THE FREDERICK STREET TRAGEDY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11922, 21 December 1900, Page 3

THE FREDERICK STREET TRAGEDY.

THE TEIAL -OP MRS FOGO.

THE DEATH SENTENCE PASSED,

The sitting of the Supreme Court was resumed at half-past 10 o'clock on Nov. 29 before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a common jury.

Sarah Fogo, the widow of the deceased man, was charged with that she did, " on or about the 29th of September, 1900, kill and murder one Thomas Fogo." The accused pleaded Not guilty. •"Mr J. F. M. Fraser (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr W. A. Sim, with him Mr J. R. Thornton, appeared for the accused.

Upon tlie jurors being called, two were challenged by the counsel for the defence, two were required to stand aside, and three were challenged by the Crown. The following gentlemen were the jury:—Messrs W. M'Gill (foreman), Win. Ross Swansou, John Laing, Murdoch S. Ross, David Munro, William A. Todd, S. J. Lyon, H. A M'Beath, R. M'Cormack, A. J. Eggleton, R. Hebrison, and James Farra. The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, said: May it please yon Honor and gentlemen of the jury,—Before I proceed to open the case I want to address one or two words to you in connection with the matter. It is only right I should do so, though probably it is unnecessary. In the first place, gentlemen, no doubt you are fully impressed with the serious nature of the present charge, and I would ask you, therefore, alike in justice to the accused and in accordance with your duty, to completely forget and to wholly cast aside evcrythiug that you may have heard about this case, or may have read, and rumours—pay no heed to them. Gentlemen, it will be your duty to give a verdict in accordance with the sworn testimony adduced before you, and if you allow yourself to be influenced in any way by idle rumours you may do a serious injustice either on one side or'thc other. I think lam justified in saying you may fairly assume that had there been any evidence that would throw light on this case other than .the evidence adduced before you, it would bo brought. In the second place, it is hardly necessary for me to point out to you that the worldly position of the accused has no bearing whatever on this case. In some cases of motive the question of means or want of means might largely enter into the question of guilt, but this is not one of those cases. I trust you will give due weight to what I have said, and will receive it not in a spirit of opposition, but exactly as it is given to you, and as it is my duty to give it to you. The prisoner stands charged with the murder of her husband, Thomas Fogo. Both the deceased and the accused were, I understand, very old residents in tins city, as probably is known to a considerable section of the jury. They have been married for many years, and have resided here for the greater part of their married life. The family consists of a son and a daughter, who will give evidence here to-day, and at the time of the alleged crime being committed there were only four persons in the house—namely, the deceased (Thomas Fogo), the accused, the son, and the daughter. [The learned Crown Prosecutor here detailed the circumstances of the case substantially as they have already been made public, and were detailed in the evidence subsequently given, and (continuing) said:] I would point out to you that there is not the slightest evidence whatever of any attack having been made upon the accused. I had the accused most carefully examined by a lady doctor, Dr Siedeberg, and she will tell you that there were no bruises whatever upon her body. Accused, as you will see, is a woman of fleshy habit, and had there been any violence towards her, even had her arm been gripped with violence, traces would have remained. Dr Siedeberg was unable to find any bruises at all on her body. At this stage I would aleo point out to you that although the daughter was sleeping in the next bedroom—indeed, the mattress of her bed was against the partition—there i 3 no evidence of any calling for help prior to the'occurrence; and also that botli son and daughter say that throughout the night they heard no sound of quarrelling. It is my duty to point out these very strong and pertinent facts, in order to show that there is no foundation for the statement of the accused having done this in self-defence. Dr Closs says, and he will give the reason for it, that the injury to the back of the head was caused before the deceased was stabbed, and that he does not think the blow would have produced insensibility, but would have reduced him to a dazed condition; and that the blow was antecedent to the stab. You will also have evidence that the blow was struck while the man's back was turned. The evidence will show that the blow was struck from behind. The son, I think, shows that there was a knife on the dressing table—a white-handled knife. The constable did not see.it, but either Dr Closs or young Fogo says it was there; but the black-handled knife—a very formidable weapon-f-was\tho knife with'which the man was killed. At this stage a very pertinent inquiry on your part will be, whence came this knife? Well, the witnesses are all agreed on the one point that this knife was commonly kept on the kitchen dresser. Georgina Fogo says ahe took it upstairs to use it there on Thursday, and might not have ttken it down. However, on this question you will have the testimoney of the matron of the Dunedin police station, whose duty it is to visit the prisoners under her charge, and she will tell you that on Saturday, the 29th of September, 1900, she had a conversation with accused. She spoke of the death of her husband, saying what a dreadfurthing.it was, and she then said: " I did it in self-defence; I must have been mad when I did it." Miss Coates asked her. " How did the knife come to b? in the room? " and she replied. " I went to the kitchen for it; it is the knife I use for cutting my meat." But Miss Coates did not endeavour to elicit this information from her. She says she previously warned the accused nci to discuss the matter, and she replied: " I know I am all the time convicting myself." Mark you, she said, "I went to the kitchen for it." That accounts for the presence of the knife in the room. It also accounts in all probability for'the. reason why the accused had on her dressing gown. It may fairly be assumed, I think, that she put the dressing gown on for the purpose of going down to the kitchen and getting the knife. If the witnesses ore correct in thinking that this white-handled knife was on tha dressing table at the time, then I think it is a fair deduction for you to make that the- accused knew, this weapon (the black-handled carving knife) was far more likely easily to effect her purpose, and deliberately went for it. And the door was sriibbed! Now, think for a moment, gentlemen, what that means? Who snibbed that door? The deceased? Hardly, gentlemen. He had been reduced to a dazed condition by the blow on his head—struck by the accused. He had been struck from behind. Just, probably, as he was recovering his full senses he sees in the room his wife, the woman whom he knew had struck him with the stick, armed with that weapon. Would he snib tht door then, gentlemen? Hardly. I think you can have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion as to who snibbed the door. Now, briefly, gentlemen, that is the outline of the case. You will hoar the evidence, you will listen to it very carefully, and every possible argument that can be adduced for the defence will undoubtedly be raised by my learned friends with their customary skill and care. Finally, you will have the advantage—in a case of this kind the inestimable advantage—of hearing his Honor's summing up. It is ray duty, gentlemen, to put it to you plainly that if the evidence is presented to you as I anticipate it will be, in accordance with my brief, it will be your plain duty to bring in a verdict of wilful murder against the accused. It is perfectly true that on an indictment for murder you can, under certain conditions, reduce it to manslaughter. If, under circumstances that his Honor will

