THE TIMARU POISONING CASE.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1896, 13 October 1886, Page 2

THE TIMARU POISONING CASE.

COMMENCEMENT OP THE TRIAL This trial commenced at Christchurch on Monday morning before Mr Justice Johnston and a Special Jury. The prisouet, Thoma ■ Hall and Margaret Graham Houston, w<i indicted (or the attempted murder by poison ing of Kate Emily Hall, the wife of the mah prisoner. The ease for the Crown was con ducted by the Attorney-General, assisted hv Mr Martin, (Crown Prosecutor, Christchurch i Messrs Joynt and Perry appeared for Hall and Mr Hay for the female prisoner. Ver\ great interest waa evinced in the proceedings and as soon as tbe doors were thrown open the small Courthouse was speedily filled, a large portion of the audience consisting of ladies. Hall looked anxious and Miss Houston careworn and pale. The Attorney General, in opening the case, said (be prisoners were charged under three counts twith administering poison to Kate Emily Hall with intent to kill and murder her. Tbe form under which tbe charge was presented was not of much importance. It, simply puts tbe charge in three different ways—firstly, that the poison was administered directly by prisoners themselves; secondly, causing it to be administered ; ana thirdly causing it to be taken. There would not much arise as to tbe way in which the charge was framed. Tbe charge was a very serious and grave oue, and what the Crowe had undertaken to do was to prove (hat the poison was administered by the prisoners with the intent of killing and murdering Kate Emily Hall, and that the poison was antimony. These were the main things which the Crown bad undertaken to prove, and before he could ask the jury to find a verdict of guilty they would have to be satis--fled that the Crown proved these things. Now, in this case, as often happens, it was impossible to prove tbe direct administration of poison, and they had to take into consideration a great number of surrounding facts and circumstances For example, poison might be administered by accident or without intention to murder or kill, and hence it was usually the duty of those representing the Crown to state the circumstances which would show that tbe administration could not have been by accident, and that the administration was with tbe intent charged in tbe indict meat. Of course, if the jury were convinced that the poison was administered wilfully, sufficient would be shown that the prisoners were guilty. Evidence of motive would be given for the commission of tbe crime, and here he wished to warn them, on behalf of tbe prisoners, that although a motive was supplied for |a commission of crime, they mast not infer or assume that the persons were guilty of tbe crime; but at the same time in dealing with the question of motive they might get some light that would enable them to under--stand some things which might otherwise appear dark, and perhaps mysterious. Hence it would be proved that the male prisoner was pecuniarily involved, and that be had a motive for committing the crime. Unfortunately there was such a thing as the crime of poisoning, and the law had had to provide against it, and history told them that the crime had not been rare in the annale of this country ; therefore, while on one side, before they could believe that any person, male or female, had been guilty of such u terrible crime as this, they would on the other baud lequire'olear and decisive evidence of motives for its commission. They would consider that in dealing with the other facts of the case, and that was why there was brought before them the question of motive. What then, was Hall's position ? He was dealing with the male prisoner first. Hall was carrying on business as a commission agent in Timaru, in partnership with Mr Meeson, and so far as his financial position was concerned tbe firm was bankrupt. In fact, since his arrest the firm had been declared bankrupt, and taking their liability and assets, there would be a deficiency of between £SOOO and £6OOO. He waa hopelessly insolvent, and was guilty of forgeries which bad accumulated, and in considering the question of motive they must hear in mind that the man was in dread of his doings being discovered, and then of what service his wife’s death would have been to him. They were married ou the Z6th of May, 1885, and the first forgery for an amount of £650 took place in the June following, and in the succeeding month Mrs Hall, by her will, left all her property to him. In the month of August, 1885, he proposed to insure her life. Two separate proposals were made oat, and by her death he would have got £9OOO to £II,OOO. They had to consider what motive a man in financial trouble, and with charges of forgery hanging o/er bis head, would have for committing so grave a crime. If, on the other hand, tbe jury were of opinion, after carefully considering the evidence, that they had reasonable doubt in their minds that these persons were innocent, then they wore equally to do their duty to their country, and to the oath which they had taken. Regarding the question of poisoning Sir R. Stoat said Mrs Hall was taken ill in November, 1885. She was confined in June, 1886, and immediately afterwards was attacked with pains in the throat and stomach, retching, thirst and purging. These symptoms continued with slight intermission till tbe arrest of the prisoner, when the symptoms ceased. She began to recover, and got well. Doctor after doctor had been called in, and oould not tell what disease she was suffering tom ; and not until a few days before tbe prisoners’ arrest bad it flashed across one of the doctors that she was being poisoned. The symptoms were, it appeared, not consistent with any known disease, but were consistent with poisoning by antimony or oolchicum. Fortunately for tbe sake of justice, the Crown did not have to rely solely on symptoms in this case. Unfortunately, at all events, for the male prisoner, the evidence of the presence of antimony, and that this lady had taken antimony was clear. The medical gentlemen had got some of her vomit and stool, and both came to the conclusion that she had taken antimony. He would now come to what took place at the time of the arrest. Ou August 15th, Mrs Hall was exceedingly sick. She had taken some ice water and drunk it. The doctor concluded that she bad taken antimony, and he took steps very properly to arrest prisoners. This ice water had been analysed, and it had been found to contain abundance of antimony. Antimony was also fottud in abundance iu the vomit, stool, and nrine of the same day. Antimony was also found, not always in such abundance, in stools, urine, and vomit of other dates. There were signs which showed that the poison was working out of the system. The medical gentlemen would tell the jury that it was the abundance of antimony which had -prevented Mrs Hall from being murdered. Had tbe doses been less, death would have resulted. Tbe jury had now a right to ask the prosecution what connection there was between the circumstances ho had quoted and the prisoner ? He would be able to prove that Hall had purchased poison. Here he would caution tha jury that supposing that no evidence of the purchase of poison by the prisoners were forthcoming, that could not be taken as

