The Crown Prosecutor's Effective Reply.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5841, 2 February 1887, Page 3

The Crown Prosecutor's Effective Reply.

Summary of his Arguments Mr Haggitt'a reply was very effective. The prosecution did not undertake to show how the poison was given ; it was enough to show that the prisoner had the opportunity. The case which the prosecution had opened, they had proved. ThVy did not say poison was contained in the whisky — it may have been in the water, the glass, or the cough mixture. They merely quoted two instances when sickness resulted from two drinks given by the prisoner, but they did not say that fatal doses were then administered. They Baid that Captain Cain's health was gradually undermined by frequent doses, and finally his life was exhausted by small, regular doses. It was not necessary for the Crown to prove motive, and if the jury were satisfied that the poison was administered by the prisoner, they must look for a motive. The prisoner may have been actuated by malice, or may have had the mere desire to destroy life; but the Crown suggested a pecuniary motive, and

there was Btrong evidence in support of this. The prisoner was proved to have carried on forgeries for years, and bad mortgaged properties two or three times over, treating his banker in a fraudulent manner. It may well have been that the prisoner thought Captain Cain was far more wealthy than he really was. He knew very well that a pood portion would be left to hia wife. Where then, was the foundation for his learned friend's assumption that the murder was a motivelees one ? Mr Chapman had said, " can you believe that on such a motive this man would proceed cruelly to kill a dying man ? " When a man would naturally have the greatest love for hia wife, just after she had given birth to a child, when she was niO6t in need of nourishment, what had happened ? The prisoner, four days after his wife had borne a child, commenced to poison her, systematically and regularly, until she was reduced to such a state that all she could take in the way of food were ice-water and injections. Though the only nourishment she could get was in this way, the prisoner, with devilish ingenuity, poisoned the ice-water she was to swallow, and the brandy which formed part of the injections. Was there anything that the jury could not believe that this man would be guilty of ? Would they find it necessary to look for any considerable motive, or for any motive a.% all, in fact, to remove any man that stood in his road ? The strictures which had been passed on Dr Ogston were quite un justified. That men could do a deal in the way of memory, had been proved from the witness-box. Many men could trust their memory implicitly, and Dr Og6ton had given his evidence in a most unmistakable manner. Summarising his arguments, Mr Haggitt said it had been proved that the prisoner was a poisoner, with whom even his wife was nob safe ; that the study of antimony had been a study of hia for years ; that he was in difficulties ; a forger of promissory notes and loan mortgages ; and that he had fraudulently given a mortgage on his property, previously given to his banker ; that he had antimony in hia possession which he was unable to account for on any reasonable theory ; that he was in constant attendance on Captain Cain ; that he had expectations from Captain Cain's death ; that the commencement of his attendance on Captain Cain was the commencement of the continued symptoms ef antimony poisoning; the fact that antimony was found in the body ; that after Captaiii Cain'B death the prisoner, who had been waiting for his house, took possession of and occupied it. In addition to this, there was nothing to suggest suicide, no suspicion, even, that anyone eke had an interest in administering poison, or had it in possession ; and there was no other reasonable way of accounting for the death.