detail to you—a fight', intense provocation, a hasty blow, not with the lethal weapon used in this case—the act is deemed to be done in hot blood, the offence is robbed of its gravity. But, gentlemen, in this case there ore"one or two features which you cannot overlook. In the fir3t place, you have the use of the knife Then you have the jourmy to the kitchen for it There is time—ample time. Lotus assume for the sake of argument that there had been some nagging quarrel. There is no evidence of it,: but we will assume it—that the man had nagged nt the woman until she struck him with the stick unawares, her blood bejng up. What excuse could lie adduced for her action in going deliberately downstairs, possessing herself of this knife, returning with and using it? Surely, gentlemen, there was ample time for reason to resume its Eeat. Surely there was time for passion to cool— ample time for reflection. She snys she did it in. self-defence; that if she had not done it she would have been a corpse herself. Idle talk, gentlemen. She left the room. Why did she come back? If it is true that she believed she stood in any danger—if there is a word of truth in it—why did she come back, and why did she come back armed with a lethal weapon such as this? In all these cases, gentlemen, subject to his Honor's ruling, a very important feature of the case is always the instrument used to cllect the alleged murder. Lot me quote to you from " Russell on "Crimes," page 67. Summarising cases of murder, the author says:— "From the cases which have been otatcd in the former pßrt of this section, it appears that malice will be presumed even though the act be perpetrated recently after the provocation re'noived, if the instrument or manner of retaliation be greatly inadequate to the offence given, and cruel and dangerous in its nature; for the law supposes that a party capable of acting in so outrageous a manner upon a slight provocation must have entertained a general if not a particular malice, and have previously determined to inflict such vengeance upon any pretence that offered." If the homo was an unhappy one, us. indeed, it probably was, judging by the evidence, the