ovideuco of innocence, as there were so many opportunities of obtaiuiog poison in this or other colonies. It would he proved that Hall had purchased antimony, and there was other evidence which could be produced, that Hull had purchased a book, “ Taylor on Poisons.” Ho bought it in Timaru in 1885, and yet he wrote bis came in itat tt be bad purchased it in Dunedin in 1883 Mr Sutton, from whom he had bought it, would prove that he did so for the purpose oi ascertaining the effects of antimony. Hall purchased another book on poisons in Timaru. It was remarkable that there appeared to be a connection between Mre Hall'e illness and the purchase of poison. Evidence showed that she was suffering from an irritant poison, and that her symptoms were intermittent. It was a strange fact that every purchase of poison, whether antimony or oolehicum, was followed within a few days by a fresh manifestion of the symptoms of irritant poisoning. It was for the jury to say what connection there wee between tbs two. It bad not boon laid is the

indictment tli.it the colchimm *M adminteied, but 111-' ,ury bad a >.i„: t to tike into consideralfon the suppoiili'ii of poisoning so bearing on the charge. On one occasion the doctor bad arranged that Mis Hall was to receive no food, but only ice water, and injections of brandy. A bottle of brandy was procured lor the purpose. This brandy was afterward analysed and was found to contain colcbicum. It would bp for the jury to aay who pot that colcbicum there. On Hull's arrest he endeavoured with the help of the female prisoner to destroy s bottle in his possession. This bottle was found to contain antimony. The excuse alleged for possession of antimony was that he wished to use it in tbe making of cigarettes for asthma. It oould not be found that antimony was used for the making of cigarettes. Hall also said that be required the colcbicum as an appetiser. Medical men would tell them that was tbe first time they had ever heard of colcbicum being used for that purpose. A tact about the administration of ice water to which he would draw attention was that the nurse was giving it to Mrs Hall on August 15 out of a jug, and in the evening Hull went into tbe room and gave his wife some ice water, when she was taken ill and complained of the taste of the water. The nurse cleverly got bold of some of tbe water he had been giving Mrs Hall, and on analysis it was found to contain abundance of antimony—eight grains to the ounce. Hall tried to throw tbe blame lor tbe strange taste on to tbe jag. All connect ted with that jug had been analysed, and was found quite free from antimony. When his wife was ill and supposed to be at tbe point of death, Hall’s conduct was strange. He was at his club, playing billiards and amusing bimsell till a late hour. Another (sot the jury would do well to consider was that, when Hall and Houston were in tbs sergeant's room, at the Timaru police station, Constable Hicks hssrd Hall say to her, “ Yon are all right, hut I am in for it; I can’t possibly get off.” Tbe first fact connecting the female prisoner and the ease happened ou Jane 2s. 1886. Tbe nuree attending Mrs Hall bad given her on June 25 two oysters which she bad relished, and which agreed with her. On the 26th, in tbe evening Miss Houston brought in foor oysters, which she said she had picked out herself, and which Mrs Hall ate. Immediately alter this Mrs Hall was seized with all the symptoms of poisoning by antimony. On August 15 tbe oup and musliu used for tbe ice water were taksn possession of by Miss Houston. Tbe cup had been washed, and what had become of the muslin the prosecution bad been unable to find out. On Hall’s arrest, when he waa endeavoring to make away with tbe antimony in bis possession, Miss Houston went to his assistance. Would it not have been supposed rather that sne would have been shocked when she heard him charged with snob a dreadful crime ? Then, again, Miss Houston had volunteered the suggestion that Hall used tha antimony lor experiments in photography. Again, she bad told the nurse that Dr Htaopoole had said that she (Miss Houston) was to administer the food, and not the none. Tbe nurse declined to allow her to do so, and she did not press the matter. Dr Stacpoole would say that he never gave Miss Houston any such instructions. There was no evidence whatever that there had been any criminal intercourse between Hall and Houston. There waa evidence that the relations between them were closer than is ordinarily between a man and a lady help. On one occasion he took her to a ball when his wife was dangerously ill, though it did not appear that he had attended the ball himself. They appeared also to be thoroughly cognisant of one another's acts. Were Miss Houston the person to whom Hall was talking through the telephone when Mr Kerr overs heard him, she must have had a knowledge that certain wine had been drugged. It had been said that this wine had been doctored in order to catch the servant, Mary Hasseu. In reply it would be proved that Hall had the keys of the place where the wine woe kept, and that, moreover, the girl in question was not given to drink. It would be proved also, though it was not strictly necessary in the case, that Hall had made careful prepara* tions to burn down his house with it* contents, perhaps the dead body of bis wife. In answer to his Honor Mr Joynt said that he had come to the conclusion that he could not object to this evidence. Sir Robert Stout concluded by exhorting the jury to do justice, and to allow ne feelings or outside excitement to influence them. If they were not satisfied of the prisoners’ guilt it was their duty to acquit them. The taking of evidence was commenced after a brief adjournment. The defence, of course, have not shown their band yet, but it is said that there ia evidence to be adduced which will put a different complexion on many of what appear the strong points lor the prosecution.