THE CONWAY CASE.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 27 April 1901, Page 3

THE CONWAY CASE.

) (PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.—COPYBIGHT.) Sydney. April 26. Hon. Mr Beid addressed the jury for two hours. Aceused sobbed quietly throughout the morning, but appeared calmer in the afternoon. Mr Eeid said that it was the duty of tho jury to firmly and clearly sept rate in their own' minds suspicions from evidence. It was not the jury's place to build up the case, but to t3st the fabric which the Crown built. The accused, was charged with deliberate, cold blooded murder. It was not an act of hot jealousy, but the Crown case suggested that the motive was due to monetary matters. Every act of accused had been frank. She bad not acted as a stealthy poisoner. At every turn her actions had been open, in fact that while purchasing the, poison she used the telephone openly, so that the identity of her person and bo:el where she stayed were made known. This was scarcely the act of a person who wished to keep her doings quiet. Why did she make two purchases of poison and try to obtain a third lot. She was only going to poison one person, according to the Crown. If (Jonway was poisoned at Sumner woull it not have flashed through her mind on the fatal night that ho was similarly affected again. He said that he had never felt that way btfora, When people were taken suddenly ill there was som-) mysterious instinct which told them what they had taken to cause the illness. Conway did not say a word that he had poisoned or that from a woman, had eome this thing. He had never given any indication of foul play. Constable Trehey when he croS3-examined her in reference to the los3 of Conway's property, did not regard her with suspicion, nor had Conway put any suspicions in the constable's mind. Leaving Eew I&ial A-nrl accused wa3 found in broad crayTight laughing and chatting with Conwuy. Was 'his the act of a stealthy poisoner. There had been no quarrel. Again, why should accused take Miss Huddleston into her cabin, who could watch he? movements. When she found no trace of the BrDwns in the fore ca'r.in she could have said that she drank the stout herself, and thrown tho bottle overboard ; but, instead, she said that she had given it to Conway. Would people who went about to take life act as openly as this. Further, under the loose mackintosh she could have concealed the articles she took forward instead of doing so openly. If a desperate woman had a design on a person's life she would noc wait till the ship was close to Sydney. She would have given the stout immediately after leaving Wellington. On tho fatal night there were witnesses who identified accused, but there were others who could not. A fawn-colored mackintosh and a white hat were common articles. There was a discrepancy in the time, making it apparent that accused gave Conway two drinks at an interval of 25 minutes. If she intended to poison him she would have taken it to him in one drink. Referring to Huddlestouo's illness, he said it was probable if accused had given sufficient poison to Conway it would have been sufficient to kill Huddlestone. He regarded ner expression about whether two illnesses were identical as not what a woman engaged in such a crime would voluntarily make. He cautioned the jury on tho value of circumstantial evidence. In regard to tho motive, the evidence showed that the woman voluntarily offered to replace the promissory note which Conway lost.

The Crown Prosecutor, in a two hours' speech, covered ail the evidence. He said that the view of the Crown was that, accused went forward twice on the fatal night, not as the defence suggested, but to give two drinks to Conway. On the first oscasion she went to the fore-cabin and inquired for the Browns. She did not see Conway. On the second visit she took him drink. Huddleston's evidence that accused told her to give stout to deceased was absolute proof that accused was with Conway that night. The jury must be satisfied that the accounts she gave of why she wanted strychnine were reasonable. Doubtless she purchased wholesale quantities to divert the suspicion which might arise if she only purchased a fatal dose. It was easy for the dufence to prove whether her relatives received any from her. From her conversation with the chemists bhe evidently knew all about the form of strychnine. The conversation aboard the ship was to show that in the event of foul play being suggested regarding Conway's death, that she did not know the drug. In the inter views with the Sydney police an innocent person would have served her cause best by a truthful statement, yet accused denied intimacy with Conway. She knew that she had stated that she paid him JE2OO mortgage money, yet she said he was a poor man. She gavo four different stories of why she made that trip from New Zealand to Sydney. The Crown did not suggest that Huddleston or Mills were poisoned. The Judge lengthily summed up. The jury at a late hour stated that there was no hope of their soon agreeing and they were locked up for the night. Received this day, at 9 48 a m. Sydney, This Day. The jury disagreed in the Conway case.