THE BALHAM MYSTERY.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 145, 30 August 1876, Page 2

THE BALHAM MYSTERY.

This extraordinary, and as yet undiscovered murder, for murder without a doubt it was, still occupies the public mind in England, and it is to be hoped that justice will yet reach the guilty parties. The first inquest held was in the highest degree unsatisfactory, the coroner apparently desiring to hush the matter up, or at least to let suicide be inferred. The friends of the deceased gentleman were of course more than dissatisfied, and, as will be seen by the subjoined proceedings moved for the enquiry to be quashed, and a new one instituted. This was ultimately ordered, and another inquest held at which, as we learn by telegram, a verdict of wilful murder was returned against some person or persons unknown. The following is from a late London paper:—

“ On Monday morning the AttorneyGeneral applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench for a certiorari to bring up the inquisition on Mr Bravo, in order to he quashed, and also for a rule nisi for the coroner to show cause why there should not be a fresh inquiry, either before the Coroner of Surrey, or Commifeionqrs appointed by the Queen’s Bench. He made the application on the ground, in the first place, that the finding of the jury was uncertain and incomplete ; in the next place, that the inquisition was taken in such a perfunctory and unsatisfactory way that there was a miscarriage of justice and misconduct on the part of the coroner in conducting the inquiry. Mr and Mrs Bravo had, apparently lived very happily together, and there was no earthly reason why Mr Bravo should have committed suicide. Mr Read, a barrister, had taken down evidence before the coroner, which materially differed from the coroner’s depositions. The Attorney-General then went through the evidence as taken by the coroner, and that of Mr Read, and he stated that he should show that the coroner had summed up in favour of suicide, and refused evidence which would have shown that ho was wrong in his hypothesis. He particularly pointed out that Mrs Cox, who lived with Mrs Bravo, was under notice to leave.

After some further observations, The Attorney-General said : If upon an investigation it turned ont that it was a case of suicide, it would be more satisfactory than it stands at present. If it turned out a case of murder, as I suspect it was, or I should have not have made application to-day, we should hope to elicit some facts to enable us to make a charge against somebody. If wo had already got the direct evidence from the statements made to the Solicitor to the Treasury, it would not have been necessary to have another inquiry, because we should at once prefer a charge. What I desire is that we should bo armed with the power to examine those persons who most obviously know more about this than has been stated. Mrs Cox made a statement which it is important you should know. It refers to matters which I should otherwise naturally be anxious not to disclose. The Lord Chief Justice: Is this a statement made since the inquest ? The Attorney-General: It is a statement made on the 2nd June to the j Solicitor to the Treasury, The statement is headed, “ Mr W. Campbell came and introduced Mrs Cox to the Treasury Solicitor, The Solicitor said, ‘ You understand that you come here voluntarily ? I shall not ask yon any questions, bnt I shall write down whatever .jffn. may toll us.’ ” The Attorney-General then read the statement, which was to the effect that she (Mrs Cox) was examined at the inquest, but that from confusion and from a mistaken idea of shielding, as she thought, the character of Mrs Bravo, she did not tell the full particulars, which she was now anxious to state. There was not the slightest reason why Mr Bravo should commit suicide, and therefore there was no reason why she should not have stated this before. Mr Bravo said to her (Mrs Cox), “ I have taken poison for Mr ’s sake. Don’t tell Florence,” beseechingly. Ho used the words imploringly. She asked him how he could do so. He gave no answer, but called out three times for hot water. He was then sick out of the window. She was frightened, and looked at the chloroform, bottle, which was nearly empty. About a quarter of an hour before that she was called in to Mr Bravo’s dressing-room, and he said to his wife in French, so that the servants should not hear, “ You have drunk nearly a bottle of wine today.” She (Mrs Cox) put his feet and hands in hot mustard and water, and gave him an emetic, and also gave him some strong coffee to keep him awake, but he could not swallow it. She did not tell the doctor about the gentleman’s name, as she thought it : would cause such a scandal. She did not like to tell Dr Moore. Mr Bravo was a very violent man, and if it had only been chloroform, and he had recovered, he would have been very angry about it. There was no reason why tic should take poison, as she know there had not been any communication between the gentleman and Mrs Bravo since her marriage, and she was convinced the acquaintance was of

the most innocent character. On Good Friday Mr Bravo was annoyed because his wife was lying down afterjlunchcoig and Mrs Cox then went on to speak of occasions on which Mr Bravo had threatened to leave, but had again become friends with his wife through the influence of the deponent. He said that he despised himself for marrying her, that she was selfish, and he wished that he was dead. On one occasion she asked him what would become of his wife if he left her, and he replied,'-“ Lot her go back to Mr She told him it was very wrong of him to speak in such a manner, and that she believed in the innocence of Mrs Bravo. Hedrcqucntiy said how he hated Mr . The fits of passion seemed to overtake him suddenly. He was jealous of Mr ■ , although ho knew everything before the marriage. Their lordships would see that Mrs Cox, from her own statement, kept back evidence they were entitled to have, and she deliberately deceived the jury. The Lord Chief Justice : You have said enough, at all events, Mr Attorney, to call upon us to give you a rule nisi. You must consider in what form the rule must be made absolute.”