From Dr Macintyro in his own laboratory at Timaru I received various bottles. This was on September 4. In faeces of August 17 I found antimony; in feces of August 19 I found antimony, also of August 12. In urine of August 18 I found antimony. With Dr Ogston I analysed urine of August 19 and August 24, in which we found antimony. All these analyses were conducted in the university laboratory at Dunedin. From Constable Daly I received another box on September 16 at the j laboratory, Dunedin. It contained _ bottle containing brandy, said to be for injection. Dr Ogston and I examined it. We found no antimony, but found colchicin. We also received a bottle of urine of August 20, and found antimony. In auother bottle, containing faces of August 12, we found antimony. There were two other bottles labelled " Urine of September 13 aud 14." We examined for antimony for scientific purposes. There was a bare suspicion of antimony, but nothing to swear to. A bottle labelled "August 15," containing urine, was found to contain antimony. There was also a bottle of vomit containing antimony. I analysed some cigarettes which we got from Inspector Broham in Christchurch. We tested them for antimony, but did not get any. Of the first 15 Dr Hogg repeated the analysis in four cases, and the results corresponded with the results I obtained. We tried several tests in each case. The exhibits were always locked up, aud I kept the key myself. Dr Ogston and Dr Hogg brought four bottles for analysis on the eveuiug iof the 28th of September last. Those were the four bottles I saw in court yesterday. I offered to put the laboratory atDr Ogston's disposal, but he insisted upon my making the analysip. I consented, and considered myself responsible for. the analysis. Dr Hogg assisted.me greatly— was always with me; and Dr Ogston also assisted. Drs Ogston and Hogg made independent analyses, and I saw the result of their analyses. The bottles were clear glass and wide-mouthed, closed with a cork and sealed with Dc Ogston'i seal. Dr Ogston also handed to me for analysis a quantity of earth, which was tested for antimony, but I did not find any in it.* The bottles were labelled in Roman capitals—l, 11, 111, IV. No. I contained the bladder, kidneys, urine, and portion of small intestines; No. II contained a dark fluid from the lateral cavity of the chest; No. 111, the stomach and part of the small intestines; No IV contained part of the larger intestiues, the rectum.liver, and spleen. There wasfluid in each bottle. No. I bottle was tested as follows: On September 28 a portion of the liquid was acidified with hydrochloric acid and boiled for 10 minutes with a slip of clean copper, and at the end of 15 minutes it was examined and found coated with a violet-coloured deposit. The same liquid was boiled with another slip of copper for 10 minutes with the same result. Another slip of copper was ; added, and the material boiled again for 10 minutes, producing a very slight tinge of violet on the copper. When the second and third slips of copper were added, the first remained in the fluid, and when the third was added they all remained in. The violet tint corresponded with that which a small quantity of antimony gives by the same treatment. We examined the three slips by the permanganate test, but making a mistake in the process the result was of no value. The mistake was in not filtering before adding hydrochloric acid. The mistake was mine. The same tests were applied to liquids from the same bottle on the following day, the 29th, several slips of copper being used, and the permanganate test being properly applied, the slips were coloured violet, and the sulphuretted hydrogen gave a small orange precipitate. Liquid from No. II was boiled for 10 minutes with hydrochloric acid, and slips of clean copper put in, and when examined at the end of 15 miuutes a very slight dimness of the copper was observed. The copper was replaced in the same liquid and boiled again for 10 minutes. At the end of half. an hour from the commencement of this boiling the copper was examined, and found to have a slight but decided violet tint. Liquid fromi No. 11l bottle, together with scrapings from the coating of the stomach, treated in the same way, gave a slight but decided violet tint. The tin j test was applied to the liquid from each of the ' four bottles in the following way:—A small piece of tinfoil was dropped in a part of the liquor in a clean porcelain cup, and the tinfoil was very slightly dimmed in the course of half-an-hour, aud had become of a dark leaden hue at the end of 12 hours—it was quite black—pointing to a trace of antimony or something else, establishing the absence of a large quantity of antimony in the article tested. On October 3 I collected the orange precipitates before referred to, dissolved them in strong hot hydrochloric acid, and applied the galvanic test, and found antimony. Reinsch's test was repeated on the following day, September 29, and the] results confirmed the first analysis. We also tested part of the contents of the bottles by the Fresenius and Yon Babo process as follows :— Dr Hogg cut up in the finest shreds parts of the solids in No. I bottle into a clean porcelain dish; digested the same with liquid from No. I bottle in a porcelain basin, with strong hydrochloric acid, and . successive portions of powdered chlorate potash. We burned over a Bunsen burner till the chlorate was decomposed, the solid parts dissolved into a yellowish liquid,_ and the [free chlorien expelled. We then let" the liquor cool, • filtered through a wet filter, and removed most of the fatty matter by agitation with ether, separating the ethermal solution by an ordinary glass j separator. We then warmed tl_ separated solution till all traces of ether were expelled and again filtered it. Then treated with sulphuretted hydrogen sample, and very soon g«t a yellow colour, and afterwards a cloudy orange precipitate. Compared this precipitate with some similar precipitate got by sulphur- , etted hydrogen, with solutions of antimony, at