law of the land provided the accused with full fend ample Teuiedies. If her husband was a habitual drunkard, she could divorce him on that ground alone if the habitual drunkenness extended over the necessary period. Jf ho treated her unkindly, again, the law offered her sufficient protection from him and provision for herself. As has been said, "No man under the protection of the law is to be the avenger of his own wrongs. If they are of a nature for which the laws of society will give Mm an adequate remedy, thither he ought to resort; but if they be of what nature soever, he ought to bear liis lot with patience, and remember that vengeance belongetk only to the Most Kigh."

Evidence was then taken, which in the main was the SRme as at the preliminary inquiry save as to the knife, which was in accused's hand just after the murder. This matter is alluded to in the address of counsel.

The Crown Prosecutor, m reviewing the evidence, said: May it please your Honor and gentlemen of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence given that I outlined in my opening address. It is only necessary for mo to say a word or two to you on-that evidence. First, I notice that some consideration has been laid on the fact that when the accused was discovered with the knife she was holding it loosely in her left hand. It is only necessary for me to point out to you that nothing would have been easier for her and more natural than to have changed the grip on the knife from the right hand to the left afterwards. Next, you heard the evidence of the Crown witnesses as to their recollection of the- whereabouts of the black-handled knife. They were the Crown witnesses, and I do not seek to impugn their evidence. But it is only right I should point out to you that, standing as they do in the relation of children towards their parents, as far as the accused is concerned, and admitting that they have flogged their memory to bring certain instances to light that they themselves would naturally wish should bo biou^ht to light, I think, gentlemen, it is highly probable there will be a sort of unconscious mental effort going on, and these recollections will be influenced accordingly. It is not to be lost sight of that these statements were not made at the preliminary inquiry. So much for the knife incident. I am not called upon to show you any motive, but if you like to speculate as to motives yon have the evidence of the children. The ahte of things in this home, may or may not have been as bad as the picture my friend drew of it—the mother, who was emphasised i\s a. self-sacrificing mother, frightened also for her own safety. I think that r. more reasonable suggestion than insanity ig this: that, seeing the condition of things as they were, and possibly nervous of her own safety and that of the children, she determined to end it with her own hand, by taking her husband's life. She lias counted the cost; she has thought it well out; she takes no undue risks herself. She harps on the statement, "I did it in self-defence,' and

"If I had not done it he would have killed me." How does that square with the facts? You have got the idea of it all beforehand: at the same time taking no risks, and availing herself of every possible defence. She has reckoned the cost, and her calmness after the event may well be accounted for by the fact of a feeling of relief having come over her after the thing is done, and now she is face to face with the consequences. If you are satisfied in any way that this woman was insane, God forbid in such a case that you should convict. If, on the other hand, you consider the evidence conclusive, and you let yourselves be swayed idly by sympathy, you can blame yourselves—not me—for the possible ultimate consequences to the community.

The trial of Surah Fogo for the murder of her husband, Thomas FO3O, was resumed in the Supreme Court on November 30 before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a common jury.

The Crown Prosecutor conducted the case, nnd the accused was defended by Mr W. A. Sim and Mr J. R. Thornton.

