MUNN TRIAL CONTINUED TODAY

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 970, 13 May 1930, Page 1

MUNN TRIAL CONTINUED TODAY

Charge of Murdering His Wife PROSECUTOR CONCLUDES FIVE-HOUR ADDRESS Crown Calls Accused’s Children as Witnesses ‘‘P > a ‘ the case, you feel you are left with the conclusion either that Munn is innoI cent, or that there is a reasonable doubt, I ask you in Heaven’s name to acquit him. But if, on a careful consideration of the evidence, as reasonable men you are driven to the conclusion of his guilt, I ask you not to flinch from your responsibility of bringing’ in a verdict of guilty, at the same time complying with your consciences, your oaths, and your duty, always remembering’ that what follows does not concern you.” Thus the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Meredith, in the Supreme Court this morning,, before Mr. Justice Herdman, in concluding’ his address to the jury at the second day of the trial of Arthur Thomas Munn, on a charge of wife-murder. The prosecutor’s address occupied five hours.

Mr. Meredith, with him Mr. McCarthy, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. E. H. Northeroft and Mr. Munro appeared for the accused. The arrest of Munn was next dealt with by Mr. Meredith. On the occasion of the detectives’ first interview, reference was made to the children, and Munn was asked how he intended looking after them and if he intended getting a housekeeper, but Munn. replied, “No damn housekeeper for me. 1 know too much about them.” At that time he had arranged with Mrs. Stuck to act as housekeeper and it may be significant that he wanted to keep this from the police. WARRANT READ On Saturday, February 15, the detectives read the warrant of arrest to accused. Munn made a remarkable reply—“ What is the evidence?” One would expect a man, said Mr. Meredith, when charged with the foul crime of poisoning his wife, to make some indignant repudiation. DetectiveSergeant Doyle told Munn he could not discuss the evidence and accused replied that he had told the detectives be had bought the poison and had called the doctor and did everything be could for “the damn woman.” He asked sf he could get bail and was informed he could apply to the court. SEVERAL DOSES "I put it to you, it will be established that the woman died of strychnine poison by several doses. If shat is so, how did Mrs. Munn receive the poison? There can be only three courses—that she took it by accident, that she administered it herself, or that it was administered to her by someone else. If so, by whom? Discussing the possibility of poison having been taken accidentally, Mr. Meredith said it could not have been in the medicine which Dr. Dudding prescribed. One bottle had been finished and the second was halfprapty. It was impossible for Mrs. Munn to have been poisoned from the medicine, as she had a convulsion before any medicine was obtained. Tha second bottle was procured after the first convulsion, but its remaining contents had been analysed and no strychnine was found. Every morning Munn had been giving his wife epsom salts and gave the detectives a broken packet from which he had *iven his wife the final dose. There »as no possibility of the poison havTR got into the food, because no one •fse in the house was ill. BRIGHT disposition Dealing with the suggestion that jars. Munn took the poison voluntarty. Mr. Meredith said the jury would 4sye to conclude she did so to comsuicide. Counsel pointed out woman had been of a eheertn Y disposition and the letter her mother made it impossible to . ,T e she would keep up any ln view of the agony she Then there was Mrs. iupUkk ß aß ° nised questioning of a neighbour during the first convulsion. ‘‘conceivable,” Mr. Meredith ‘net any human being would thnntwu time . and again, to go death?” Pain and die au agonising if Possible to suggest that Mrs. Munn took strychnine, she took a.v other reasons than suicide?” . M r- Meredith. It had been befn to him that 11 may have tinn i?' * en for the Purposes of aborts!,’ ‘ dfe post-mortem examina- « disclosed the fact that there was mci > b. re^5 lancj * an( * Munn’s own state* h Oß nw ßhowed that his general health was good. ,tbe occasion when the bottle of * nine had been found in the , °‘ drawers. Munn made the •tf te ? ent iimt he had drawn his wife’s *i>- D £ lo , n to the ‘act that it contained ‘lfchnine. He was present when i ® Do >-le found the bottle and h!!,., n sa ‘ d that he had not seen the bottle for 10 days. SUICIDE NOT FEASIBLE ik ? e su Sgested in that statement, .■**• someone else had moved the ottle and that someone had used the consents,” continued Mr. Meredith And that someone else, according to Munn, must have been his wife, while m another statement he has made ®uggestions of the possibility of suit'd®. The defence must be suicide, “Uf suicide Is not a feasible sugges"on: there must be some other. 'lf it was not self-administered and not accidentally faken, it must have neen administered by someone else, ki w .? O had tlle opportunity and who had the motive? Mnnn had the opportunity; he was giving her food and jnmicine. Mnnn. had that opportun-

