THE TALUNE MURDER.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 92, 27 April 1901, Page 2

THE TALUNE MURDER.

SPLENDID DEFENCE BY MR REID. Sydney, April 26. Mr Reid addressed the jury for two hours.

The accused woman sobbed quietly throughout the morning, but appeared calmer in the afternoon. Mr lloid said that it was the duty of the jury to firmly and clearly separate in their own minds the suspicions from tho evidence. It was not the jury’s placo to build up the case, but to tost tho fabric which the Crown had built. Tho jury must not fill up the gaps. The accused was charged with a deliberate, coldblooded murder. It was not an act of hot jealousy, but tho Crown case suggested the motive that it was duo to monetary matters, and that every act of the accused was as a stealthy poisoner. At every turn her actions had been open. The fact was that while purchasing poison she used a telephone openly, so that the identity of tho person and tho hotel 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 Conway had been poisoned at Sumner would it not have Hashed through his mind on the fatal night that he was similarly affected again. He said, “ I never felt that way before,” When people took | suddenly ill there was some mysterious instinct which told them what they had taken to cause the illness. Conwqy did not say a word to the effect that lio had been poisoned, or that from a woman had came this thing. lie had never given any indication of foul play. Constable Trolley, when cross-examined as to her reference to tho loss of Conway’s property, did not regard her with suspicion, nor had Conway put any suspicions in the constable’s mind. Leaving Now Zealand accused was found in broad daylight laughing and chatting with Conway. Was this tho act of a stealthy prisoner ? There had been no quarrel. Again, why should accused take Miss into her cabin, who could watch her movements, when she found no trace of the Browns in the fore-cabin ? She could have said that she had drunk the stout herself and threw tho bottle overboard, but instead she said she had given it to Conway. Would people who were about to take life act as openly as* this ? Further, under a loose macintosh, she could have concealed the articles she took forward, instead of doing so openly. If she were a desperate woman who had a design on Conway’s life, would she have waited till tho ship was close to Sydney ? She could havo given tho stout immediately after leaving Wellington. On the fatal night there were witnesses who identified the accused; others who could not. A fawn macintosh and white hat were common articles. There was a discrepancy in the time, making it appear that accused gave Conway two drinks at an interval of twenty minutes. 'lf she had intended to poison him she would have given it to him in one drink. Heferrihg to Huddlestone’s illness, it was probable that if accused had given sufficient poison to Conway it would have beei) sufficient to kill Huddlestonc. He regarded her expression about whether the two illnesses were identical as not what a woman engased i« such a crime would voluntarily make. Ho cautioned the jury on the value of circumstantial evidence. In regard to the motive, tho evidence showed | that 'the woman voluntarily offered to | replace the promissory note which Conwa lost,

The Crown Prosecutor, in a two hours’ speech, covered the evidence. He said the view of the Crown was that accused went

forward twice on the fatal night, but not as the defence had suggested to give two drinks to Conway. On the first occasion she wont to the forecabin and enquired for the Browns. Sho did not see Conway then. On the second visit, she took him a drink. Huddlestone’s evidence that accused told her to give the stout to deceased was absolute proof that accused was with Conway that night. The jury must be satisfied that tho accounts she gave of why sho wanted strychnine were reasonable. Doubtless she purchased it ill a wholesale quantity to divert the suspicion which would arise if she only purchased a fatal dose; It was easy for the defence to prove whether the relatives re-

ceived any from her. From her conversation with chemists, she evidently knew all about the form of strychnine. Her conversation aboardship was to show that in

the event of foul play being suggested in regard to Conway’s death, she did not

know the drug. In the interviews with the Sydney ..police, an innocent person would have served the cause best by a truthful statement,yet aecused denied in-

temacy with' Conway;' She knew she had stated that she paid him two hundred pounds mortgage money, yet said he was a poor man. She gave four different stories why she made the trip from New Zealand to Sydney. The Crown did not

suggest that Huddlestone or Mills Were poisoned. * His" Honor the Judge lengthily summed up.’

JUEY LOCKED UP FOE NIGHT. * Sydney, April 26. The jury at a late hour stated that there was no hope of them soon agreeing, and they were looked up for the night.