THE TRIAL OF THE HALL-HOUSTON ALLEGED POISONING CASE. (BY OUR SPECIAL REPORTER) [By Telegraph.] SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3753, 12 October 1886, Page 2

THE TRIAL OF THE HALL -HOUSTON ALLEGED POISONING CASE. (BY OUR SPECIAL REPORTER) [By Telegraph.] SUPREME COURT.

(Beforo His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) OnnisTOHURCH, Oct. 11. Tba court ©poned at 11 o'clock, Justico Johnston presiding, but, o§ ho had to sentence two prisoners, Thomas Hall and Margaret Graham Houston were not placed m tho dock till half -past 11 o'clock.

Mr Bloxam, the Registrar, road the indictment ob follows : — The jurors for Our Lady the Queen upon their oath present that Thomas Hall and Margaret Graham Houston, on the loth day of August, m the year of our Lord one thousund eight hundred and eighty six, feloniously and unlawfully did administer tx> one Kate Emily Hall a large quantity of a certain deadly poison called antimony with intent thereby thon feloniously, wilfully, and of their malice aforethought, the said Kate Emily Hall to kill and murder against the form of the statute m such caso made and provided and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown and Dignity ; and tho jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further present that Thomas Full and Margiret Graham Houston on the fifteenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, feloniously and unlawfully did cause to be administered to Kate Kmily Hall, a large quantity of a certain deadly poison called antimony with intent thereby then feloniously, willfully, and of their malice aforethought, the Baid Kate Emily Hall to kill and murder against the form of Statute m such case made and providod ad nguinst the peaco of Our Lady tho Queen, ncr Crown an.l Dignity : and the jurora aforesiM upon their oath aforesaid do furthei present that Thomas Hal and Margaret Graham Houston, on the fifteenth of August one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, feloniously and unlawfully did cause to be taken by Kate Emily Hall, a larjje quantity of a certain deadly poison called antimony, with intent thereby then feloniomly, wilfully, nml of their malice aforethought, the said Knte Kmily Hall, to kill and murler against tho form of thostatnto m euch case made and provided and against tho peace of Our Lady the Queen, Her frown and Dignity. Hall pleaded not guilty m a Grin, low tone, but Houston's reply of " not guilty " was almost innudible. The Attorney-General, Sir Robert Stout, with him Mr White, Crown Prosecutor for Timaru, and Mr J. C. Martin, Crown Prosecutor for Christchurch, appeared for the Crown. Mr Joynt, with him Mr Perry (of Timaru), appeared for tho prisoner Hall, and Mr Hay (of Timaru), appeared for the prisoner Houston. The jury were then called. Messrs Stead and Burnett applied to be excused ; tho former on the ground of his late illness, and the latter on the ground of his being connected with tho railways, and that his absence would cause inconvenience to the public. Mr Joynt pointed out to '.His Honor that each of the prisoners hnd a right to tho peremptory challenge of twelve. His Honor said that this was sn, but ns n« there were only thirty jurors, if tho right of peremptory challengo wero exercised by each prisoner, ho should hare to consider whether he should not order them to bo tried separately. Mr Joynt pointed out that there was a right to pray a /airs granted m the net. His Honor said it was most important for him to considorthe question of allowing these two gentlemen (o go ns tho jury would then bo reduced to thirty, which would not be sufficient. His Houor, however, allowed Mr Stoad's excuse, but declined to occedo to that of Mr Burnett. The latter's case was afterwards met by tho jurjman being challenged. In one case, where a juryman did not appear, it was olicitod that ho had gone to the Hanmer Plains. No lino was imposed, but His Honor notified that he would enquiro into tho matter. The following were the special jury : — Frederick Henry Barnes (foroman), Thomas Basselt, J. O. Jones, Edward Pavitt, David Go'ibie, William Dunnage, George Payling, Harvey Hawkins, Robert Catton, Edward H&tfleld Brown, John Fulton, and Charles Edward Tribe. Soven jurymen wero challenged, four by Hall's counsel, and three by Miss Houston's counsel. The jury having been sworn, The Attorney-General roae and said : Your Honor, and gentlemen of the jury : This case, us you havo heard from the lips of tho Registrar" on reading the indictment, ia ono which the prisoners at the bar are charged on whit is termed three counts (1) with administering poison to Kato Emily Hull with intent to kill aud murdor her ; (2) with causing poison to be administered ; and (3) with causing poisou to be taken ; but I think when you come to hear tho ovidence not much will depend on tho way tho chargo is framed. As you will sco thi3 chargo is a very serious and a very grave one, and what the Crown has undertaken to do is to prove that poison was administered to Kate Emily Hall ; that it was administered by tho prisoners, and that their intention m so administering it was to kill and murder her. We ask you to carefully consider this, and boforo you are BBVcd for your verdict, you mußt bo satisfied, quite satisfied, gontlemen, that the Crown has proved the things as eet forth m the indictment. Now, ia this case, as m many other coses, it happens that it is impossible to prove tho direct administration of poison by 'the prisoners. You have to take into consideration a great number of surrounding facts and circumstances. For examplo, poison may bo administered by accident, poison may be administered without intent to kill or murder, and hence, m cases of this kind, it is necessary to bo most careful. The Crown m this case aro prepurod to prove by facts and circumstances that the administration of poison wa3 not by accident, but that the administration was with the intent as set forth m tho indictment. Of course, gentlemen, if you are convinced by tho evidence that the poison was administered by the prisoners who are now upon their trial before you, and was administered wilfully, that is quite sufficient to convince you that thoy are guilty. We are not bound to show the motive of the act, nor need we necesiarily prove the intent to kill. Tho act of administering is sufficient proof of itself, but a» I havo said, the surrounding circumstances must all be carefully studied as they come out m evidence, m order to determine tho nature of the actions prisoners were guilty of. We propose to lead evidence of what may be termed the motives for the commission of such a grave crime. Here I think it only right to warn you, on behalf of the prisoners, that wo want no verdict except you find the evidence is clear and conclusive to your minds ; and, on behalf of the Crown, I wish to warn you that unless it is proved to