S MSta* ge! 0f dl!ution* We repeated the hydroch one test on a second portion of the ft^rl 1? - ntly n wi fc T h a like resulfc* We treated parts of Nos II and IV bottles togethernamely, part of black liquid of No. 11, Ind part of the liver and spleen of No. IV bottle, cut up hL?onbi^° gff '• w-„digested as before with hydrochloric acid, till the solids were destroyed ; but on apply,„ g Reinsch's test to part of the solution we found free chlorine. After repeated efforts to clear the solution from chlorine, we changed our mode of procedure. We boiled the remainder of the solution down to dryness, ZJ w\t he T/ S]Al*) Q a close Planum vessel. We then drenched the mass in strong hydrochloric acid, heating it over a Bunsen burner. We then dduted it with water and filtered it, and applied the following test:—We dropped a small piece of tinfoil into it, and this was blackened in half-an-hour. We then applied Rerasch s test, and the copper had a violet tint in 15 minutes. To a third por**on we applied the galvanic test, and got a very slight darkening of the platinum wire in 12 hours, indicating minute traces of antimony or something else We thtn took parts of Nos'. 1, 3, and 4 bottles! and applied Yon Babo's test, viz., from No. 1 bottle part of the small intestines; from No. 3 bottle part of the stomach and duodenum, and from No. 4 bottle part of the csecum and rectum. Dr Hogg cut up the solids, and these were digested with liquid from the same bottles with strong hydrochloric acid and chlorate of potash. After destroying the solids, decomposing the chlorate, and boiling off the free chlorine, we removed the fatty matters by agitatum with ether. We tested the residuary solution in the following way—To about four-fifths of it we added sulphuretted hydrogen, passing a strong current of gas through it, and got first a yellow colour, then an orange precipitate. We applied the tin test. I lhe tin was slightly darkened in about 20 mmutes, but not quite black in half-an-hour, and quite black, with a slight deposit around it in 12 hours. We boiled another portion with a piece of clean copper, aud got a slight violet tint in 15 minutes. On the Friday following (October Jl) I applied a quantitative test to the contents of the four bottles, to find approximately but very roughly the quantity of antimony. With this view I collected the two or'an&o' precipitates referred to above, and' entered by me in the depositions in pages 79 and 81. Washed them, dried them, and weighed them. Found the weight to be '009 grains, equal to -1338 of a grain of sulphide antimony, which represents about -271 of a grain of tartar emetic. I assumed this to have been got from one-eighth of the contents of the whole four bottles. Now that multiplied by eight would givej* shade over two grains of emetic for the whole of the stuff analysed. On the same day, September 29, after weighing the sulphide of antimony, I further identified it by resolving strong hydrochloric acid, and getting the white oxychloride of antimony By the addition of water this white oxychloride was found to be soluble in a strong solution of tartaric acid. From this solution i reprecipitated an orange precipitate by the addition of su phurated hydrogen. On October 6 I identified the black powder referred to above as accompanying the tin by washine it aud dissolving it in strong hot hydrochloric acid, and then reprecipitating as an : orange precipitate by sulphuretted hydrogen. There were also some tests by the process of dialysis. Ihe dialysis performed by Drs Hogg, Ogston, and myself on September *30 was as follows :-We boiled part of the contents of bottles Nos. II and IV with strong hydrochloric acid, and after cooling and diluting with water, we placed the liquid in a dialyser. At the end of from 10 to 15 hours we examined the dialysate by Reinsch's test, and got a slight violet tint on the copper at the end of 10 minutes; We applied the same test to the residuum still left in the dialyser, and got a decided violet tint. To these two slips of copper was tried the permanganate test, and got with sulphurated hydrogen a yellow solution, deepening m standing to an orange precipitate. We also dialysed a portion of the liquid contents of bottles 1 and 2 without previously adding hydrochloric acid, and got similar results. We then dialysed at the same time portions both of solids aud liquids ;from. bottles Nos. 1, 2,-3, and 4, after boiling with strong hydrochloric acid, aud got similar results. We applied heat to one of the violet - tinted copper slips referred to above, and at a black heat there was no change. At a red heat the violet deposit disappeared m a small puff of white fume, which is characteristic of antimony. Arsenic would have gone off at a lower temperature. Know of nothing else that would do the same except antimony. This was a confirmatory test to make ourselves quite sure. We tested the earth bottles for nothing but antimony. We resolved that it would be useless to look for any organic poison, owing to the length of time which had elapsed since the death of Captain Cain. We did not analyse auy of the solids separately—that is to say, any individual solids. The tests showed only very small, but decided, quantities of antimony. To Mr Chapman: The proportion of antimony in tartar emetic is about 36 per cent. This process of dialysing must, I should say, be very similar to the action of the human body very like liquids passed through membrane into the bladder.