ity and no one else had It. Who had the motive? There is no suggestion

that Mrs. Munn had any. But it was held that Munn was tired of his wife and had been for years. Then you have the advertisement to get in touch with another woman, and the subsequent motor drives with Mrs. Stuck.” Mr. Meredith referred to the immediate forwarding of the news of his wife’s stroke to Mrs. Stuck, which, he claimed, was an indication of accused’s infatuation, which was reciprocated, because of Mrs. Stuck’s prompt reply: “Want to come back,” Georgie. Counsel pointed out that Munn had been out every day with Mrs. Stuck after her return from Christchurch and had told this woman of the death of his wife and had installed her as housekeeper just after the funeral, and later proposed marriage to her. All this, counsel contended, would supply a motive if the Jury was trying to find one. There was also the fact that Mrs. Munn had made a will at the end of the year, two months after accused had met Mrs. Stuck, and a month after he bought strychnine, bequeathing to him the home and everything, to the exclusion of the children. Further, there was the refurnishing which had been so impetuously refused to the dead woman, but immediately done for Mrs. Stuck. PURCHASE OF POISON Mr. Meredith said several things had happened which would suggest Munn’s bona tides, such as buying the poison openly, and counsel advised the jury to consider this. But he pointed out that by acting openly a person had to anticipate a subsequent inquiry and that this was the best way to avert suspicion and to carry out poisoning. Purchasing of poison under an assumed name or in another part of the town would be dangerous, because a death without calling in a doctor Would lead to a post-mortem and inevitable discovery. Counsel proceeded to refer to the variations in the statements made by the accused. In concluding his address Mr. Meredith expressed pleasure at the fact that Munn was being defended by able and experienced counsel, and at the knowledge that everything possible would be put forward earnestly and ably, on accused’s behalf. It was in the interests of every one that this should be the case, he concluded. PLANS OF HOUSE A Public Works Department draughtsman, Reginald Walter H. Riddle, produced plans of the house and measurements of articles of furniture in the dead woman’s bedroom. The top drawer of the duchess was 30 inches from the floor and was two feet from the bed. Cross-examined by Mr. Northeroft witness said the positions of the furniture were pointed out by the detectives, who described the positions of the bed, duchess, and a small table. Detective Power said the bed and duchess were not in the positions they occupied the day of Mrs. Munn’s death, and shifted the duchess up the waH to some extent, and DetectiveSergeant Doyle agreed the furniture was then in the correct positions. MOTHER’S EVIDENCE The dead woman’s mother, Sarah Lillie CamlJbell, of Wellington, gave her testimony from a seat in the witness box. She said her daughter was

born in "Wellington on October 8, ISS6, and married William Westaby in 1917, but on his way to the war in a hospital ship he died. There were no children of the marriage. On March 12, 1920, her daughter was married to Munn, who was described as a farmer and a divorcee. The ceremony was performed at Greytown. Some time later Munn and his wife came to Northcote to live. There were two little girls of the marriage, aged nine and five. Her daughter corresponded with witness, and the latter received a letter just prior to her daughter’s death, and also a letter written on February 3. This communication referred to general happenings in the home, and the fact that Munn had taken her and the children out to Murray’s Beach. Arthur, she stated, came up and brought me my breakfast into bed—a thing I never have only when sick. The letter added that Munn had brought home pot plants and a Persian cat. All the family was well. A week later witness received a letter-card from her daughter, dated February 9: My Dear Mother, —I can only write a note to you, as I am lying in bed. X came over very queer last Tuesday morning, and Arthur went and got the doctor. He was here a very long time, and stuck a needle in my arm and drew off blood. This ho took away, to test, I think. It is blood pressure and nerve trouble. I think, mum, although neither doctor nor Arthur told me, X have to lie very still and keep absolutely quiet. No visitors. Arthur is just goodness itself, mum, and is looking after me wonderfully well. I don’t want you to worry, mum dear, because I hope to be feeling better again soon. lam only able to have fruit and vegetable diet. No eggs, meat, or fish. Do not go and tell auntie and co„ because they are not allowed to come in and excite me, and they would be sure to want to come over if they heard. Her daughter had written the contents of the letter-card, but the address in ink was in Munn’s handwriting. Mr. Northcroft: Your daughter wrote you fairly frequently?—Yes. And these two are the only letters you have?—Yes. There is a reference here to Mr. Munn’s health. Did you gather from your daughter’s correspondence that her husband suffered from gastric' trouble, or had a weak stomach?—l am not sure.

