THE TRIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1367, 11 October 1886, Page 2

THE TRIAL

THE SCENE IN COURT, Christchurch, October 11; The hearing before the Supreme Court of the Tlmsru poisoning case which, whatever may be its result, promises to be one . of the most celebrated that has ever yet been chronicled commenced this morning. More than an hour before the Court opened people began to gather round it and a dense crowd had assembled by tbe time the public ware admitted. Every inch of space in the gallery above and most cf the body of tbe Court that was available for tbe public was taken np, bat the position of the dock directly aader the gallery prevented those above from seeing much more than the top of the prisoners’ heads and only those who were fortunate in securing seats in front* of tbe dock o iuld gratify their cariosity by gazing on the faces of the man and woman who stood upon their trial under so grave a charge. Tbe interest taken in the case was enharesd by the rumor that the’defence would endeavor to upset the expert evidence and bad retained Professor Bicker ton for that purpose. The spectators had to stay their impatience whde three other prisoners ware sentenced. Mr Justice J hston having disposed of these, Hal] and Houston were brought to the dock. B th looked pale and anxious. Hall’s face being- especially careworn. For the Crown appeared the Attorney-General, with him Mr White, Cr iwu Solicitor of Timarn, and Mr Martin Crown Solicitor of Christchurch. For the defence Mr Joynt, with Mr O. Parry for Hall, and Mr Hay for Houston. The Registrar read the indictment which charged prisoners that on August 16 at Timarn they did administer to Kate Emily Hall certain deadly poison to kill and murder. The second count charged them: That they did cause to be administered a large quantity of antimony; the third coant: That they did cause antimony to be talsen by Kate B. Bail. Both pleaded “not guilty," but their pleadings were scarcely audible. Mr F. H. Barnes was chosen foreman of the special jury. The Attorney-General opened tbe ease by first re f errlng to the form of the Indiclment. The case the Crown undertook to prove was a very aerions and grave one. It was necessary to present a mass of circumstances insuoh a case in order that the jury might determine whether, if poison bad been administered, it was not given accidentally. Though appearing for the Crowd he did not wish them to find a verdict against the accused unless they were clearly satisfied of their guilt. They had no right to assume gnilt because Hall accused of other orimaa. Ha would begin by proving the death of Kate B. Hall would have been a pecnnury benefit to Halt and a relief to him of the fear that was hanging over him of c mv'ction for many forgeries he had commiltted He would first lead evidence as to the probable motive Hall might have for the c dmo. He was embarrassed. He had a deficiency ot £6OOO or £6OOO. He married in May, 1884, and the next month committed the first forgery for £650. In July, 188 S, his wife left all her property to Hall by will and he had insured her life for £6OOO. By her death he would have received at least £9OOO, though it was right to say ha would have lost an income of £250 a year, bat he warned them that the question of motive was surbordinate ? Was poison administered 1 He asked them to look at the facts this way ; Mrs Hall was ill after her confinement in Ju e last. She suffered fro n violent retching, thirst and purging. This, with intermission, con-

tinned till ib* arrest of thb prisoners, bot Immediately after this she began to get wtll. The doctors were noable to accoart for the symptoms that were causing the woman to Buffer so. Not before two or three days before the prisoners’ arrest did it flash across the mind of one that she was suffering from some irritant poison. The symptoms ot poisoning by antimony and colchloum were very similar. The evidmce that this lady had taken antimony was clear and o nduslve Who had given her that poloon ? Considering the number of chemls's’ shops, and facilities for purchasing poison, it would rot have been surpr'sing, snd not much in the prisoners’ favor if the Crown failed to prove the purchase, bnt there was clear and conclusive evidence that the male prisoner bad purchased antimony in quantities, and also ooichicnm, from several chemists. For what purpose did he buy these poisons I Fe (Sir B Stout) would deal with Hairs excuse by-andbye but they had the fact that Mrs Hall had been suffering from the offsets of this very poison, and the dates of purchase of poison, and the recurrence of Mrs Hali’s sickness were coincide t. Fid not this throw light on the purpose ? It was for the jury to say. There was also the fact that about the same time Hall purchased two books on poison. Though coloMcum fras not mentioned in the ind'Ctment, Ihe jury had a right to consider, in order to ascertain prisoners’ Intention, whether eolohicum was administered or not. Ice water, to be given to Mrs Hall, in the last stages of her illness just before the prisoners’ arrest, contained antimony. Brandy that was to he used for in j ’ctiona when Mrs Hall could take nothing but ice water by the mouth, wen’d be proved to contain colchicum, eo that, if one means failed, ancthar might succeed. He asked the jury to judge Impartially Hall’s conduct at the time of the arrest His endeavor to conceal the antimony ho bad in his possession ; his conduct when she was ill—playing billiards at his c'ub late at night whan she was trembling between life and death. As to the female prisoner 'hCrown would prove that on June 26 Houston gave a plate of to M-a Fall who ate them and immediately afterwards was seized w th all the symo toms of poisoning by untim-ry. (VL _Joynt; That is fresh evi-Lncel. Then what became of the bit of m elin u ; e ’ ; with the poisoned ice water? Why rhd she go to Hall’s assistance when he trLd to e mceal evidence of his gai t at the arrest ? Then, she the nurte that Dr Stackpoole had arid she was to give th* medicine to Mrs Hall and not the nurse (Mr Hay : We have had no mt ; oa of this.) As to the relations betw<eu the prisoners he would say frankly tha< there was no evidence of what was termed criminal intercourse, but there was no doubt they were on familiar terms. |They seemed to consult each other and drive oat together Strange to say he took her to a ball when hia wife was thought to be dying. She seemed conscious of what he was doing, and he of what sha was d ing. There was a greater intimacy than was t-> be expected between master and lady-help. Then there was another matter on which cvidcoca vonld be led. snd that was Hall had taken deliberate measures after Insuring his prenines to destroy the luose audits contents, and, pa haps the body tf Mrs Hall, and si away with nil ihe evidence of bla guilt He bad done his du'y la opening the case end now asked the jury to do tSeirs—to give their verdict in accordance with the evidence, setting aside all feeling one way or the other. The Attorney-General concluded a speech of great power in which he had almost entirely avoided any declamation by exhorting the jury to perform their duty faithfully as good oitiz nt The taking of evidence was commenced after a brief adjournment.. Ohas. Bsrnes SI nods, Government Staff Surveyor, produced plans of Woodlands, where the prisoners and Mrs Hall had lived.

Mr White endeavored to get In proof of Hall’s bankruptcy, but Mr Joynt objected that this was an after-fact. The Judge ruled it could not be admitted yet: Arthur Steadman manager of the Bank of New South Wales, Timaru, deposed that Hall and Meason bad an account there. Prisoner Hall did the business. At the time of his arrest, he was overdrawn about £BOOO. In June 1885 Hall gave the bank a promissory note for £650 signed “E. B. Cameron.” This wss afterwards retired, as wss also another signed “John Prater” for £l5O In July He also referred to other promissory notes, which, it was understood, would be shown to be forgeries and formed the basis of twelve charges of forgery upon which Hall bad been committed.

K, S Black, Inspector of the National Bank, Timaru, was another witness called to show that Hall was in a pecuniarily embarrassed state. He said that in August last the private account Hal! kept at this bank was overdrawn £ 17. In cross-examination he said that the bank held securities for the overdraft.