Mr Sim, addressing the jury for the defence,said: I am certain it requires no words of mine to impress on you the responsibility that rests on you in the present case, and also the terrible importance to the accused of the result of your deliberations. I propose, therefore, gentlemen, to proceed at once to the consideration of the evidence. My learned friend seemed yesterday to be terribly afraid that you were going to"disregard the solemn oath which you have taken, and that yon are not going to decide the case according to the evidence at all. I am not going to insult you, gentlemen, by suggesting for one moment that you will decide this case in any way other than according to the evidence, and any arguments I shell address to yen during the course of my speech will be founded on the evidence, and on the evidence alone. Now. the case, as presented to you by the Crown, is that the accused deliberately murdered her husband. To put it as my learned friend put it on another occasion, " it was a rremeditated crime, deliberately carried out and relentlessly exs'utcd." These were the words which he used on another occasion, and although he was not quite so rhetorical in the present ease, that, in substance, is the view which he now asks you to take—that this old lady deliberately murdered her husband. That being the theory of the Crown, I shall discuss it upon the evidence, and shall put before you the view we ask you to accept for the defence— namely, that the blow which killed the deceased was struck by the accused during the course of what she believed was on attack on her own life. If the blow was struck under these circumstances, then his Honor will tell you it is excusable homicide, and the accused is entitled to an acquittal -it .your hands. My learned friend puts the case to you ns one of murder or nothing. I accept that position, gentlemen. J admit

Mr Fraser: Pardon me-

Mr Sim: My learned friend put it to you, gentlemen, that in this case it was impossible for you to come to the conclusion that it could be manslaughter—that it was murder, si clear case of deliberate murder and nothing else. The case therefore will resolve itself into this: Is it, as my learned friend says. a. case of deliberate murder, or is it, as we shall submit to you, a case of excusable homicide? Manslaughter is excluded from your consideration altogether. It is a case of murder or of excusable homicide. His Honor: I do not know, simply because the Crown prosecutor has not put the possibility of manslaughter, that, therefore, from the evidence the jury are not justified in finding a verdict of manslaughter. Mr Sim: I shall submit to the jury, your Honor, that that is the proper view to take of the evidence. I wish to put it to the jury that it is either excusable homicide or murder. His Honor: Very well. Mr Sim: That is the view which the Crown took of it, and I am supported in putting it to the jury in that way by the fact that my learned friend the, Crown prosecutor, after considering the case carefully—probably for some months, —comes to the conclusion that that is the only way in which it can be put. Very well, gentlemen, let us take this theory of murder, and see how it is borne out by the evidence. Now, when you are told, gentlemen, that an old lady, who has led a blameless, upright life, suddenly jnurtleis her husband, yon naturally ask what was the motive for such a, deed. My learned friend says there is no necessity for him to show auy motive for such a deed. But you must bo satisfied, as reasonable men, that there was some motive before you can come to the conclusion that this was a case of murder. My learned friend did not indicate any motive; ho did not put it before you that the plain motive, according to his view of the case, was that she wanted to get rid oF her husband■; but that is what he has suggested from time to time. Now, I submit to you that that is really absurd. If because this old lady gets tired of the drinking habits of her husband is it likely she is going to kill him? What wns easier for her if she did get tired of the life she was leading than for her io separate from her husband. She had properly of her own; her husband's, habits were such that she would be entitled to a separation, and to insist upon his maintaining her, and as my learned friend pointed out in his opening, she would even have been entitlcuio get a. divorce from him, and to insist upon his maintaining her. So that if the motive is as my learned iriend suggests, and that is the only one possible, how inadequate it is, and how absurd it is to suppose that this old lady, who has been the very model of, patience and longsuffering, should suddenly turn round.and kill her husband because she had got tired Of his drinking habits. I submit that it is simply an insult to your intelligence to suggest that | that would operate as «i. motive in the mind of this old lady. And what does the evidence sho\y? It shows that she was exceedingly patient with her husband. That is the evidence of her children, and on that point they are corroborated by Mr Slipo, who tells you that she was a model wife. Mark you. gentlemen, the idea of separating from hcr^husband was suggested to Mrs Fogo by her son on more I than one occasion. It was suggested so re- ! ccntly as April last, and how did she receive i the suggestion ? It was indignantly repudiated ; ! she said she would not separate from her hnsi band on account of the disgrace.it would bring ! on her family. That is the reason she gives ; ill Aprii last for refusing to separate from her i husband, and yet the Crown ask you to believe 1 that in September, because she is tired of her ; husband's drinking habits, sjie deliberately plans and executes his murder. I' put it to | you that such a. suggestion of motive is wholly j absurd, and absolutely inadequate to account i for- this deed, if it is, as the Crown suggests, | n murder. The theory is that this old lady, who had been bearing natiently for so many years with her husband's drunken habits, and was unwilling even to legally separate the ties which bound her to her husband, suddenly changed and ruthlessly severed these ties with a butcher's knife. That is what you are asked to believe by the Crown. Then, gentlemen, if this was a deliberate and contrived murder, ■would it have been carried out in the way in i which it. was? What you are asked to believe ; is that this old lady deliberately plans to milr- : der her hnsband, kills him with a knife, and ; then, the very moment she strikes the blow i she summons her children as witnesses of the ■ deed. Is Unit the way I ask you in which mnri der is carried out? If she wanted to get rid ■ of her husband, in how many other ways could she nof have got rid of him without risk—with practically no risk of detection. If this was deliberate murder she must have known perfectly well the result would be that she must suffer death as .1 felon. I put it to you that had she wanted to kill her husband she could easily have suffocated him in one of his drunken sleeps. She might have poisoned him. What risk would she have run? lie was a man whose orgnns had all degenerated from chronic alcoholism. Supposing she had administered poison, and there had been nn inquest, would she have run any risk? Supposing she had smothered him in his bed in one of his drunken sleeps, would she havo run any risk? Supposing, ns my learned friend suggests, she wanted to murder her husband, would it havebeen possible for her to find a worse way of carrying out her purpose, or a more certain way of securing her own conviction as a felon ? The learned counsel then referred in greater i detail to the evidence and commented upon it, 1 ■ Continuing, ho said: If Mrs Fogo struck her , husband with.the stick, and then went downstairs to get the knife, what waa Fogo doing