you that there was a motivo, and prove to you that prisoners are really guilty by tho evidence led, you have no right to assume or infer that they aro guilty of the crime with which they aro now charged. I now propose first of all to deal with tho quostion of motive, and m doing so I will throw light on cortain things which will enable you to understand Bomo of tho facts which bear directly on the case wo havo undertaken to lay before you. But before doing this I have to remark that unfortunately there is such a thing as the crime of poisoning, and tho 1:w has had to provide against it. The crimo is unfortunately not rare, but it is of such a nature that any person, either man or woman, charged with such a terrible crime should not bo convicted except on clear and decisivo evidence. Therefore I onco more warn you to consider all the circumstances and facts as they are placed before jou m a careful way. The first question raised is, therefore, one of motive. It will I think be shown to you that the death of Kate Kmily Hall would havo been of great pecuniary benefit to the prisoner. Hall. He was carrying on business m Timaru as a commission agent, m partnership with ono Menson, and it will bo proved to you that, as far as the financial position was concerned, tho firm was bankrupt ; that, m fact, almoßt as soon as Hall was arrested, tko firm was declared bankrupt ; that comparing the liabilities and assets there is a deficiency of about £5000 to £6000. Personally also Hall had no money. You have then this fact to start with, that, bo far, at any rate, as Hall was concerned, he was hopelessly involved m financial difficulties, and there did not seem any mode of escape for him from those difficulties. But this was not all. Unfortunately, like other mon m financial straits, and who seem to be devoid of moral sense, Hall was found to be guilty of forgery, and up even to the time of his arrest, these forgeries, like other sins and other crimes, accumulated as time went on. Possibly when ho committed his first forgery he might have believed that ho would bo soon out of his financial difficulties and out of hi« Cnanoial straits ; but, as you know, ono thing leads to another, so this happened uutil at the time of his arreßt, Hall was guilty of po fewer thau eeveq or eight

forgeries at least. .These facts, theroforu, eomo beforo you. First of all as to the question of motive. Kvory day of his life ho had continually beforo hiai the felon's dock and eel for tho crime of forgery. Considering then his position, what benefit would the death of his wife be to him under these ciroumstancea ? It is for you to consider and say. I shall prove to you that Kate Emily Hall nnd Thomas Hall wcro married on the 26th May, 1885, and that ho committed his first forgery on the 15th June, 1836, for an amount of £650. I shall then prove that, m the succeeding month, his wife by will left all her property to him ; thnt m tho month of August, 1885, ho made two Beparato proposals to insuro her lifo, and that this was done, the two policies beiog for £3000 each. I Bhall also prove to you from deeds of trußt on settlement that, by his wife's death, Hall would become possessed of a considerable sum of money. A question may arise as to the correctness of one of the deods. However, that is not material. It is all theso things together. You will find that by his wife's death Hall would become entitled to a sum of about £9oo0 — thatthis would bo tho amount of the monetary advantage to him. I think it right, howeTer, to tell you that by 'her doath an income of £250 per annum would be lost j but what was that compared to the direct gain, he would, bb I liOTe said, receive. Mow, I think I have clearly shown the motive, but I again warn you not to allow these things to take your attention away from tho real point at issue. Was antimony administered to Kate Emily Hall with the intention of killing and murdering her ? It will ho proved to you thnt her death would be a gain to him, that ho was m dreadful financial trouble and dreading exposure, but thiß did not prove the crime that ho was charged with of administering poison with tho intention of killing tbe Indy I have named. I now come to apeak of Mrs Hall'i illness. The first we hear is £hat sho was ill m November, 1885, but concerning that illnets we have little evidence. Sho was sick at that time, and she vomited, btit the evidence we have is hardly enough for you to come to any decided conclusion. I wish rather to tako you to a time respecting which there is no doubt. This brings mo to speak of the 19th Juno, 183(5, some four or fire days after Mrs Hail's confinement. We shall then find that »he suffered at this timo from retching pains m the thronfc and from thirst, and she goes on Buffering intermittently m that way up to the time tho prisoners aro arrested. Immediately after their arrest this retching, this sickness, theso terrible sufferings, cease, and Mrs Hnll rapidly gets well. The symptoms will be fully described to you by the Doctors, and that they wero principally violent retching, choking, a griping sensation m the throat, and great thirst. Doctor after doctor went to sco Mr 3 Hall when she was ill and doctor after doctor was unable to account for the Symplons sho showed. They found no organic disease present. What caused her to suffer so much ? All were at fault, ond it was only two or three dayß before Ibe arrest of prisoners that it floated across the mind of one of tho medical gentlemen that Bhe was suffering from an irritant poison. This fact you will have presented to you, and you will also be told of the cause of Mn Hall's illness. Experts will also tell you that tho symptoms are those of poisoning by antimony, and that tho only symptoms akin to those from which Mrs Hall suffered are poisoning from colchicum. Tho symptoms of poisoning by antimony and poisoning by colchicum are, strango to say, very much alike, and it will be 6hown you that the symptoms Mrs Hall showed are not consistent with any disease but are consistent with poisoning by antimony or colchicum. You must keop this m mind also — the fact that from the arrest of prisoners Mrs Hall's health improved, and the symptoms gradually ceased. This is of great importance, and it has often happened m poisoning cases read of m history that the Crown was only able to show from the symptoms that a person had been poisoned. In other days chemistry had not reached the stage it was now m, and they had often not been able bo discover by chemical analysis tho presence of poison. All the Crown then had to present to a jury -was that the symptoms shown were inconsistent with any disease, but consistent with the use of certain drugs, and they asked the jury to infer that certain drugs had boon used. Now, fortunately for justice and tho safety of the public, we have not to depend on mere symptoms. But you will see from tho evidence