THOMAS INQUEST

Hokitika Guardian, 27 November 1930, Page 5

THOMAS INQUEST

CORONER’S IXCOXCLUSIV E FIN !> L\U. SOME SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.’ L United Press Association. —By Electno i oieg raph. —Copy r lgh t . j l ßeceived this day at 11.30 a in.) LONDON, -Nov. 26. “I have not cie 4.igntesL uoubt that Mrs Thomas died from arsenic .poisoning. She had a big dose at tile beginning of her illness and probably a (second dose- later,” said l>r .Lister, who attended her. The doctor added:—''lt looked as if the poison was not administered by chance and so lie ordered her removal to a hospital.” The Coroner, summing up, expressed the opinion that there was no evidence to show that arsenic was taken accidentally or suicidally. Airs Thomas w;p over ill to take a second dose. Also there was no reason for her suicide, as she was happily married. There was no evidence of a motive for administration of poison by her husband or Mrs Hearn, who was equally a friend of both the Thomas’. There is no evidence of the hrnband’s guilty association with Mrs Hearn while his actions, during Ids wife’s illness, were incomputable with guilt The huaband might have been indiscreet to have Mrs Hearn frequently visiting the farm and causing gossip, also with lending her £3B, hut indiscretions were not guilt. There was evidence that Airs Hearn was contemplating becoming tire second Mrs Thomas. Although there was a strong assumption that she administered the poison, there was no evidence that she indicated which sandwich Thomas should take or that sho poisoned the other food. Mrs Hearn’s letter was capable of two constructions, one of which was fear at Parson’s remarks, but it was strange she jumped to the conclusion that Thomas was poisoned before the analysis rooort. The evidence also continued things in her favour. A verdict was returned that death was due to portioning, there being insufficient evidence to indicate by whom it was administered.