Thursday, July 9.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 373, 15 July 1874, Page 6

Thursday, July 9.

ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO MURDER.

Dr Bakewell's cross-examination was concluded this morning, and Mr Johnston addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. Drs Cole, Burns, and Hulme were examined for the defence. The first stated that no marks of such violence as prisoner's wife accused her husband of using ould be observed, there being only a alight redness of the throat — Dr Burns said the appearance of the woman's throat might have been caused by a simple cold. — Dr Hulme's evidence was to a similar effect, he adding, however, that no person could have spoken (as prisoner's wife said she did) while anyone s fingers were being pressed on the throat in the manner described by Mrs Buisson. ~ After the medical evidence for the defence in the case of Louis Buisson was concluded, the following witnesses spoke as to prisoner's general quiet character and unlikeliheod to ill-treat Mb wife : — Alfred Treseder, cabman ; Patrick M'Didge, of Neptune place; and Mr William Wilson and. his wife, from whom prisoner rents his house. The Crown Prosecutor said the jury could only arrive at a correct conclusion by examining the evidence adduced. He reminded them that the prisoner and his wife had been living apart prior to the date of the offence, and that, however annoying Mrs Buisson might have been to her husband, she had as much right to the protection of the law as anyone else. - He had been twitted because he did not call Dr Burns ; but he thought the jury would see, after the evidence Dr* Burns had given, that it was perfectly clear- why he was not called to give evidence for the Crown. It must be perfectly clear to- them that he knew notbinz about the matter,- otherwise the police would have taken care to" have had him before the Magistrate, had his evidence been worth anything. He (Mr Haggitt) also said it was somewhat strange that the prisoner' should have been doing all he could to injure the character of his wife, it being his place, as her husband,' to protect her character rather than attempt to injure it. Hig Honor said that, although .the trial

had lasted two days, he thought he sheuld not have to detain the jury long. The whole case turned upon the evidence of Mrs Buisson. Her evidence had been well given, and it was for the jury to determine how far her evidence had been shaken by cross-examina-tion. He invited them to consider the whole circumstances, Jand particularly the natural anxiety of Mrs Buisson, when ia the witness-box, to make the jury believe that she was the witness of truth. It had beenasked whether it was possible for Mrs Buisson to call out the werds mentioned while her husband's fingers, as described, were in her mouth. She could not do so ; but it had been suggested, if she was th/> witness of truth (and it was a point the jury must carefully weigh), that, on waking up, she made a great effort to raise herself into a sitting position, and that in that moment the prisoner so far relaxed the pressure of his fingers on her tongue as to enable' her to utter the words. But then came the question, why, when in such a state of alarmMf able so far to get the pressure of his fingers relaxed, she did not scream out some alarm ? There was no evidence^ drugging *■• but it was a suggestion of*tne medical men that the narcotic properties of the drug -asseming that she was drugged —were overcome "for a time ; that they afterwards gained the ascendancy, and that Mrs Buisson was again under their influence. Then came the question of the medical testimony. Had Dr Burns, a man of long practice and considerable skill in his profession, given the same care and attention to the.«oase as Drs Burrows and Bakewell had done, his evidence would have been very valuable io the prisoner. Was Dr Burns's examination of such a character as to justify a suspicion that the woman, determined to ruin her husb >n>i, had been tampering with her throat ? What was most important was that all the witnesses who had known the prisoner for some time described him as being an inoffensive man, and as one unlikely to do an act of the kind ; whereas there evidence to show that Mrs Buisson was a woman whose conduct was of aurh a. character as would be likely to annoy her husband ; and one of the witnesses spoke of her as being the cruel parky rather than the husband. If the jury believed the story of Mrs Buisson, then undoubtedly there was sufficient to justify a conviction ; but if they did not believe her testimony, then there was an end to the matter. And if they had a reasonable doubt, after the whole matter had passed j through their minds, -[then he need hardly tell them (that they must give the prisoner the benefit of it.

Ihe jury retired at a quarter to 6 o'clock, and, after about an hour's dejiberation, they returned with a verdict of Not guilty.