that wo Bhould have had a strong cose against the prisoners even if no poison had been found, for Mrs Hall's Bymptoms will plainly Bhow to you that? she was suffering from a poison, and that as soon as prisoners were removed these symptoms ceased. But as I have said, we are not going to rely on inference. Unfortunately for the male prisoner the evidenco of the presence of antimony, and that Mrs Hall had taken it, is clear and conclusive. A few days beforo his arrest one of the doctors suspected tbe state of things, and he got some vomit and stool. These were tested by Drs Maclntyre and Drew, and were found to contain antimony. I now come to speak of what happened on the day of tho arrest. On this day Mrs Hall was exceedingly sick. lam now, you will observe, dealing with Hall. I will epeak "of tho female prisoner later on. On tho 15th some ico water was given to Mrs Hall, and part of this was secured by Dr Maclntyro, who, being satisfied of the presence of antimony, and that it was tho cause of Mrs Hall's illness, took the proper steps. He laid an information, and had prisoners arrested. This iced water, the stool and vomit, were analysed by Professors Black and Ogston, and they will tell you that they have not the slightest doubt about antimony heing present, They will tell you m reference to the iced water that it contained eight grains to the ounce, and they will tell you that they found antimony m the urino and stool. Thero was not one of the things but there were traces found. But you will be told that tho poison would tako some time to work out of the system. After tho 15th of August, after the arrest, m fact, thero was less and less until the time came when it could hardly be said to be present. But it will be shown to you that m tho vomit, urine and stool of the loth August there was abundance of antimony present. In the urine of the 12th August was found antimony. In the vomit of the 12th there was abundance of it. On tho 18th, 19th, 20th and 24th tho urine was tested, but showed antimony only m small quantities. It was gradually working out of the system. The testing of tbe various medicines and other things also brought to light antimony m some of thorn. It will be told to you, gentlemen, that had there not "been so much as eight grains to tho ounce m the ico water, Mrs Hall, considering her weak state, would probably — almost certainly — have not boon alivo now. Tho fact that it was administered m such quantity made hor eject it from her system. Now, gentlemen, having told you this, what connection has it with tho prisoners ? First, I intend to prove to you that Hall had purchased some of the bottles found. But let me hero give you a necessary caution. _ Considering tho number of chemists' shops m this colony, and how near we aro to tho Australian continent, it might bo said that the poisons wero not purchased by Hall, and that, provided tho Crown do not bring evidenco of this.you will be entitled to say that tho prisoner Kail was not guilty of the purchase. But this question does not ariße. Wo can prove to you that he did purchase the poisons. For example, Hall got two ounces of antimonial wine from one chemist on the 12th June, 1886. He got some colchicum m July, 1886, and again got antimony on August 24th. He got two ounces of it from another chemist on the 18th June, and two ounces more on the 26th Juno. He bought colchicum on July Gth, 17th, and 31st, and on August 4th, and from another chemist he got colchicum wino on July 26th and August 7th. So that, so far as tho getting poisons is concerned, the evidence against Hall will be clear and conclusive. For what purpose, it may hero be asked, did he purchase theso things ? I will deal with thiß by and by. Shortly after this Mrs Hal? is found to be suffering from some irritant poison, and coupled with this, is the fact that Hall has bought poison from several chemists. But is there no other connection betweon the prisoner Hall and the administering of poison to his wife ? You will ho told also that not only does ho purchase poisons, but he also purchases a book of poisons, a book known as " Taylor on Poisons," Taylor being looked upon by medical men and experts as one of tho very best experts oa poisons, thair symptoms, mod.9 of administration, and result* j

of the several poisons. Hall purchased this book from Mr Hutton, of Timaru, and though he did so m 1835 he, on getting the book, wrote m it on the front page, as if it had been purchased by him m Dunedin, dating it 1882. Why did he do that? Also it will be shown m evidence that he wished for a book for the purpose of considering the effects of poisoning by antimony — that is the effect of it on the human eyatein. You will also bo told that he got another book from Mr Farley, of Timaru, which book also dealt with the effects of poison on the human system. Now to deal with another important point. You will see that it is rather an extraordinary thing when jou come to look nt the dates of the purchsso of poisons and their effect on Mrs Hall. You will find a very peculiar resemblance all through her confinement. On the 19th June she was very ill, and on the 23rd. Hall had bought antimony on the 12th and 18th June. Then on the 26th Hall got two drachms of antimony. That evening, aftor taking eotne oysters, Mrs Hall suffered violently from retelling. On July 14th iha was so bad that a consultation waa held. On July sth Hall had purchased no leas than five ounces of colchicum. Then she was fairly well for two or three days. Then the symptoms returned. Hall had purchased, two days before this, two ounces of antimony. On July 26th ho pur« chased two ounces of colchicum, and on July 28th Mrs Hall was so bad that a eecond consultation was held with Dr Stncpole. Then on July 31st Hall bought two ounces of ' colchicum. On August 12th Mrs Hall was so I ill that another consultation was held. Then m the. month of August the following poisons were purchased : — Half ounco antimony on tho 4th, two ounces colchicum on the 7th, two ounces antimony oa the 11th. So that immediately after tho purchase of thoso poisons Mrs Hall became worse, and showed symptomß of irritant poison. It is for you, gentlemen, to say if thero is any connection between those purchases and the state of fclrs Hall, whose condition was such that Hall himeelf said to Dr Drew "that tho slightest thing might put her away." I have mentioned about the colobicum, but this is not spoken of m tho indictment. Prisoners are not charged with administering this, but you hare a right to consider whether this poison was administered on other days. The other side may say — "What became of all tho colchicum that was bought ? Wo do not say anything to this directly, but it may bo said that before tho 12th August sho may have been taking colchicum. It may have beea administered to her perhaps for a month before this. Before I deal with tho