His Honor

all the time? • How did he come to be in the position where he was seen, standing behind the door? The Crown prosecutor could not explain that on his theory of murder. On the other hand, the explanation which he (Mr Sim) would place before the jury would show exactly how Fogo came to be behind the door. So much for the theory of the Crown. He (Mr Sim) had dealt with that theory, he had shown the entire absence of motive, and he ventured to say that unless something more could be proved to them than this theory, which was merely a suggestion, they would certainly hesitate to convict the accused of murdering the man with whom she had lived for 30 years. It was absurd to suppose that any sane person desiring to commit murder would carry it out in the way Mrs Fogo was said to have committed this deed. Then there was the difficulty about the knife. The jury must come to the conclusion that that part of the Crown's case had failed. And then there was the difficulty that the Crown's theory did not account for Fogo's presence just by the door. Continuing, the learned counsel said: I propose shortly to put before you the way in which we say this event must have happened. I wish to put it to you that this is the way in which it must have happened. It is the way in which the accused said it did happen. It may be suggested that if Mrs Fogo could give any explanation of the way in which it happened, she ought to have gone into the box and have given that explanation. But I put it to you that an explanation that is according to facts, the explanation which the facts themselves afford, would not obtain any additional sanction by reason of the oath of the accused. "What would be the sanction of an oath to a person faced with the gallows? So I wish to put this explanation to you in two ways—as the explanation which the facts themselves afford of the sad event, and the explanation which the accused herself gives of that event. Before I propose to deal with the events of that fatal morning, I want to draw your attention to what Mrs Fogo's mental condition must have been at this time. Her mental condition has a very important bearing on this case. Mrs Fogo you have been told was worried because her husband's drinking habits had been getting worse. She had remonstrated with him in vain, and she had got Mr Sligo to remonstrate with him. But in spite of this his drinking habits got worse and worse. This Then" you" have the fact that his method of sleeping during the day and lying awake at night had the effect of keeping her awake, and making her suffer from sleeplessness; also her statement to her son made on the Friday before the death of Mr Fogo, that she had not had any sleep for 11 nights You may imagine for yourselves, gentlemen, what the effect would be, and you know from the passage I read you from Clouston yesterday what the effect of such a condition would be. Clouston said, and Dr Gloss agreed with him, "that a sufficient amount of fatigue and exhaustion from want of sleep will produce a condition in almost any brain that is closely allied to that of the monomaniac." Mr Fogo had threatened his wife, and had actually used violence to her. The effect produced on her mind was this: that she was afraid that he was going to do some violence to her, or kill her. It is clear from the evidence of her daughter and son that that is the fear she had in her mind. She was afraid when her eoii was away of being left alone, and spoke of this to her daughter. Then remember that most significant conversation with Mr Sligo. She made to him in the most serious way a request that if she died suddenly he would have some investigation made into her death. Her object was twofold: She was afraid of two things—of b=ing poisoned, and she was afraid on the other hand of being buried alive. Jfow, from whom would this danger of sudden death come? It is clear from other evidence that she expected it at the hands of her husband. I do not suggest for one moment thnt Thomas Fos?o had any idea of murdering his wife. Unfortunately his conduct towards her had produced in her mind the impression that he had some design on her life. This is clear from the evidence of the son and daughter, and from the evidence of Mr Sligo. Remembering that this is the mental condition of the woman, let us come to the events of the Saturday morning. You have first of all the fact that Mr Fogo's birthday had been on the 24th. His celebrations of it had begun on the 24th, and wcra in full swing on the Friday. He conies home intoxicated on the Friday night, and he would, of course, have some more drink during the night. His son tells us thai he used to commence drinking in 'the morning. We have the' bottle of gin in the bedroom on the Saturday morning, and you may take it thnt he had some drinks from the bottle. Then 3'rs FO2O sot up from bsd: the evidence was that she wanted to get on with the washing. There was a big washing that morning, and she got up early for the purpose of having it carried out. This is the lady who is supposed to have in Her mind tho deep design of nim-derinp: her husband! She sets up and dresses he-self.

