THE HALL CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1374, 19 October 1886, Page 2

THE HALL CASE.

MONDAY’S PROCEEDINGS.

Mr Joynt addressed the jury on behalf of Hall. He blamed the Orewn for not calling Mrs Hall, and canvassed the evidence, pointing oat every point in his client’s favor. He argued that it was quite possible that tbs tests for antimony relied upon by Professor Black might prove to be not wholly so, and contended that it the Crown wished to prove that antimony was really present they onght to produce the metal. He contended that the evidence as regarded the administration by either i { the prisoners was exceedingly raAgre and that Mrs H*ll would not have complained to her husband had anything been given to her by him. The Attorney-General wished them to believe that Hall administered a very large dose of poison to hia wife, and that it was only by her throwing it off that ahe was saved. Now, u> fortunately for thfa hypothesis, the evidence of the nurse was that Mrs Hall did not throw off any large amount. On the contrary, she threw off so little that she had to mix it with another portion, which she threw off later on So that they had it that she threw up very little at all on this Sunday momlug, when they were asked to believe that Mrs Hall took t ’is large dose of poison and threw it off. Thera was not the slightest evidence that Hall administered the poison io his wife And here be would ask the jury whether they did not think it strange that Mrs Hall had not been called. No one could have told the story of the drinking that ice-water belter than Mrs Hail. Yet they had not called her. All the case for the Crown rested on the hypothesis that Hall had administered p iaon to his wife in ice water on this morning, and who could have given the best evidence on ibis but Mrs HalL Whtt were the glimpses they got of Mrs Hall. Wliy, tiat they found that she suggested the oysters, that sh s suggested about the tea, and that she suggests the search for the brandy flisk wh'ch Mrs Hamersley told them was supposed to contain poison. There* fore Mrs Hall would have been quite ready to t«*ll the story of what took place that morning He said it was most unfortunate >ti the interests of public justice, as well as that of the prisoners, that the Cr >wn had not called Mrs Hall. There was another obcumatance They found that when the phial containing the ioe water was given by Nurse Ellison to the doctor It had a glass stopper. When before the Court th y he e show another corV, and not the glass stopper which the nurse put in. There was another cork which had a variety of experiences. No one Knew wh-To it came fr -m. . It was kicking about on the hearthrug, and •■.f ter wards put in*o the const ibla’s outer packet ; it wat then cut and sent away, and thou it was found to have some ■ packs of tartar emetic-adhering to it. That cork did not belong to the phial found in Hail's trousers’ pockets. On the Monday cunning, again, there was a difficulty about the ice water. Mrs Hall said it was nasty to the taste, and a o wtioa of it was sent to Dc Lovegrove. What b Cimo of thu analysis they did not know. Another thing was that the Grown did not call Dr Lovegrove. He wis <he senior consultant. Yet only Dr Mclntyre tni Dr Drew had been called. As to the colchtcum, the evidence showed 'hat it was not administered, and ail that it could be taken into account for Iwfts the intent of thoao who were supposed to have intended to i-ave administered it Then it was extremely unlikely teat Had poisoned that brandy, because ht. w shed to drik it when Brobam prevented him. Then the Attorney-General wished them to believe that Hall had poisoned wine to give to his wife. Now, he said that it was a pure assumption thpt the wine bad been poisoned at all. Kvan supposing tsrtor emetic had been put in the wine, was it proved by any means that it was poisoned to the extact t K at it would have killed anyone who drank «• ? There was no proof that tartar emetic was put in. But there was evidence that tsrtar emetic even in considerable quantities would not kdl. It was in evidence also that Mrs Hall suspected Mary Hassen of taking the wine because the nurse had said so, and therefore they had some color for the statement made by Hall that the wice was being stolen by Mary Hassen. He asked the jury to look at this matter from a sensible point of view. The prisoner in the middle of the day, when be was doing business with a Justice of the Peace, speaks to Miss Houston through the telephone and tells her that he had left out some vino which was not right, and told her to put it away, Mias Houston told him that ahe bad done so, and then he ran off apparently satisfied. When he went home the same day he ment’oned to the nurse, seeing the wine on the drawers, that he hoped his wife had not touched any of it, as it was not right. Would he have done this had be desired to poison his wife! Was that the act of a guilty man 7 Would he not take the greatest care not to let any one know what ha had done, but prefer to let hit w ife take her chance.

A' this stage, it being 5.20 p.m., the Court ad j urned to 10 a.m. this day.

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. Ckristohdkch, Octobsr 19. The resumption of the trial this morn* ing saw learned council for Hall again on his feet addressing the jury. He asked the judge te direct the jury that unless poison was taken into the stomach there had been- no administration. Hts Honor declined to do so.

Mr Joy at commented on the Grown leading evidence to show improper intimacy between the accused after the Attorney-General had expressly repudiated this in his opening. It was revolting tp touch on this aspect of the case after the eviderce for the defence which the jury had heard Learned counsel went on to speak of the animus of the two servant girls against Mias Houston. Mr Joynt finished his address by referring to the doubtful and mysterious aspect of the case, which he said the Crown had not removed as they might have done by calling Mrs Hall, and ha asked the jury to acquit the prisoners. Mr Hay folipwed at 11 20 a.m. Mr Hay submitted that Miss Houston had been alleged guilty at first, on the ground that her motive was affection fo|r Hall. That motive had gone, and the Crown now relied on Hall’s financial difficulties as his motive; yet_ these difficulties were not known at the time of the arrest. Miss Houston had been cruelly maligned, and he had no doubt the jury would acquit her. He wanted more than this ; he wanted her character cleared. The learned counsel analysed the evidence ap length. Mr Hay conolnded an able and exhanative analysis of the evidence by an expression of confidence th»t the verdict would emphatically establish Mirs Houston’s innocence. The luncheon adjournment followed. His Honor commenced to sum up at a quarter to t«o o’clock. He regretted that over anxiety to satisfy the morbid curosity of the public had led to the pablication before the trial of such reports as had been referred to by learned counsel for the defense. The summing up is likely to be very long.