Mr Chapman .* Suppose pieces of the body were brought together in one bottle with these liquids, or that they were put -together and liquid added to them, what would happen ? Witness: You would have a trausfusion of. the liquids and it would represent a mixture of the whole.

For instance, if portions containing the urine aud urinary bladder and part of the intestines were put together you would not expect to be able to get the liquid again and call it urine ? No; it would be mixed up. No further questions were asked Dr Black in cross-examination.

Mr Haggitt: That is the last witness, your" Honor, that we propose to call. Mr Chapman objected to.several of the exhibits connected with the previous case in which Hall was concerned being put in." His Honor (to Mr Haggitt): Do you think they are necessary to your case ? Mr Haggitt: Ido not know that they are. I will leave it to your Honor. You know what the cases are.

His Honor: I must say that if the other evidence about Mrs Hall is admissible, it seems to me logically to follow that these exhibits are admissible also. But as I said before, the question of the admissibility of the whole has never yet been decided by a court for Crown cases reserved, and there has been, as you know, one case in which the whole of such evidence was held not admissible. There is also this to be borne in mind: that in one of the most celebrated poisoning trials that ever took placethat of Palmer,—in which the most eminent criminal judge of the day and the most eminent criminal advocate were engaged, evidence of the kind suggested was not brought forward or attempted to be, although in Palmer's case true bills had been found, and although from the facts of the case—strychnine not having been found in the body—any evidence of the circumstances of these two deaths that could have been got in would have been important. The question was not discussed, but the fact that the evidence was not brought in under those circumstances makes it worthy of some consideration. I think on the whole, from every point of view, the ends of justice will be best served for reasons which I may give hereafter that the question of the admissibility of the whole of this evidence should be reserved. That course does not affect your conduct of the case Mr Haggitt? '

Mr Haggitt: I shall be guided by your Honor.

