THE TALUNE POISONING CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12036, 7 May 1901, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE TALUNE POISONING CASE.

THE TISIAL OF.MKS SMITH,

THE JURY UNAMiK-TO AGREE,

SYDNEY, April 23.

The charge against Jane (Smith of being guilty of the murder of Patrick Conway was commenced yesterday and continued to-day, the evidence being to a ladge extent a repetition of that given ill the in-

William Hamlet, the Government Analyst, produced the actual crystals he had obtained from the stomach of Patrick (Jomvay. He bd recovered three-quarters of the grains, some being lost in tha of a grain, some being lost in the analytical tests.

In cross-examination, lie said that a man would retain consciousness until the l:i:-t after taking strychnine. He knew of cases where no fatal remits followed from large doses, hut these eases were ahnormal. He had placed an unknown quantity of strychnine in a hotlle of stout, .and allowed it to stand for 20 minutes. Ho then made an analysis, and found that in that time 1.50 of those grains had dissolved. _ Krnest Smith, assistant to Ronniuglon, chemist, testified to accused endeavouring to purchase strychnine to kill cats. He suggested vermin-killer, but she replied, " Xntliin.il hut strychnine will do.'' Mary .Heskcth, „f Christcimrch, said she had known accused intimately for 11 years. Her name before she was married was Jane Hampden. She came to witness's shop in l'Ybrn.iry last, and said flic had received a present of £500 f,„. retelling n child named Smart from drowning, and was going to lake a trip to Bydnev and Melbourne with a friend's child. She asked witness's son whe'lier a gentleman had tailed. He said. "Aes.' Witness accompanied her to Mr Jiomiinglon's, chemist, to obtain -the use of the telephone. Mrs (Smith afterwards told her she had rung up Conwav. Accused then asked the assistant for'a shilling's worth of strychnine to kill cats. The assistant refused. When they returned to witness'.-, shop Conway was there. .Accured introduced witness, and then gave Conway a pound-note, telling witness she owed him a butcher's bill and that Conway Jost money in the business. Cross-examined, wines* said that, when Mrs Smith made the remarks about Conway losing it was in his presence, and he did not contradict it. -April 24. The charge against Jane Smith of being guilty of the murder of Patrick Conway was continued to-day. Detective M'l.can stated that the accused admitted giving the deceased plums. When he took her to the morgue she was calm, but n, little affected at the sight ~f the body. Ho had visited the pawnshops in search of the deceased's effects, Witness knew a Mrs Sams in connection with Jane Smith. He had found certain jewellery pawned in the name of Sams for £2 10s. •April 25. At the trial to-day of Jane Smith for the murder of Conway, Elizabeth Healy, housemaid at the Royal Ceorge Hotel, deposed that the accused informed her that she had received a dienue from her husband for £50, but could not cash ii owing to an error in the signature. Mrs Smith also said she had given the wife of the licensee some jewellery belonging to a man named M'Lean, which she wished to lock away for safety. .After the police visited her the accused said to witness: "Thank Cud, the police did not find that jewellery on me." Klizebeth Healy, cross-examined, said she went voluntarily to tho detective and told him about accused giving jewellery to Mrs Syderburg, and accused's remark about the etrect of the police discovering the jewellery amongst her effects. Caroline Syderburg, mother of the licensee of the Royal fieorge Hotel, said accused gave her some jewellery to put in a safe. There were two or three silver watches, one gold watch and chain, one chain, a. gold pin, six or seven rings, and a gold nugget. Mrs Smith said she received these things from a lodger in the hotel named M'Lean for safe-keeping. She wished witness not to tell M'Lean about' it. M'Lean was not identical with the detective of that name engaged in the case. Witness placed the articles in the safe. Accused after the visit of the police said: "I nm glad the police did not find the jewellery amongst my things. I might have had some trouble about it. The police might not have believed it was M'Lcan's jewellery." M'Lean left the hotel a week later. Witness's son handed him the jewellery before he left. Accused and M'Lean came to the hotel aboitt the same time, The court would not admit the evidence of the clerks of various banks to show whether drafts had been received in favour of Jane Smith. Mr Reid objected, and the court upheld him. 'ihc Crown case has closed. Accused, in response to an inquiry by the judge, made a statement. .She'commenced in a firm voice: "Gentlemen of the Jury, I stand here, truthfully, and say I did buy poison for my friends in the country. It is also true that I did not tako any poison aboard the steamship Talune." At this point, for the firs! time since accused has appeared in public, her great nerve gave way, and she wept bitterly. Recovering slightly, but in broken accents, she added: " 1 did not give Mr Conway anything to cause his death." She then resumed her seat, weeping. George Phillips, employed in the Savings Bank, was called by the defence. He said ho knew- Mrs Smith in Sydney some years ago. Siie was a barmaid. She, by pure chance, found his address, and came' to see him. She renuested the loan of five sovereigns on the Ist March. He lent it, and' took an acknowledgment for the money, which she promised to p av back in instalments. She said she wanted it to pay a, hotel bill, to enable her to get private quarters till she obtained a situation. Hie reason she gave for leaving New Zealand was that she had had a few words willi her husband. She said she intended to remain in Sydney four or five months. He knew her previously by the name of Hampden. He had seen'the medal which Mr Reid put in, On it wcii the words, "''resented to Mrs Percv Smith for bravery. 1891. V. A. Smart." Teresa Sands, and Kate Laytan, relatives of accused, deposed to accused coming to them after her arrival. She asked for" the loan of £2 to enable her to pay the balance of the steamer fare, and recover a watch which she had given as security. Both Witnesses, being in humble circumstances, were not able In lend the money. Accused gave Kate Laytan several atiicles of jewellery which she was wearing to pawn, and by this means raised £2 10.?. April 26. The trial of Jane Smith for the murder of Patrick Conway was continued to-day. Mr Reid, counsel for accused, addressed the jury for two hours. Accused sobbed quietly throughout, the morning, but appeared calmer in the afternoon. Mr Reid said it was the duty of the jury to (iimly and clearly separate in their own minds suspicions from the evidence. It was not tlie jury's place to build in the case, but to test the fabric which the Crown | had built up. Tin- jury must not (ill up | the gaps. Accused was charged with a deliberate, cold-blooded murder. It wa.i not an act of ho! jealousy, but the Crown case suggested that the motive was due to monetary matter*. Every -act of 'be accused had been frank. She had not acted as a stealthy poisoner. At every turn her actions had" been open. The fact that I while purchasing poison she used the telej phone openly, so that the identity of the person and the hotel where she stayed was made known, was scarcely the act of a