arrest I must say something about the 15th. You will remember that on the 16th Hall gave hi 3 wife some ice water m the morning. About ten minutes afterwards she Jauffered violent retching and was so alarmingly ill that the doctor thought eho was dying. Before that — to deal more carefully with the consultations —on the 12th August the doctors said that Mrs Hall was to get no food by tho mouth, that Bhe was to have only a little ice water to keep her mouth moist and to quench her thirst, and that she waa to have injections of braudy. A bottle of brandy was got, and she was given brandy after the consultation, as ordered. Since the arrest we got hold of this bottle. The contents have been analysed, and found to contain poison. In fact tho woman was not only poisoned by tho mouth, but the injections given her actually contained colchicum. It is, therefore, gentlemen, for you to say whether the colnhicum was put m by the prisoners. Now I come to tho arrest. I may state here that Dr Maolntyre nobly did his duty. He thought his patient was being poieoned. He tested certain things, was quickly satisfied, and then laid an information, and the two prisoners were arrested. Of course I do not want you to magnify the circumstances of the arrest as against the prisoners. People who msy be innocent act strangely on such an occasion, and their conduct is inexplicable. But what happened at the timo of Hall's arrest? When m the room m presence of, Mr Broham, Hall was observed putting his hands m bis pocketß. Mr Broham warns him, but he succeeds, with the help of the female prisoner, m getting a bottle containing come fluid out of his pocket. This, on analysis, is found to be poison, and this we find him actually carrying about on his person — a bottle which contained antimony. His first effort on arreefc — hie first struggle — is to try and destroy all evidences that he h*d such m his possession. If he were innocent, why did he attempt to get rid of this antimony ? For what purpose did he carry it about -with, him? Now I come to deal with the excuses he had for its being m his possession. The female's part m the struggle I will deal with by and bye. Hall said he used antimony for making cigarettes. We have been unable to find any of these cigarettes. If he was making them of antimony they did not require such a large quantity m such a short time before his arrest. Of coureo he h»d to give some excuses to the chemist ho purchased from, and thus we find that to another he makes the excuse that he is suffering from asthma, and has to smotnthesa cigarettes. Then with regard to colchicum, he stated that he wanted it as an appetiser. Gentlemen, I will call evidence to show-you that this is the first time such- a thing has been tnown to be used for such purposes. Thus, gentlemen, you see all these facts are clear before you. But one word more about the ice water. I have told you Mrs Hall's lickness was intermittent; She was sick on Saturday sight, the 14th of August, but on Sunday morning, the 15th, at f our ;p'clock, her sickness ceased. To use the rather expressive words of the nurse, Mrs Hall had thrown up all shecouldthrow up. After this the nurse gives her come ice water from the jug standing m the room. Here Hall comes m, and the nurse leaves tbe room for a few minutes. Sho comes back, and then, m the presence of Hall, Mrs Hall complains of the nasty taste of the ice water ho had given her— that it had a nasty bitter taste. Ten minutes after this Mrs Hall is seized ■with fearful violent retching, such as shenevor experienced before. The nurse very cleverly being warned by the doctor, gets some of this water from the cup, puts it into a bottle, and on analysis it is found that the ice water given by Hall to his wife contains antimony. Hall, you will remember, gentlemen, put the excuse for the tast« on the jug. All connected "with this jug has been analysed and found to contain no antimony. You, have, therefore, this damning fDct, that on Sunday, 15th August, immediately after the male prisoner goes into tha room — immediately aftor he gives his wife the ice water - she U seized with all the symptoms of thevilo poison, aod that this water, on analysis, iB found to contain 8 grains to the ounce, while m tho water m tho jug is found no poison. When arrested Hall had antimony i:i his possession. The vital question is who put antimony m that ico water? It is for you to find out the answer to that question I now come to Hall's conduct. Ho knew from the nurse thnt the vomit and urino had been taken away by the doctors. Ho asks Dr. Prow about it, and this gentleman very properly tella him nothing abont that antimony, but replies m a vague kind of a way which has th.9 effect of putting Hall off: his guard. Hall also know that his wife waa m a most dangerous critical condition "that," as ho expressed to Dr. Drew, "tha slightest shock would send her awny." He knew also thatjon the Sunday she was m such alow condition Ihut it was impossible for her to rally, llis wife having been so recently confined and co siuk, was it the usual thing for a husband to exhibit callousness ? But what do \to find ? Why, he goes io his club, plnvs bi!lia-d j , find stuys out late on Saturday, as if nothing had happened, and a> if all were going on well ut his home. How, I ask, is ho to explain nil this ? Now there is one olher thing I would )i> c to mention, though without it the c:ise for the Crown stands complete. At tho Police Station, m the sergoant's room, m tho presence of Constable Hicks, Ball said to the womin " You are quite free nd will bo ahlo to get clear. I cannot posiblv get off.." Such evidence as this is Iways open to tlu ob«rvutlon by the other ido that this is merely " police evidence, do not pur attention to it." But it is our duty to see" fully into the case auU present tho facts to your knowledge. Now I will .refer to the connection tho female prisoner has with this caso I have told you that tho sicknes? was present only a few days before Mrs Hall's confinement. On tbo 25th she had the oysters I spoke of given to her, and aba relished them. Miss Houston Baid she would take tho oysters to Mrs Hall herself, as they were fat and nice. Sho gave them to Mrs Hall. She liked them, auq asked tbe nune if see cou'.d,