His Honor: If you think it essential—— Mr Haggitt: It is'clearly not absolutely es. sential.

His Honor*. No. I will admit the exhibits and reserve the point. I admit I have some hesitation r.bout it. You are quite right, of course, to tender them, because in the ca re of the Queen v. Eason they were held admissible. So far as the evidence that has already been admitted is concerned there can be no question. Although the point has been reserved, it was' proper, from the authorities, that the evidence should be tendered and received at the trial. Mr Haggitt: If you think I should not, Iwill not press the matter.

His Honor: Ido not say that it would be indiscreet. Of course if you do not tender them nothing can be said about them in your address.

Mr Haggitt: That is so. It is perfectly manifest the use that I could make of them. His Honor: Quite so. Mr Haggitt: If you think I should not risk putting them in I shall not.

His Honor: It seems to me that it is carrying the question iv the cases of the Queen v Flanagan and the Queen v. Gearin a step farther than they go. .

Mr Haggitt:" Mr Justice Butt merely said he should hesitate to admit such evidence as evidence of motive. If your Honor thinks there is any doubt about it I will not press it, but leave them out. They are not essential. His Honor: If not, I think it would be prudent not to press them.

Mr Haggitt: That is the case, then, your Honor.

Mr Chapman: Does the Crown not call Buchanan ?

Mr Haggitt: As far as I can understand, he was not there at the time of the death. He took one or two nights' nursing only. We have mado inquiries, and the result is that he can say absolutely nothing of the slighest value to the case.

Mr Chapman .* Of the slightest value to the Crown.

Mr Haggitt: To the case, I said. His Honor: His name is not mentioned "in the indictment. Ido not see that the Crown is under a necessity to call him. Do you call evidence, Mr Chapman ? Mr Chapman *. Yes, your Honor. THE DEFENCE. Mr Denniston said: May it please your Honor. Gentlemen of the jury,—The evidence for the prosecution being closed, it now becomes my duty to lay before you briefly the evidence proposed to be called to strengthen the position in which the evidence led for the Crown has left us. That position is, I think, that the Crown has absolutely and entirely failed to establish the issue whichib was its duty to prove. It is no part.of my duty now to attempt to go into any details as to the evidence in this case, or to anticipate the defence which will be afterwards made on behalf ot the accused. It will be the duty of my learned friend Mr Chapman, who leads in this case, at, I hope, a no distant date to go fully into 'the details and sum up the case for the defence, and I am content to leave that duty in; his hands. I All I shall do is to open briefly the general nature of the defence. The prosecution undertakes to establish three things—first, that antimony was found in the body of Captain Cain; secondly, that the administration of antimony (uecessarily accelerated his death; and

