THE TIMARU POISONING CASE.

Kumara Times, Issue 3109, 20 October 1886, Page 2

THE TIMARU POISONING CASE.

VERDICT OF GUILTY AND SENTENCE ON HALL. ACQUITTAL OP MISS HOUSTON.Christchurch, October 19. The trial came to a close sooner than was expected. When the Courthouse opened this morning Mr Joynt resumed his address. He began by asking the Judge to direct the jury that poison could not have been administered unless taken into the stomach, but His Honor declined to do so, saying that the prosecution was not relevant to this point. The learned counsel continued his address at great length, urging every possible point in favour of bis client. While admitting that appearances were against Hall, he asked the jury to look below the surface and consider whether, from the general conduct of Hall to his wife it was likely he would attempt to poison her. Ha again commented on the fact that Mrs Hall had not been called, and said that, as the case was pregnant with mystery and doubt, it was the duty of the jury to acquit Hall, Mr Hay also made an impassioned appeal to the jury. His Honor, in summing up, referred to the responsibilities of the jury to their countiy and the accused. He regretted that an over anxiety to gratify morbid curiosity had led to the publication of certain statements, but he was sure the jury would not be influenced by anything they had beard elsewhere. He thought it a pity the indictment had not been drawn in a different manner, which would have obviated long arguments; but he had come to the conclusion that in vulgar parlance, and in the speech of scientific persons, poisoning by tartar emetic was poisoning by antimony, and he so directed the jury. His Honor then went on to say that if the scientific evidence was correct, there was no doubt that antimony had been administered, and he then went on to give a brief history of the case, warning the jury to be thoroughly satisfied of guilt before convicting either of the accused. He specially referred to the apparent absence of motive on Houston’s part. The jury retired at 3.10 p.m., and after an absence of seven minutes returned with a verdict of guilty as regards Hall, and not guilty as regards Miss Houston, The foreman said the jury wished to say that Miss Houston left the Court without the slightest stain on her character. His Honor asked if there was any other charge against Miss Houston, and on hearing that there was not, at once ordered her discharge. The Attorney-General said that there were other charges against Hall, Mr Joynt submitted that the verdict could not stand. His ground for doing so was that the order of the Court for the special jury summoned them to try a charge of administering poison, whereas they had found a general verdict. His Honor said this was not aground for the arrest of judgment. Mr Joynt could move for a writ of error in fact. Addressing the prisoner, his Honor said, “ Prisoner at the bar, after a long and patient investigation, the jury have come to the conclusion which at once satisfies the demands of justice and, protects the innocence of a person accused but not proved guilty. The crime of which yon have been convicted is one of the most infamous that one has ever read of in the history of criminal proceedings. A young man recently married to a young wife, who had just become the mother of his child, a woman whom you treated to the world’s eye with the consideration and respect that were due to her ; the woman whose bedside you visited every morning with a deadly purpose; the woman whom you saw dying, as I may call it, by inches, stepping on day after day and hour after hour to the fate your intentions consigned her; getting for yourself the passing reputation of a kind, considerate, and good husband, while all the time of these long months—it may he from the very hour you led her to the altar—you have been harbonrng the vile thought of sending her to her tomb. Anything that I could say cannot sufficiently describe the detestable nature of your ciime. There is no excuse whatever, as we have read of in other cases of

poisoning, that there were intrigues or sexual desire, or that you are a man hurried on by strong passions—nothing of the kind to «temiata the offence you have been guilty of-worse than murder. Most murderers are kind and considerate. In prosecuting your scheme your murder has been from week to week. lam bound to say, Rule as I like to speak in strong terms to those who have fallen to the lowest depths of degradation, but I must in justice characterise your offence as it deserves to he, and as ati example for the rest of your fellow-colonists—you have achieved tho distinction of being the vilest of your sex. Among the many cases of murder on record seldom has a case occurred of such moral guilt as yours; and had the law not been altered you would have forfeited your life, and there would have been no chance of any commutation of your sentence. The law does not permit me to psss that sentence, which would stamp your crime with its true character. I pass upon you the heaviest sentence possible—that you be kept in penal servitude for the rest of your natural life.” At 3.30 p.m. the Court adjourned till Tuesday, and the Attorney-General said that by that time he would be in a position to say whether or not he would prosecute on the forgery cases.