asks for another drink of gin. Now, Mrs Fogo a.; yon kn.:-A ,W.cn out tV drink to Mr Yoyo. sr.d she endeavoured to .restrict the consumption of it by her husband as much ns possible. She refuses to give him drirk, and he springs out of bed. You were told that he was a quarrelsome man. and easily provoked into a violent rage. Ho gets out of bed and seises the knife lying on the dressing table, and ho says: "I'll show who is master in this house: I'll cut your throat!" in order to frighten his wife. He goes and snibs the door with the knife in his hand. Mrs Fogo then seizes the stick: it stands at the bedside, and she strikes him a blow on the back of the head while he is snibbing the door. Dr Closs said that was exactly how such a, wound as Mr Fogo had on the back of his head might have been inflicted. The Crown Prosecutor tried to make it out that this blow was struck in bed, but Dr Gloss said it was more probable that it would be struck while he was engaged in snibbing the door. The blow dazed him 'for a moment; he turns round with the knife in his right hand. He takes a step or two from the door, and his wife sees him with the knife in his hand. Khe cries out, ! "Oh, Tom!" and this is the cry her daughter hears. She reaches towards him to get, the knife out of his hand. She wrests the knife from his right hand with her left and strikes the blow. Sho is in a state of frenzy: she thinks this man is going to kill her—l do not suggest he would have done so—it was one of his drunken freaks, and he was going to frighten her. He frightened her so far that she rushed to get the- knife from him, and struck the blow without realising what she was doing. The moment the blow is struck she releases her hold of his hand and steps back. There she is with the knife in her left hand—she is a righthanded woman. My learned friend said it was quite easy to suppose that she changed the knife from her right hand to her left. Is that likely? Would sho think of such a thing as that? I think such a suggestion is simply childish. Is not that the explanation: that the husband has the knife in his right hand ond the wrests it from him with her left? That is the story which I submit to you in explanation of those facts, and you have to choose between that theory in explanation of the facts and the horrible suggestion (hat this woman deliberately murdered her husband in the clumsy way in which the Crown suggests she carried out the ( deed. These are the iwo theories and explanations which you have to consider, and if you come to the conclusion (as I venture to think you will without much hesitation that this is the true history of the matter) that is how this sad event occurred, then you will have no hesitation in finding, as his Honor will tell you, that it is a case of excusable, homicide. If Mrs Fogo, although mistaken in the bolief that aJi attack was made on her, gets into a. state, of frenzy produced by that belief, and wrests the knife from her husband's hand, and strikes the blow, it is excusable homicide. It might bo suggested that when she got the knife from him. why strike the blow ? Why not throw it away? But you are not to measure her conduct by the standard of a rational person. Yon are to remember the stale of frenzy she is in. It may bo said: Why are there no marks of any struggle. The explanation is clear enough. Because there was apparently very little | straggle. Fogo goes to the door and snibs it; she strikes the blow on the head and steps back, and when he comes n-t bet with the knife she advances and wrests it from him. Eemomber t he has been drinking that morning— that is clear, from the fact of the bottle being in the room. He would be in a fuddled and dazed condition from the effects of the drink and the blow on the head, and Mrs Fogo would be able without very much difficulty 'to wrest the knife from him. This is the only story that explains all the facts of the case. It is clear that there was no struggle, and so you would not expect to find any signs of one. I put it to you more strongly that this is the story the facts themselves tell. If you accept it, then it is your clear duty to return a verdict of acquittal, for in these circumstances it i 3 a case of excusable homicide. I feel very much my responsibility in addressing you in this case. I have endeavoured to put before you as clearly as I can the view we lake for the defence. It will be for you to determine the issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused. You will remember, gentlemen, the terrible importance to the accused of the result of your deliberations. It will rest with you, gentlemen, to say whether sho is to suffer an ignominious death or whether she is to be set at liberty and restored to her family. It will be for you to say. gentlemen, whether the crown of her martyrdom—because in reality her life during the last few years must' have been a martyrdom—whether the crown of that martyrdom'shall bo the gallows, or whether she will spend the rest of her days with her family, comforted by their affection and siipport. It will be for you, gentlemen, to determine—and I venture to think' that when you weigh the evidence and consider all I have put before you you will be able gladly to come to the conclusion that your oath justifies you—nay. constrains you, to return a verdict of Not guilty.