thirdly, that such antimony is conclusively and incoutestably shown to have been given to him by Thomas Hall, the prisoner. As to the first poiut, that antimony was found in the body, we can necessarily offer no evidence. The whole manipulation of the body and the details of the examination have been in the hands of the Crown, and we are virtually in their hands as far as that part of the case is concerned. On the second proposition, that his death was accelerated by antimony, presuming it to have been administered, we do intend to call medical evidence. That point, although it may be to some extent abstract and technical, is vital to the prosecution. It, is not so to us, of course, because you may come to an affirmative conclusion upon it and yet leave 'untouched the main ground on which we rely. Although it is an abstract and technical point, and not one which a jury generally favours being relied on, still there are circumstances which we cannot affect to ignore, which I think will induce you to attach some weight to that point, and at any rate to approach it with an unprejudiced and unbiassed mind. The evidence for the prosecution shows conclusively that the death was originally attributed to natural causes by all who noticed it. It s now attempted, long after the event, when the memories of men have altered and circumstances have been forgotten, to establish a different conclusion. It is desired, on the strength of a careless diagnosis and a slovenly post mortem examination, entirely based on a foregone conclusion as to the real cause of death, to establish that this death was necessarily and conclusively accelerated by the fact of antimony having been administered. We do not pretend on our part to "produce witnesses to speak with that certainty and confidence which was characteristic of some of the witnesses for the Crown. We shall say that the evidence of those witnesses outside mere expert evidence has been clearly in our favour as to the necessary certainty of such inferences. And our evidence will be directed to this effect: That considering the physical condition of Captain Cain, the absolute uncertainty as to the' time, the quantity, and the circumstances of the administration of antimony, and the conditions of death, it is impossible to" prove conclusively that death was accelerated by these means. In this case we are not asked to, and cannot prove a negative. It is not for us to prove that death was not accelerated, and that without the administration of antimony the deceased must have died on a particular date; it is for the other side to establish absolutely that death was, and must have been, so accelerated—that he must have been alive after the date he was, but for the administration of antimony during his life. That is the proposition which we say the other side have entirely failed to establish, and the proposition as to which we shall bring medical evidence. As to what that evidence is, I need not trouble you with details; it is sufficient to say that the witnesses will be taken over the ground that was gone over with such confidence by the witnesses for the Crown. They will describe how slovenly and careless some of the processes were, and say that the results stated cannot be arrived at. We say that it is unnecessary and impossible for us to establish that this antimony if administered was not a depressent. It is not for us to prove that the administration could be judicious, or could have a good effect. It is simply enough for us to show that there are no data—or data so imperfect as to make it impossible for any person to prove that death must have been accelerated by antimony. As regards the third point, as to the alleged administration by Hall, we are also necessarily circumscribed, and for this reason: The Crown have not preI tended to suggest any proved instance of administration. They rely on a mass of I indirect circumstances, pointing, I say, Cot | even to the inference of any administration by Hall more than by auy other person. They simply content themselves with showing in wearisome detail the whole circumstances of the last few months before Cain's death, and ask you to infer that someone must have poisoned him and that the poisoner must have been Thomas HaJl. I venture to say that neither I nor you know how, where, in what vehicle, or in what manner Hall can possibly be said to have administered poison. The first suggestion was that it was in whisky, then champagne, then cough mixture, and I suppose the next will be jellies. There is no possibility of saying from the case in what, or at what time, Hall is supposed to have administered poison. Every point 'raised we have met, and we have in fact proved that every symptom on which the other side relied as being evidence of poisoning existed at times aud places and under circumstances inconsistent with the administration of poison by Hall. _But what the Crown practically relies on is placing before you a mass of details as to the life of Captain Cain, showing that Hall might have been there and could have and might have administered poison; and on the strength of that, aud trusting to the prejudice and illwill excited by circumstances which we cannot affect to ignore, inducing you to find a verdict which certainly no evidence before you could possibly lead you to give. Because on the evidence already given as to the circumstances of Cain's death, the manner his meals were given, his symptoms, and the manner of his attendance and nursing, it is impossible for you, apart from the shadow sought to be thrown over the case by other incidents and events, to come to the conclusion that there is even a suggestion that Hall more than any other person had anything to do with the administration of poison. The question of motive will also be dealt with by my learned friend. It is enough for me to show that there