THE CAIN CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1423, 3 December 1886, Page 2

THE CAIN CASE.

THURSDAY'S PR tOiEDINGS

The f-»Powiig is a summary of the further evidence taken: —

Freder ok Stewart, chemist In employ of Mis Watkins, deposed to au entry ia the books of the t-ale of 2oz colohioum wine on 13ch November. 1885.

Inspector B-Ghana gave evidence of the arrest of prisoner cn i he charge of attempting to murder his wife, and detailed the taking from his pocket of a packet marked “ tartar em .tic.’’ abo the finding t-f a small phial and another package of tartar emetic fn his bedroom. We also found the book “ Taylor on Poisons ” Had heard the c intents > f the ohi»l were tartar emetic. Mr Perry objected.

Witness cnnt nned “Wa also f<'tind coleh com wine in the bedroom- When we saw ihe book Hall took it and said, “ I supnose this will toll against me.” Mr Perry oljaoted, and his Worship hell with h m, holding that such evidence was not admissible After the Inspector had signed his deposition, Mr White said that this was all the evidence he proposed to lead now. He had inrended to call W. H Tretford, Henry Gardner, and John Wilson, had the defence tried to prove the possession by Ha l of atropla for other use than as sta'ed by the prosecution, but as it turned out it was unnecessary to call the evid-nce here. He asked for an adj urnment, to give time for one witness to t-rrive in the colony, and a r the adj urnment moat 1-kely the professors’ evidence would be grt in. Mr Pr-rry hop d the Crown would ca 1 the profess- ra It was moat material that the defence should know the whole nature of the charge, and were the professors not called the defence would, to a cer*a ; n extent, be left, in the dark. Mr White said they were rot in the dark Dr Hogg, one of the analysts, was put In the box. and o- u d have bren examined as m ch as the d-fence wished. It was only necessity for the prosecution now to show the t< e e was aprima facie case against, the prisoner; Jhepr feasors’ evidence wcu'd only bo supplementary, and as they lived in Dunedin it would be Inconvenient to them and expensive to th > country $o bring them up as witnesses now.

Mr ' erry is the extension of justice 1 1 my client to be considered. Mr White—lt I* ab?urd to speak of such a question. IF Dr Hogg’s evidence h d been b'oken down it would have been very necessary to have t ■ call the oth, r analysts, but as it is t>r Hoag’s evidence has not been impost bed in any way. Why, therefore, go on piling up evidence n the one point.

M r Pt-rry—l don’t wish to disparage D; 1 Hogs’a evidence In any way, but aa this avid«nce is most important, I shall, if th Piofeaa n sre not called, have to ask for a remand, so aa to get time to o'Ul them. I trust the ‘ro*n, injustice to the accused and fair p'ay, should give every '-pportunity of bearing the whole of their case. As to such a thing being absurd, I think Mr White’s objection is absurd

Mr Whiti then said that before closing that day he would call Mr Willway. Mr Willwpy—lam accountant to Mrs Watkins. On November 13 ih, 1885, I found an entry in the ledger in my writing, posted from an ent-y in the d»y book in the writing of Mr Stewsrt. The account was rendered on the let January, 1886, and paid on the s‘h of January It wps paid by Hail’a cheque of £5 7sHis Worship then adjourned the case till 11 am. id Friday, December 10th,. Mr White uncertaking to close the case on that day.