have some more. The nurse said " Yes." Immediately after this Mrs Hall became very ill. Then on the 15th August Miss Houston got the cup and muslin m which was ico water, and aftpr this was used tho cup was Trashed clean, but the muslin we have been unable to discover. Thon comes her conduct at the time of the arrest. She knowing the crime Hall was said to be guilty of, came to lub assistance, and then volunteers some explanation of why he purchased and why he should have antimony. She said : — " Why, don't you use antimony experimenting with your photography ?" or some words of that sort. But we will show you that antimony is nevorused for such a purpose. She also said ■ that Dr. Stackpoole had said that she.Houston, ' was to administer Mrs Hall's medicines. Tlio , nurse would not allow this, and tho doctor would be called and swear ho never said anything of the kind. Messrs Hay and Joynt : We had no notice ; of this evidence. j Sir Robert Stout continued : As for tAe rela- { ti"ns between the prisoners, I may here at once tell yon that no such thing is alleged as | criminal intercourse between tho prisoners. We make no Buch charge or insinuation. We ! do not want to strain a single fact, but there is no doubt that the prisoners were on terms of great familiarity ; that he took her out | driving and about generally ; that they ' were on terms of close relationship. They wore terms of intimacy with what is called a lady help. She seemed conscious of what ho did, he seemed conscious of what he was doing. In fact, to put it clearly, there wa9 much greater intimacy between them than is usual with persons m their respective stations. Then she writes a letter to him whilst m gaol, which certainly seems familiar considering the circumstances j they were placed m. Then there is the conversation, which will be fully depicted by Mr Kerr, which, if Rail was talking to her, shows sho was conscious that poison was being used m the house for the purpose of doctoring liquors. As to the excuse by Hall that it was for the purpose of catching a servant m tho , house, it will bo shown that she was not m j the habit of taking drink. It is for you, gentlemen, to see about this conversation, j Now I como to another phase. We say that, m addition to Hall trying to destroy all traces . of antimony, he did something else — that he made preparations to destroy tho house and its I contents, that he prepared to set fire to tho house m order that the dead body of his wifo should be destroyed by fire and leave not tho slightest evidence of the crime. He makes cool and careful preparations for this. He insures the furniture. The house was insured. ! I think that Btrictly spooking, it h not i absolutely necessary for us to lead evidence on this point. Our case is quite complete i without it. I will now draw my remarks to i a conclusion. 'Ihe prosecution is a painful j task for mo considering the position at least one of the prisoners held. Their relations and friends must be pained by it, but jou must not let any of these things weigh with you. If 'he evidence is clear and conclusive against the prisoners, then I ask you, as men having the most important duty to perform, not to flinch from your task, but to return a verdict of guilty. Let no outsido excitement prevent you doing justice to tho prisoners, and if you find the evidence is not conclusive, give your derision accordingly. Gentlemen, my duty m opening the case is done. I leave the prisoners to you. Do your duty to you conscience and your country. Previous to the Attorney-General's concluding his address, all the witnesses, on tho application of Mr Joynt, were ordered out of court. Evidence was led as follows : — Charles Baines Bhanks : lam a Government surveyor. On the 22nd September I visited the residence of Kate Emily Hall. I made this plan (produced) of the house. (Plan marked AA put m, and admitted.) I made three copies of the plan on transfer paper. These plans are correct to tho best of my knowledge. To His Honor: The house stands m an isolated position. The plan was then given to the jury, and copies to His Honor and counsel. To Mr Joynt : The windows, one of which is a Frenoh one, m Mrs Hall's bedroom open on to the verandah. They open outwards. There are two dooTs and two windows to the room. One opens to the smoking room, and the other to the passage. The French window is on the same side' as the smoking room. Mr White : I now put m the order of adjudication declaring Hall bnd Meason bankrupts, for the purpose of showing the financial position of the parties. Mr Joynt objected, and intimated that it was inadmissible. Hiß Honor would not say that it was inadmissible, but it was not admissible yet. Arthur Stedman, examined by Mr White, gaid : I am manager of the Bank of New South Wales at Timaru. The firm of Hall and Meason, of which prisoner was a member, kept their account with us. Hall looked after the banking business m January of 1885. His Honor and Mr Joynt (simultaneously) : What, 1885 ? Mr White : Yes, your Honor ; we want to »how how the account stood before Hall's marriage. Mr Stedman continued : The account of the firm m January, 1885, was overdrawn by £8000 including discounts. Hall & Meason carried on a loan discount business, and were also lond brokers and surveyors. From January, 1885, to August I,sth, jBB6 the account averaged £8000 overdraft. In June, 1885, Hall produoed a promissory noto of one E. H. Cameron for discount. I discounted the note. It was for £650. It was discounted on June 15th, and was for six months. Hall, I believe, retired the promissory note. It is not m the bank. Hall provided fundß m the account and retired it. Abont September 23rd, 1885, Hall produced a note from one John Fraser for £150. That was afterwards renewed and eventually retired by Hall, to whom it was given up. On December sth, 1885, prisoner Hall produced a promissory note from Michael Mitton for £205. The note wag for three months. The note was discounted. It was retired, or rather I should aay it was renewed, about July 19th of thiß year. Hall saw me with reference to this note (Z7). It ■was for £225 by Mitton for four months. It -was discounted. Hall informed me that Mitton was a station manager. I produco ft memorandum of mortgago shown me by Hall. I firet saw it (Zs on December 6th, 1885. It wa3 to secure the promissory note of £205. I saw a memorandum of mortgage from Mitton to Hall (produced B 6), and received a Sromissory note for four months from ohn Fraser for £250, dated July 9th, 1886. It was discounted. It purported to Be a renewal of Frnsor's bill of September 23rd, 1885. Hall Ba-ld it was the John Fraser whose deeds had been brought to me as a security. He brought the deeds to me on October .3rd (deeds produced) and transfer from John Fraser to Hall and Meason. He was described as John Fraser, a shepherd of the Mackenzie country. To Mr Joynt : The overdraft on the acconnt included the discount*. The average amount of discount from January, 1885, to August, 1886,. was about £4000. The overdraft proper would thus be about £4000 as well. The bank held securities for the overdraft. They, had [an overdraft guaranteed to £2000 additional, and socurity on freehold property. The bank considered itself secured, but I cannot say whether it does so still. In Juno a note from E. H. Cameron was received, but I have no recollection that prisoner Hall personally presented it. The notes were sometimes presented by Wilson, a clerk ; sometimes by Hall. I think Hall took the notes away. I come to this conclusion only by knowing that he was m the habit of taking the notes away. I remember Hall personally presented Fraser'a noto for £150 at three months. I discounted it, and renewed it several times. I have no memorandum on the part of Mitton's note m respect to presentation. I believe I got the memorandum of mortgage purporting to be signed by Mitton from Hall himself. The bills for collection during the months named amounted to over £1200, but I considered them part of tho security for tho • overdraft. I valued the freehold Property at £2500. That may be rather a igh valuation for them at the present time, perhaps, but at the time the deeds wero deposited it was not thought to bo so. Practically the bank held £5700 to secure an overdraft of £4000, provided the bills discounted were found to be all right. ,