has been an absolute breakdown in the case opened by the Crown prosecutor. Where the Crown alleges that Cain did not consent we have proved that he did; where it was alleged that we should benefit we have shown that not only did wenot benefit but we ourselves conferred the benefit; and practically you will see that the callous destruction of this old man "imputed to us would have been absolutely resultless, and must have been known to us to be so at the time. We shall now confine ourselves to calling some evidence to add to the circumstances in our favour brought out by the Crown's evidence as to the details of the death, sickness, &c. There is one point in this branch of the case, as to whether Hall was himself the administrator of the poison, that I want to refer to. Incidentally the evidence alleges the purchase of a book on poisons at a given date and under given circumstances. Now it is not disputed that Hall had a book of the sort and had studied the subject. It has been proved that he had the necessity to; for one reason because he was in the habit of administering narcotics to himself, and for another because he was iv the habit of dealing with certain disorders with poisonous elements, and it is a proved fact that he asserted that he used antimony for this purpose. But is it not an immense leap from this to prove that he was at the time studying the subject for the purpose of planning a murder of this extraordinary nature ? The evidence relied on as regards this book (" Taylor on Poisons") is not so much that he purchased it, as that he wrote in it a wrong date with a sinister design. The whole strength of that point; depends upon the identification by the witness Hutton of the particular volume put in evidence. The question is not whether or not on that date Hall purchased from Hutton a volume relating to poisons. The point is his purchasing this individual volume and making this particular alteration in the date of purchase. This point turns upon the question of how far you believe Hutton's identification of the book. Identification of one volume amoDg a large edlton issued by the same publisher can only be by some peculiar mark. Hutton saw the cogency of this, and pretended to swear to this very volume as the one he sold Hall—not from any writing, or mark or private note, but simply from its general resemblance to the book he sold; and when pressed he swore that he knew it by the particular abrasion you see here. You will see that in fact the whole book is greatly abraded and has seen strong service; and if Hutton is to be believed, it must have seen that service before it left him, because he has sworn that it presents very much the same appearance. Can you believe that is possible? He admits that he had not this particular identification in his mind when he sold the book: yet he pretends to recognise it by that abrasion, aud for the first time, for no mention of it was made elsewhere. He also swore that its general condition was the same when sold. I ask you if during any number of years, simply remaining on the shelves of a bookseller, it could possibly have got into the condition in which this book is. I ask if such a conclusion is intelligent and possible. But Hutton was not content with that. He told you he identified it by the remains" of a private mark, and by the remains of the price mark (18s 6d). I defy anyone with any microscope to detect one single' detail of such marks as confirming him. I am content to leave it to you whether any trace of such marks can be discovered. I say, therefore, that on this alone, gentlemen, it would be impossible for you to believe him or to credit his evidence on the point. I may say, too, that we propose to call evidence to help you to believe us. The men we shall produce cannot pretend to speak as to absolute identity—only such men as Mr Hutton can do that. But we shall call unimpeachable evidence that as far back as 1884—considerably before the date mentioned—a book of this size, "Taylor on Poisons" was in Hall's possession. We shall prove that it was in his possession ra April, the month directly antecedent to his alleged purchase from Hutton. We shall prove that a book exactly similar was in his hands certainly two months before the date he is alleged to have purchased it. There is also one witness who will say—although not with absolute confidence—that his name was written in the book; but that is a detail. These facts will not prove absolutely that it was the same book; but you will be asked to say, first, is it likely that a man in possession of the book would first borrow and then buy another copy merely to excite suspicion? I omitted one inherent absurdity of Hutton's story. Is it likely Hall would purchase the book, and that the idea should pass through his mind: '«I mean to use it to poison somebody; I may be arrested and I shall now provide for that by putting a wrong date in the book, and I will do that in the face of the man I purchased it from, who can, if necessary, be called to prove it against me ?' It would, I hope, require more evidence than that of Mr Hutton to prove this This reasoning, if you believe ib, will remove a point which, though comparatively unimportant, is of a nature to impress a jury somewhat unfavourably. Moreover it is an illustration of the manner in which details are piled up against an accused person, and how easily they are disposed of even after this lapse of time. We happen to be able to dispose of it in this instance but we may not be in others. It also shows how easy it is, directly there is ill-feeling against a person, to turn, twist, snd alter trifling circumstances to his disadvantage. This, you must bear in mind, has not been an honest inquiry into the circumstances of Cain's death. From the beginning the whole strength of the prosecution has been directed against this man alone. I