His Honor in summing up reviewed the evidence at some length, and clearly explained the law as to murder, jusifiablo homicide, and manslaughter. A Juror inquired if there was any evidence how the walking-stick, which stood beside the dressing table, came to be found where it was.

His Honor replied in the negative. There was nothing to show how it got there.

% Mr Sim remarked that the bedroom was a I very small one, and after the blow was struck by Mrs Fogo it might have dropped out^ of her hand, or she might have thrown it behind her.

Another Juror inquired if the deceased's son had stated whether the cake was kept 311 the parlour or the "bedroom. His Honor said the son had said nothing about it. It was the daughter who had said that the cake was kept in a bos in the bedroom.

The jury retired at 12.30 p.m. At 3.10 p.m. the jury returned for directions ns to the difference between murder and manslaughter. •- His Honor repeated the direction as to the law applicable to the case, ;as previously given by him, and the jury again retired. ■ At 6 o'clock the jury returned to the court. In reply to the Sheriff, the Foreman said: We find the accused guilty of murder, with a strong recommendation to mercy. The prisoner here burst into tears,. and a dead silence prevailed in the court for twd or three minutes.

His Honor said: Prisoner at the bar,—All I have to do is to pass the sentence which the law prescribes in these cases. The jury found you guilty of murder. They have accompanied their verdict with a strong recommendation to mercy. That recommendation I shall, of course, forward to the proper quarter. Whether the sentence of the court will be executed or not will not depend on me, 'but will depend on, the advisers to the Crown. I think I may say that I concur in the recommendation with which the jury have accompanied their verdict. I shall intimate that concurrence also to the advisers of the Crown. Assuming the black cap, his Honor said: The sentence of the court is that you be taken from the place.where you now are to the gaol, and that you bo hanged by the neck till you are dead. The prisoner was then led from the court by Mr Phillips, the gaoler, and the court adjourned until 10.30 o'clock next morning.

At a meeting of the executive on the ]sth inst. it was decided to commute the death sentence to imprisonment 'for life.