Mr Hay : On August Hit!', li.-ii you given notice to the police that Hall uuil Mensem were overdrawn ? His Honor : You have no right to cmbarass Mr Joynt's defence. Mr Hay : I wish to show, Your Honor, that Miss Houston should nut havo been wrested— Hint a possi 1 U- motive was iwt known to her. The Attorney-General : I might Bay, your Honor, that, as far as we knew, Dr MacIntyre knew nothing of nail's circumstances at tho time of Iho arrest. Mr Hay : That is all I desire to know. Bobert Silvers Black, examined by Mr ! White : I am manager of the National Bank I at Timaru. Prisoner Hall has kept his private I account with us for some years past. In the 1 beginning of January, 1885 — — Mr Joynt: I don't wish to take any captious objections, but I wish to know if Mr Black can swear to tho accuracy of the i figures. j Witness : I took the figures recently from the books. . j Mr Joynt: Can jou swear to their ac- , curacy, or that the books were accurate. ! Witness (the bank book having been put into his hands): I cannot swear to what is m this book without making calculations. , | Examination continued : The document produced is an extract from the books of the bank, niado and verified by myself as corresponding with the books. The account was m credit on the Ist January, 1«85, £35. From that time to the beginning of November it i was overdrawn, on the average, about £5". On the 30th November the account was overdrawn £263. From the Ist December to , March, 18S6, it was m credit, on an average from £100 to £ 100. From 11th March to 31st ■■ May, 1886, it was overdrawn £635, and from Juno Ist to August 16th it fluctuated slightly, the overdraft on the latter date standing at £677. I held as socurity against this overdraft a transfer of mortgage for £600 from Hall to .our 'Bank. The mortgago was originally given by one J, J. Verity to one , Thomas Smith. j To Mr Joynt: In May there was a special transaction of £600 of an advance to Hall. ITo secure this he gave us tho transfer of mortgage for £fioo. I considered the security . ample to cover the advance. I was riot manager m 1885. I cannot say if the bools were ! correct then. The Attorney- General : The act makes the books evidence. Mr Joynt : But not that the books are correct. The Attorney-General : Yes, that they ore 'primd facie evidence till the contrary is I shown. i His Honor : That tho oxtracfc is true to tho i book ? The Attorney-General : So, Your Honor, { that the books ore correct. His Honor : Not conclusive evidence The Attorney-General : No, primd facie evidence. It is for the other side to show that they are incorrect. Mr Joynt read the section (15) of the Act of 1880. His Honor : That creates primd facie evidence. Mr Joynt then sat down, and Mr White next called Gilbert Laing-Meaaon, who said : I was m partnership with Hall as a land broker and commission agent at Timaru. I attendod principally to land and surveying. I had nothing to do -with the financial part of the business. I never received on behalf of tho firm, and know nothing of the promissory notes from E. H. Cameron, John Eraser, and Michael Mitton. I know nothing of the promissory notes at all. I never received any transfors of mortgage. I knew nothing up to some weeks ago of the financial position or affairs of the firm. Mr White : Has the firm been declared bankrupt ? Witness : Yes. Mr Joynt: I submit it ia not right to go into this matter. Tho firm was adjudicated bankrupt only last week. His Honor : I hold that the adjudication relates to a position of affairs prior to the arrest, and if the order throws Bny light on the condition of the affairs of the firm, it is admissible. Mr Joynt : I submit, Your Honor, that my learned friend should prove tho position of the firm m tho regular way. The adjudication, the order for which was grantod only last week, cannot prove it. The Attorney-General : Very well, Your Honor, we will put m the document later on. Witness to Mr White : There has been no cash or assets of the firm made away with since Hall'B arrest. No business has been carried on since then. No debts have been contracted. To Mr Joynt: A lease o£ considerable value relating to some land from the New Zealand and Australian Land Company, was transferred by Hall and Meason to Moody before prisoner Hall was arrested. This I got from the banker, Mr Stedman. The lease was valued at £10"0. I understand it was transferred to Moody. That's all I know. lam not clear on the matter as to value. I believe Moody under-leased the land. To Mr White : I do not know of my own knowledge when it was given to tho bank. I suppose it was parted with by my partner (prisoner Hall). Charles A. Wilson : I was a clerk m the employ of Hall & Meason, and went to them m 1885, my predecessor being one Metz. I kept the books m 1885 and produce them m Court to-day. To his Honor : I was examined ia the Resident Magistrate's Court. To Mr White : In tho ledger there is an account called loan account. I found an entry dated December 17th, 1884, credited by E. H. Cameron, promissory note, June 9th, 1885, for£Boo. On Juno 13th, 1885, there is an entry "by p.n., Decombor 16th, 1885, £650." It did not say whose note it is, but it is to Cameron's account. There was on the previous lino " E. H. "Cameron," and n tick below meaning ditto. I made the entry. I suppose Hall gave the information, but I cannot remember. I was not m the habit of getting instructions to enter bills from anyone cUe but Hall. In Michael Mitton's account, tho last promissory note was under July 16th,. 1886. It was for £225. There was one on March 3rd for £275. There was one for £205 under date January 13th, 18fi6. That was the only £205 note then. In John Fraaer'3 account the 'a9t entry is under July 19th, 1 886, credit for £150. There is one for £250 credited under September 12th, 1885. John Fraser is desoribed ias "of Mackenzie Country." Michael Mitton is described as " Station manager, Mount Peel." E. H. Cameron's account, as brought forward, show no description. The account from which it is carried describes him as "Station manager, Wnimato." I know another Cameron, living at Winchester. I took the promissory notes to the bank, but I had nothing to do with discounting them. I took them by Hall's directions, and received them from Hall. I remember Sims and Gracie being appointed liquidators of the firm of Hall and Meason. Sims took charge of all the books. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt : Of my own knowledge I believe there is one debit against E. H. Cameron m the loan account. .By Mr Joynt : The first entry is on the debit side, £800, and on the credit Bide, promissory note, £800. Do you know anything about that P § Witness : Yes ; Hall told me to open a loan account, and credit it with a promissory note from Cameron for £800. The Attorney-General: Cameron will bo able to explain it, Mr Joynt : I ask you again, Do you know anything about the entries on page 165, Cameron's account ? Witness : Yes, the debits represent transactions. I believe some of the credit entries are for interest received from the people named. I frequently took promissory notes from the customers of the firm, by Hall's directions. Be-examined by Mr White : I never took promissory notes from Cameron, Mitton or Fraser. I never saw them sign any promissory notes. The entries m the books were made by me m accordance with Hall's instructions. Michael Mitton : I am a station-manager at Mount Peel. I have had several monetary transactions with Hall and Meason. I have given money to tho firm to invest. I gave it to Hall. I never borrowed any money from the firm er from Hall. I may have borrowed half-asovereign or £1 now and then, but had np buiineas transaction with them . I never gave them or signed a promissory ppte, Tho

signature to this transfer of mortgage is not mine. I never gave Hall and Me^iaon^, ov ; signed for Hall, a promissory note tor £205 j on the sth December, 1885. I know no other 'Mitton" m tho South Canterbury district. Mr Jo\ nt declined to oros3 examine. John Vrsißcr, a shepherd m the Mackenzie Country, examined by Mr White, euid : 1 have had transactions with Hall and Mcaaon. I gave them money to invest. I gave it to Hall m different "sums amounting to nbout £250 to £300 m all. It has not been returned. I reeoived as security a mortgage for £150 over land m the linmru district from ono I'lvnn. Hall showed me the security. The transfer mortgago (CU) signed "John Fraser" wa3 not Bigned by mo. It was the transfer from Sljnn. The signature to tho promissory note is not mine. I know no one else of the same name. I have been m the Mackenzie district over two by Mr Joynt : I Baw the promissory noto m the bank at Timaru. I havo signed a promissory note, but not that produced. lam sure it is not my signature. Mr Joynt : Will you be good enough to write your name— your ordinary signature. The witnejß wrote his name. Mr Joynt : That is your usual signature ? Witness : Yes. His Honor looked at it and handed the noto and tho sheet of foolscap on which was written the name to the jury. William Montague Simnis : I am an nccountant m Timaru, and am ono of the liquidators appointed at the meeting of the -redilors of Hall and Meason. I took possession of the books of the firm, and made a thorough examination of them. I found that they had been kept by the clerk Wilson. There might havo been an occasional entry by Ball. I produce a statement (F.F. four documents prepared by witness). After allowing for all available assets I found a deficiency of £5765. The accounts and documents were verified from the books. I took into consideration the value of tho property appearing to the credit of the firm except certain ones which appeared to be mortgaged. I cannot say but believe thoy wore mortgaged to their full value. Tho books show that the firm held trust money. ' Mr Joynt submitted that this was not admissible. . . . . . , The AUornoy-General : Only to show that the trust moneys were short. Witness : There is an account called Wheatley's trust, Lysart & Meason, trustees. It shows that £750 was due by tho firm to the trust.- To E. H. Cameron was duo £962 17s 7d j to Michael Mitton, including apromiss'ory noto for £225, was a balance of £335 to credit. ... Cross-examined by Mr Joynt ; Without. Mitton's promissory note there would be about £100. The ledger gives certain valuations for the properties under mortgage. I consulted Wilson m the matter. Tho depressed condition of tho land market made one place a|low valuo on the properties. The values were for a forced sale. One property was m Southland. It was called tho Southland Land Account. There are several such headings m tho ledger. I enquired from no one except Wilson as to the value of these. I did not know that Wilson had ever seen them. I took no notice of any except the properties mortgager! "to the banks. There are entries about "Pareora Farm," Gibson Brothers' account. I knew there was a lease on tho property. I di'l not know what had become ot it, but I believed it was taken a» a certain valuo among tho bank's securities. According to the ledger, tho first account is called Southland Account, section 36 and 37. There is an account of £261 12?, paid. Tho Southland land account, 330 acres, has £352 2s 4d paid. Southland land account, 1600 acres, has £831 16s. These show whut had been paid Southland land account. Sections 19, 21, 47 and 48 show £779 15s paid. Anothor account, called No. 1, showed £1564 7s 7d paid. Those are all the, Southland accounts. I have not estimated theso m the assets. To Hi* Honor : Hall and Meason havo paid those amounts for their clients. Mr Jovnt : Not on their own account. Witness : The entries do not show the gros» total at which these properties were purchased. Ido not know how much is duo on them. I have been told that several are mortgaged, but I had no means of knowing for how much. I put no value on them, beoauso I was told they were under mortgage. The Attorney-General : Wo havo other witnesses on this point. They wero mortgaged twice m some instances. Witness to Mr Joynt : lam agent for the Victoria Insurance Company. I know the house Woodlands, occupied by Mrs Kate Emily Hall. It was insured BOveral years m tho Victoria— on the building £1000, and on the furniture £500. It was insured before tho agency came to me. It was insured m m the namo of Captain Cain, who was «tcp-father-in-law to Hall, and lived thero till his decease m January, 188 G. The policies are not now m force. They lapsed by eflluxion of timo a few days after Captain Cain's death. I ' left tho properties mortgaged to the bank out of my calculation of assets. I included tho debts owinK to tho firm, but knocked off 20 per cent and £900- off the bills for discount. That was the estimate of the bank. From the bills for collection I knocked off £50 ) from £3170. Arthur Stedman (recalled by Mr \ White) : I knew of tho Southland properties of the firm of Hall and Meason. Tho bank holds a mortgage over their share of 1600 acres, also over 3000 acres m Southland. This Ipurports to be a second mortgage. The bank had no other security over this land. I have made no effort to realise the mortgago given us a second mortgaged It was m reality a third mortgage. It was given by Hall with the understanding that it was not to be registered without notice. I have recently endeavoured to register it, and I found that there is a second mortgage (dated subsequently) already registered. lam afraid the value of this bank's mortgage is not much. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt : I have telegraphed to our agent m Southland (is to the value of these. Arthur Ormsby, examined by Mr White : lam a solicitor, practising m Timaru. Ire ceived instructions on July 24th, 1885, from Mrs Kato Emily Hall, wifo of the male prisoner, to moke a will. A few days previously the male prisoner had called on me, and told me that Mrs Hall was coming to give me instructions to make her will. She came on tho 24th, and tho will was drafted the same day. It was engrossed on the 27th, and executed by Mrs Hall on the 29th. I was one of the attesting witnesses. Tho will loft everything to Hall, and was given to Hall on August 4th. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt : Mrs Hall did not tell me to give the will to Hall. Hall did not produce an order from Mrs Hall. I did not meet Hall m the Btreet and tell him to come for it. It might have happened, but I certainly do not recollect it. I had no direct authority from Mrs Hall, but as he was her husband and sole legatee, I could see no impropriety m handing it to him. I had previously seen Mrs Hall m my office. William Davidson said : I wob agent m Timaru for the Australian Mutual Provident Society m 1885. I remember the prisoner Hall coming m August 1885 with reference to an insurance. He asked for a prospectus form showing the rates charged by the society. I gave him one. He subsequently a day or two later saw me, and said he thought his wife would insure her life for £5000 for his benefit, as at her death a certain income would lapßO, and she wished to insure for his protection. At that time he said £5000, but subsequently ho said ho thought he would take out two policies, one for £3000 for life, and one for £3000 for 9even years. He said it would depend upon how long Captain Cain lived which policy would be kept m force. I gave him proposal forms, and he afterwards brought tho proposal forms produced on August 19th, 1885. The policies produced (W and 8) were issued on those proposals. Mr Joynt : How do you propose to prove this ? Mr White : By their being found on the promises after the arrest. Witness : After tho age was admitted, I got the receipt (£39), produced. Hall paid the premium (£4l for the half year) for tho £3000 policy for life. The other was £38 2s 6d per annum for tho seven years' policy. The annual premium was payable on August 28th, with thirty days' grace. These policies were m force on August 17th lost. After the policies were issued, Hall returned, tUetn m Juno this year, for

tlia purpose of having the age admitted. I returned them to Hall on June £6th, 1886. Between thnt time and tho arrest, about August 121.!), Hull c-illect when I was out. 1 went to Hull's ofhVe, and Hall told me that ho intended to let the short period policy lapse. I told him he hud plenty o£ time to think aliout that, «9 the thirty days' grace would not expire till September 28th. Ho made no reply to this. I had some more conversation with him with rogard to Mrs Hall's health. Ho told mo that she had been very ill indeed, but was now improving m health. That was abput August 12th. While I was m the office nail telephoned to Dr Maclntyre asking him if ha had had a reply from i>r Batchclor about his wife's symptoms Ho toldmetliatDr Maclntyro replied that ho had not received an answer. Hall paid the premium payable m February. I nevor saw Mrs Hall m connection with the proposals or the policies. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt : When Hull saw me, ho said it depended upon how lone Captain Cain lived as to which policy would be kept m force. lam quite sure of that. I am certain he said nothing about his wife having children, nnd that th- term of the short-dated policy would depend upon this, lie cnid nothing about the danger to women, especially with a first child. Wo had a conversation before tho policy was given about his wife's health. It was a puzzle to mo why the policy on his wife's life Bhould depcad upon Captain Cain's death. lam certain he said nothing about his wifo having children. I made a valuation of tho furniture at Woodlands about v week ago. I hud not previously seen the furniture. I valued it roughly at between £SOO and £900, for insurance purposes. I made a valuation of tho house, though I cannot call myaelf an expert. I valued it for insurance purposes nt £800. Pai-t of it is of brick. Tho valuation depends upon tho character of the person injuring, also under what tables the goods, land or property is to be insured. Mr Joynt : And upon the nature of the property insured. Witness: I suppose so. J. Paliaret, Commission Agent, of Christchurch, was called, but as he did not put m an appearance, lvi Honor decided, as the Attorney General expressed tho wish not to change the order of taking evideuce, to adjourn tho Court, its being 4.30 p.m. Before this was done, however, Joynt miseil a question as to whether his Honor would now rule as to tho Attorney-General having the right of a general reply at the clrse of the c.isc. Mr Joynt said that to the beet of his belief, the question was raised for the first timo m Now Zealand. The question was one wliich would very materially effect his, Mr Jovnt'a, conduct of the case. It had been announced as exceedingly bad practice at Home that the Attorney-General should huvs a right to reply, though it wos kid down that the Attorney-General of England wns entitled to this right. It had also beon decided by the New South Wales authority s that the Attorney-General of that colony had no right of general reply m criminal cases, but, ns Mr Joynt said, it was considered bad practico at Home. The Attornoy-General said that he could quoto other caaei besides that of the New South Wales Court to show that it was only right an Attornoj-Genernl should be allowed a general reply. His Honor t'ought this right of roply was governed by circumstances. However, this court was not bound by tho Now South Wales decision. As at present atlviscd he did not see his way to refuso to grant tho AttorneyGeneral the right of reply. Ho woul I see what tho circumstances were later on, nnd be prepared to hear argument on tho point, but he must add that ho thought it only right that tho Attorney-Ueneral should have tho right to sum up. Tho court then adjourned at 4.40 p.m. till 10 next morning.