The Crown have directed their attention to one point, and ignored, as only police officials can ignore, everything tending in favour of the accused. What the result would have been had the inquiry been conducted differently I cannot say; but against this man only have all the resources of the Crown been directed, to give every incident the most sinister appearance and throw the whole mass of derails before you, trusting that the illfeeling and prejudice excited against the prisoner may lead you to colour every trifling incident until they may possibly produce belief in your minds. I cannot believe that even with this colour they can have this effect; but it is not my business to discuss that. My object has simply been to open to you—l hope at not too great length—the evidence it is proposed to call for the defence. Not that we rely upon it. We are strong enough in the weakness of the Crown. We call it tostrengthen the conviction that the Crown's evidence must have created—viz., that they have fallen far short of that absolute certainty which alone could justify a verdict at your hands.

Mr Denniston then called

Edward Wakefield, M.H.R., journalist, residing at Wellington, who said: I came down about this case. I know the; accused Hall, and have known him intimately for a long time. Mr Denniston: Do you remember on any occasion having seen a book on poisons in hi*-. hands?

Witness*. In his hands? Mi; Denniston: Or in his house. ! Witness: I remember seeing a book on poisons in his lodgings at Timaru durine some part of 188 i. It was " Taylor on Poison's." To the best of my recollection, it was on the chest of drawers in his bedroom.

Mr Denniston.- Can you tell us any later date that you saw it ?

Witness: I saw the same work some months later at his house. I think it must have been in April 1885. I had been to Australia for a visit and returned at the end of' March, and arrived at Timaru in the first week of April. I know it was within a few days of my arrival, because I left again for Wellington at the end of April. I went.out to Hall's house at Kingsdown, and I noticed the book with others on the shelf. I was alone and I remember taking it down from the shelf and reading it. When Hall came into the room I spoke to him about a large mastiff.of mine which had the mange, and said something about having it poisoned. I referred to a passage in the book about prusssic acid being applied 'externally to the nervous membrane, I asked Hall if it was not a law book, and he said he had picked it up in Dunedin a year or two before. That was ra April 1885. The book produced is the same work, and it was very like this volume. I have no doubt about the book being " Taylor on Poisons."

To Mr Haggitt:: I could not say that this book produced is the identical volume, but it is the same work. I do not recollect looking inside the covers, or seeing any writing. I looked at the index, not I think at the beginning or end of the book. I know Hall had a similar volume in 1884,jand it was when he was laid up with sciatica, because I went to see him.

Benjamin Daniel Hibbard deposed: I know the accused Thomas Hall. At one time he" lodged with me, and left me in 1885. While he was with me I knew of his possession of " Taylor on Poisons." That was in 1884, or it might be 1883. I went to see him one night in his room aud saw the book lying on the bed. I took the book up and looked at it. I have an impression that his name was written in it obliquely, at the back part of it. I have an impression that "T. Hall, Dunedin" was ia it.

To Mr Haggitt: I may never have seen the book produced before; but. I did see a book " Taylor on PoisoDs" in Hall's possession in the winter of 18S3 or 1884. To Mr Denniston: Before the trial in Christchurch I informed the police I had seen the book. It was known I had seen'ithe book, and I was subpoenaed, but was not called. The police saw me about it, and it was the only subject on which I could give evidence. To Mr Haggitt: I saw Inspector Broham and Detective Kirby, but I do not know whether it was before or after the trial.. I told the police I could not identify the book. I. saw the counsel for the defence. The day the first case was on in court in Timaru, I had a communication from Mrs Hall, asking if I knew of such a book. I saw her and told her I knew of it, ana" everybody knew of it after that, I. suppose. I never kept this fact secret from the prisoner's counsel. George Buchanan (a settler residing at Timaru), deposed: I knew the late Captain Cain intimately, I sat up with him near the time of his death. I commenced to sit up with him on the 21st of January, and sat up with him alternate nights to the day of his death. I was a large part of the time alone with Cain, but could get. the nurses if wanted. In the early part of the night Captain Cain was chatty. His_ breathing was short and sterturous. I noticed swelling about his face and under the eyes. I did not notice any delirium. He did not sleep for more than 20 minute 3or half an hour at a time. The cough generally waked him up, and he used to ask for his cough mixture. The captain used sometimes to shake his head after taking the mixture as if he did not like it. He was not sick after the cough mixture. During the night he used to have jellies and biscuit. He took whisky and it did not disagree with him. He also had champagne taken from a bottle by a syphon. I gave him whisky from the stand on the table. I took some whisky myself from the stand, and it never had any effect upon me at any time. I was summoned by the police at the preliminary inquiry, and told the police I had sat up and had never seen Cain sick. I mentioned to the police that I had given Cain whisky and had never seen him sick. I told Mr White the evidence I could give, aud he said they would not want to call me. Cain was cheerful and would talk about old times when he woke up. That was so on the night of the 27th.

