TWO CHARGES OF MURDER

Taranaki Daily News, 31 July 1931, Page 5

TWO CHARGES OF MURDER

POISONING ALLEGATIONS JUDGE’S REVIEW OF CASE. ACQUITTAL OF MRS. HEARN. The trial of Mrs. Sarah Ann Hearn, accused of the murder* of her sister, Lydia Maria Everard, aged 52, and of Mrs. Alice Maud Thomas, aged 47, wi.e of a neighbouring farmer, at Lcwannick, near Launceston, was concluded at the Cornwall Assizes at Bodmin on June 23, when tli€ accused was acquitted on both indictments. The trial had occupied eight days. • The indictment on which Mrs. Hearn was tried related to Mrs. Thomas. In her case the prosecution alleged that poison (arsenic) was administered in a sandwich eaten by Mrs. Thomas at a picnic at Bude on October 18, and possibly other doses at later dates. Miss Everard died on July 21, 1930, as the result, it was alleged by the prosecution, of poison adihinistered to her by her sister over a jieriod of several months before her death. Mrs. Hearn pleaded.not guilty to both indictments. In the witness box she denied that she had given poison either to her sister or to Mrs. Thomas at any time. The summing-up by Mr. Justice Roche occupied nearly four hours. The jury, after a retirement of 54 minutes, returned a verdict of not guilty in . the case of Mrs. Thomas. The Crown offered no evidence on the second indictment relating to Miss Everard, and the judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty in that case also. This having been done, Mrs. Hearn was discharged.

THE JUDGE’S. SUMMING-UP.

Mr. Justice Roche in his summing-up said the first question to answer was: Was Mrs. Thomas’ death caused by arsenical poisoning? If the jury were of opinion that it was, the second question was: Was it the act of the accused person? If they decided it was not arsenical poisoning the second question did not arise. The first question seemed to be the simpler of the two. It was not disputed that there was arsenic in the body. ... Proceeding to review the medical evidence, the judge said that Dr. Saunders said he thought that Mrs. Thomas seemed to get better. Reading and re-reading the evidence one must observe the presence of symptoms which, in the. light of subsequent events, should be regarded as significant. It had been said of Dr. Roche Lynch and Dr. Lister that they had never attended,a case of arsenical poisoning. He (the judge) supposed few doctors had. When Dr. Lister was called in he not only diagnosed .arsenical poisoning, but arranged immediately that Mrs. Thomas should be removed from her surroundings so that she should be in no danger of being further poisoned.

The defence had suggested various possibilities. They consisted of different combinations of ptomaine poisoning with various other' kinds of poisoning. The jury should ask themselves what was meant by talking of these being possibilities. If it were simply that a death might occur from those combinations, of course they were possibilities. But were they possibilities having regard to the facts? The body of expert evidence all said “No.” A jury was not bound, however, to accept that word “No” if all the doctors in the world said so. If as men of ordinary understanding they were not satisfied with expert and medical evidence, they were entitled to re-

joct it, but it was an extreme measure for lay opinion to reject opinion which was unanimous unless they found it out to be demonstrably wrong. . ISSUE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE. “I do not suppose,” continued the judge, “you have any doubt in your minds, whatever other doubts you may have, that the issue is down to two people—Mrs. Hearn and Mr. Thomas. It lies between them. I do not suppose any other person can occur to you. It is no use "beating about the bush or declining to face facts. To my mind, it does lie between these two people. Here. i as elsewhere, it is for the prosecution to satisfy you that it was not. Mr. Thomae. It is not for the defence to satisfy .you that it was. If at. the end of this case you say you cannot say which it is, you ought to acquit Mrs. Hearn, just as if you were trying Mr.' Thomas you would have to acquit him. “The Crown says that everything points to Mrs. Hearn and points away from Mr. Thomas. It is for you to judge after considering the evidence. If you think it was arsenical poisoning on October 18, then the conclusion must surely be that the only source was the sandwiches. If it were the sandwiches, is it not—l will not say inevitable, because that is a very strong word —but is it not very difficult indeed to come to any other conclusion than that the source and origin of the arsenic was the maker of the sandwiches?” REFERENCES TO THE SANDWICHES Mr. Justice Roche dealt with the suggestion by the defence that the symptoms of Mrs. Thomas’ illness following the tea at Bude were those of ptomaine poisoning. The sandwiches, he said, were admittedly prepared by Mrs. Hearn. The question of taste was a vital point. In a further reference to the Bude meal the judge said: “If you are not satisfied that the arsenic was put in the sandwich by Mrs. Hearn, then you should acquit her.” Dealing with the acknowledgment of a debt for £5B given by Mrs. Hearn to Mr. Thomas at his request, the judge said that he would have thought that the whole object of Mr. Thomas, supposing him to be a man of guilty knowledge, would have been to destroy evidence of money relations between himself and Mrs. Hearn. Money relations, he would have thought, would have been a thing he would conceal, and not demonstrate by taking the receipt. With regard to the motive in the killing of Mrs. Thomas, there was no suggestion of misconduct—none whatever. There was nothing to point to that; but what was said was that Mrs. Hearn, straitened in circumstances as she was, knowing that Mr. Thomas had been very friendly toward her, conceived the idea that if Mrs. Thomas was not there, she, with her attractions and capabilities, would have strong prospects of becoming Mrs. Thomas. It was a ludicrously inadequate justification. Mr. Justice Roche described the conversation that Mr. Thomas had with Mrs. Hearn when he said, “Whatever it is, they will find it out,” as one that could not possibly have taken place be- , tween, two co-conspirators. Alluding to < a letter written by Mrs. Hearn to Mr. Thomas after his wife’s death, he said that it might have been written by a woman who was innocent and thought that the wife was dear to her husband, or by a woman who was guilty. But it was certainly written under the idea that the wife was dear; otherwise it . would be the merest mockery. It ap- . peared to him inconceivable that that - letter was written by one conspirator to i another. j The jury, as stated, returned a verdict j of not guilty on both charges against » Hcftca. * ——■ • • —--