person who wished to keep her doingj quiet. Why did sho make two purchases of poison, and tiy to obtain a third lot? She was only going to poison one person, according to the Crown. If Conway was poisoned at Sumner, would it not have flashed through his mind on the fatal night that lie was similarly affected again. He said lie never felt that way before. When people took suddenly ill there was some mysterious instinct which told them what they had taken to cause the illness. Conway did not say a word that he had been poisoned, or that from a woman had come this tiling. He had never given any indication of foul play. Constable Trehey, when he cross-examined her with reference to thn loss of Conway's property, did not regard her with .suspicion, nor had Conway put any suspicions in the constable's mind. On leaving Xew Zealand accused was found in broad daylight laughing and chattering with Conway. Was this the act of a. stealthy poisoner? There had been no quarrel. Again, why should accused take Miss Huddlestone, who could watch her movement.-, into her cabin? When accused found no irace of the Jtrowns in (lie forecabin, .she could have said she drank «Jhe stout herself and (brew the bottle overboard, but instead she said she had given it to Conway. Would people who went about to take life act openly like this? Further, under her loose mackintosh, she could have concealed the articles she took forward instead of doing so openly. If a desperate woman had a design on Conway]* life would she have waited till the ship wa.s close to Sydney? She could have given the stout immediately after leaving Wellington. On the fatal night there were witnesses who identified accused and others who could not. A fawn mackintosh and a while iiat were common articles. There was a discrepancy in the time, making it appear as if accused gave Conway two drinks at an interval of 25 minutes. If she intended to poison him she would have taken it to him in one drink. He/erring to Miss Huddlestone's illness, it was probable that if accused had given sufficient poison to Conway it would have been sufficient to kill Miss Huddlestmie. As regards her expression abutit whether the two illnesses were identical, it was not what a woman engaged in such a crime would voluntarily make. He cautioned (lie jury as to the value to he placed on circumstantial evidence. With regard to motive, the evidence showed that the woman voluntarily offered to replace the promissory note which Conway Inst. The Crown Prosecutor, in a two-hours' speech, covered the evidence. He said tho view of the Crown was that accused went forward twice on the fatal night, hut not, as the defence suggested, to give two drinks to Conway. On the first occasion she went to the forecabin and inquired for the. lirowns, but did not see Conway. On the second visit she took him a drink. Miss Jluddlesloiie's evidence that aceused told her she gave the stout to deceased was absolute proof thai accused was with Conway that night. The jury must be satisfied that the accounts she gave of why she wauled .strychnine were reasonable. Doubtless she purchased wholesale quantities to divert the suspicion which would arise if she only purchased a fatal dose. It was easy for the defence to prove whether her relatives hail received any poison- from her. From her conversation with the chemist she evidently knew all about the form of strychnine. The conversation aho'.iid ship was to show, in the event of foul phy being suggested by Conway'. l ! deatii, that she did lint know the drug. In the interview with the Sydney police, an innocent person would have served her cause best by a truthful statement. Yet accused denied intimacy with Conway. She knew she had slated that she had paid him £200 mortgage money, yet she said ho was ;i poor man. She gave four different stories why she made the trip from Xew Zealand to Sytleny. The Crown did not suggest that Miss Huddlestonc or Mill? were poisoned. The judge lengthily summed up. The jury, at a late hour, stated that there was no hope of their soon agreeing, and were locked np for the night. April 27. At the trial of Mrs Jane Smith for themurder of Patrick Conway the jury came into court (his morning after being locked up all night and announced that they were unable to agree on a verdict. Jane Smith will be retried on May 28. The New Zealand witnesses were bound over to appear on that date.