To Mr Haggitt: I used to go between 8 and 9 o'clock. Very often Wren and Kay, the nurses, would be there. When they were m the room together, it was for the purpose of raising Captain Cain from his bed and attending to him. Sometimes one of them would sleep in the room on the sofa, and one was always within • call. I was there the whole of four nights and never saw Cain sick, and if he had been sick I should have noticed his sickness.. Each night I gave him something to eat and something to drink, and he was not sick. The whisky and water agreed with him. I think he had it every night twice or three times. Cain also had his cough mixture, and he seemed not to like it. The cough mixture did not make Cain 6ick. I remember giving Cain champagne on more than one occasion. I drew the champagne into an ordinary tumbler. I have seen Captain Cain have broth or soup brought from the kitchen.l did not see very much difference on the 27th, the last time I was there. I usually left about daybreak. Towards the latter part of the night, from 2or 3 o'clock to 5, he used to sleep. That was his longest sleep. I cannot say what nights Kay {was there, but he was there I think mostly every night. Mr Haggitt: If Kay has told us there was no night that he was not sick three or four times, or perhaps more?—l should say he had made a mistake decidedly, unless he called it sickness when Captain Cain after coughing spat out phlegm iuto a pocket handkerchief. Witness continued: I heard of Captain Cain being sick before he took to his bedroom. T heard of that frequently. Captain Cain, to the last was cheerful as a sick man would be. Mr Haggitt: Have you told the police you could not give any evidence at all?—I asked the police when they summoned me what they ~ were bringing me down for, and said that my evidence would not go for much; I'should say. Was it not the fact that you did not want to give evidence?—lt is the fact that most people don't want to give evidence. Witness continued: I may have said that I did not want to give evidence. I occupied a cottage belonging to the prisoner's father. I have been in Timaru lately, but not in that cottage. Since the case came on I have been principally up country. To Mr Denniston: I have. never. been very intimate with the prisoner. After his child was born I called at his house aud was asked to stay to dinner. That was the first time I exchanged twenty words with HalL Captain Cain was an old friend of mine. I have known him since I landed in Timaru. It was at bis request I went to sit up with him. .->.,..._ Ethel Morris deposed: I was one of the bridesmaids at Mr Hall's marriage. T was in Timaru a little before that and lived; at Woodlands from 12th May to 11th July. During that time I saw Captain Cain vomiting twice. I heard of him being sick at other times, aud. saw a basin beside his chair on three occasions. • This witness was not cross-examined. Mr Chapman stated that any of the other witnesses he had to call would be under examination about two hours. His Honor said he was sorry for it, but the jury would have to be kept together until Monday. Mr Haggitt suggested that there was no reason why the jury should not be taken a drive on Sunday. '

The Foreman thought they might occupy the top of a tramcar for a part of the day, and so get the benefit of fresh air. That would be preferable to staying in an hotel all day. Mr Chapman said that in Christchurch the jury had a drag supplied to them on the order of the judge, and were driven to Sumner. It would, he thought, be better to place a drag at their disposal than to allow them to go in a public vehicle.

His Honor said it was very desirable that the health and strength of the jury should be seen to, and if a drag had been provided for them before he saw no reason why it should not be done again. The sheriff would be directed to make suitable arrangements for taking the jury out.

The court adjourned shortly after 5 p.m,