POISONING SENSATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21244, 27 January 1931, Page 13

POISONING SENSATION.

DEATH OF FARMER’S WIFE. ARSENIC AS THE CAUSE. WOMAN CHARGED WITH MURDER, e _____ After sitting for two days in November, investigating the death of Mrs Alice Thomas, the Cornish farmer’s wife, a coroner’s jury at Plymouth returned the following verdict:— = “ The cause of death was arsenical poisoning. It was homicide, but there was not sufficient evidence to show by whom or by what means the arsenic was administered.” The finding followed the exhaustive summing up by the coroner, who pointed out that five verdicts were open to the jury, and an open verdict would not preclude the police from following up their inquiries should’they so desire. Evidence had been given that Mrs Thomas was taken ill after eating sandwiches in the course of an outing at Bude. On that occasion she was accompanied by Mr W. H. Thomas, her husband, and a woman known as Mrs Hearn, their friend, who, it has been stated, supplied the sandwiches. Mrs Hearn disappeared six days after Mrs Thomas’ death. In the course of his evidence Mr Thomas said that after the disappearance 'of Mrs Hearn he received a letter from her bearing the Launceston postmark. The coroner read the letter, which was as follows: — “Dear Mr Thomas, —Good-bye, I am going out if I can. ... lam innocent —innocent. (The coroner remarked that these two words were underlined.) “She is dead, and it was my lunch she ate. I cannot bear-dt. When lam dead they will be sure I am guilty, and you at least will be clear. May your dear wife’s presence guard and comfort you still. —Yours. A.H. , “. . , I will be all right. My, conscience is clear, so I am not afraid of afterwards.” } REMARKS BY THE CORONER. The coroner, in summing up, said that it would be some time before the analyst's report was received, but he did not feel justified in delaying the inquest. If the jury were satisfied that death was due to arsenical poisoning that would be sufficient. , , „ “ The nest thing for you to consider, added the coroner, “is how the poison got into the body of this woman., Poisoning by arsenic can only happen in one of . three ways —it might be accidental, suicidal, or homicidal. “ Could, Mrs Thomas have taken this arsenic accidentally. Is there anw evidence to show that? Could the arsenic have been in any of the food she consumed at home before she left for Bude?. She seemed to be living a comfortable life and there seemed to be no jealousy between her and Mrs Hearn according to the evidence. If it was a case of suicide it could not possibly have happened after she had left Bude. She was too ill to have administered it to her Self. “Now. was it homicidal? If it was homicidal who killed Mrs Thomas? Was it Mr. Thomas? If ,not, was it Mrs Hearn? Or was it both of them conspiring together to bring about Mrs Thomas’s death? Or was it somg person or persons unknown? NEIGHBOURS’ GOSSIP. “Let us examine the case as it affects Mr Thomas. He has been married 20 years, and he has lived happily with his wife. There was no substantial evidence to the contrary. Had he any arsenic in the house? The ’evidence shows that there was none. He had some sheep dip, but it was all used ,up about twq years ago. - ■ ' : 1 .-■■ ■•■■■■. “ Now with .regard to Mrs Hearn. She seems to have come into the lives of Mr and Mrs Thomas about five years ago, when she came to live at Trenhorne House. “ The evidence seems to show that Mrs Thomas was just as friendly with Mrs Hearn as her husband was. There was no evidence that Mr Thomas had fallen into guilty association with Mrs, Hearn. If there had been it might have been very well conceived that he had a motive for getting his wife out ■of the way, so that he might marry Mrs Hearn. “ Can you say frpm the evidence that such a motive existed in this case—for undoubtedly there must have been a motive underlying such an action? ’ HUSBAND’S CARE FOR WIFE. The coroner referred to Mr Thomas’s care for his wife during, her:- illness, and asked if such actiop was compatible with a guilty conscience, i “ Was he indiscreet?" asked Mr Pearce. - “Undoubtedly he was, as is shown in a loan of £3B to Mrs Hearn, which he kept from his wife’s knowledge, and which I expect he now regrets having done. ' . “Mr Thomas may have been indiscreet in having Mrs, Hearn so. frequently visiting his farm, because, it did give rise to gossip among the neighbours, who were not aware of the fact that Mrs Thomas was just as friendly, with Mrs Hearn as he was. He was indiscreet in not informing his wife’s mother about the illness till some time had elapsed. “It is entirely for you to say whether you think he was guilty of poisoning his wife or being an accomplice with anyone else to poison her. PURCHASE OF WEED-KILLER. “Was it Mrs Hearn who poisoned Mrs Thomas? She undoubtedly prepared, the sandwiches, and she was in the house till Mrs Thomas was removed to Plymouth. Until October 29 she undoubtedly did all the cooking, and had ample opportunity of mixing poison with the food, and we have heard that- even after October 29 she did most of the,cooking. ■■ “In August,- 1926, she undoubtedly obtained weed-killer. There would .be a probable motive that she could have formed in her mind the expectation that if Mr Thomas were a widower there might be a chance of his asking her in due time to become his second wife. “ But there is no evidence that Mrs Hearn indicated to Mrs Thomas which sandwich she wished her to take, and there is no evidence that the sandwiches contained any arsenic at all. “Nothing in the evidence showed any ground for Mrs Hearn contemplating that she would become the second Mrs Thomas if Mr Thomas’s first wife was dead.” A cablegram published recently stated that Mrs Hearn had been arrested at Torquay and charged with the murder of Mrs Thomas. She had secured a domestic position under the name of Annie Faithfull. . ’ -