How did you learn of your daughter’s death, and the arranging for the

funeral? —I got a telegram on the Tuesday. From whom did the telegram come? —Mr. Munn. Mr. Meredith: Your daughter had £IOO when she married Munn, and yon understand that was put into the purchase of the house at Northcote? — Yes. "What was your daughter’s disposition?—She was always bright and cheerful. CONDUCT NOT THE BEST The accused’s son, by the first marriage, Oliver Arthur Herbert Munn, said he had lived with his father at Northcote for some years until 12 months ago. Mr. Meredith: What was the conduct of your father to the late Mrs. Munn? Mr. Northcroft objected to the question on the ground that it was irrelevant, and even if the answer was true it could not assist the jury. His Honour, however, admitted the question and noted the objection. Witness said his father’s conduct to his stepmother was not the best. Munn spoke roughly to Mrs. Munn, and knocked her about. Witness had seen his father push Mrs. Munn round the room and off chairs, these incidents occurring about twice weekly at meal times. On one occasion Munn had thrown a plate containing the remains of a meal at his wife, witness said. Another time he had seen his father push Mrs. Munn on to the floor, though she gave no provocation. Mrs. Mdnn endeavoured to make up any trouble that occurred, and was invariably cheerful. TJp till the time he left the home Mrs. Munn was in good health and always did the work in the house. Mr. Northcroft: When did you leave home?—On February 17, 1929. And where did you go to live?— In Wellesley Street. And you were then in touch with your mother?—Yes. He admitted that his sisters were then living with his mother. Mr. Northcroft: In the police court you said your mother divorced your father. Is that so?—I don’t know. Has your mother never told you?— No. Do you say that seriously?—Yes. LIVED WITH FATHER Witness said he had not heard of his mother since he was 12, she being divorced when he was five. His father brought them up, and taught him the trade of a wickerworker. Mr. Northcroft: And until you left home he had always been a good father?—Yes. You went into partnership with him. and quarrelled with him?—No. Is that true? —Yes. Did you not threaten him with proceedings for fraud?—No. Did Mr. Hall Skelton not act as solicitor In the dissolution of partnership?—Yes. And did you not instruct the solicitor to td&e action against your father for fraudulent misrepresentation?—No. Or for any suggestion of misrepresentation at all?—No. ACTION 'THREATENED Counsel read a letter of May 15, written by Mr. Skelton to his father’s solicitor, in which action was threatened for misrepresentation. Mr. Northcroft: Do you still say you didn’t accuse your father of misrepresentation?—That was not my feeling when the letter was sent. My solicitor said it would be the best way to go about it. Why didn’t you tell me the truth. Is it true that after you left your father you started to threaten him with proceedings?—The letter was written six months later. The witness said that he and his father had parted on the best of terms and he had no grievance. Mr. Northcroft: How is it you threatened" your father with proceedings three months later? —I wanted to get back the money I paid into the business. Was the threat due to association with your mother?—Not at all. MONEYS TO BE PAID The dissolution of partnership was fixed up, witness said, and it was arranged certain moneys should be paid to witness. His father worked hard, but was not prospering in business. ‘‘That was why I allowed the money to stand over,” said witness. The witness said he knew his father would have paid up if he had the money.

Mr. Northcroft: And yet on February 7 you issued a summons against your father for £25 and when he was in prison issued a distress warrant? — Yes. Do you still say you are not actuated by feelings of hostility to your father?—Yes. Why did not you protect the late Mrs. Munn?—lt was not my place to butt in. Did you protest to your father?— No. Were the incidents serious enough for your interference?—Not on my part. PUSHED HER AWAY In the mornings, said witness, accused used to get up crossly and want his wife to do something, which sue did not want to do at the time. When Mrs. Munn stood in front of accused and gave her explanation, accused pushed her away. The day Munn threw the plate of food at his wife, accused had-wanted his suit cleaned so that' he could go out that morning, and an argument developed. Apart from these incidents Munn and his wife got on fairly well, witness told his. Honour. The incidents, however, were sufficient to depress Mrs. Munn, who used to come crying to witness and tell of her husband’s words and treatment of her.- -He did not know whether his sisters witnessed the incidents as they had left the home before he did. Mr. Northcroft: You thought you were the cause of friction in the house?—l couldn’t stand the quarrels and his knocking her about and I thought the presence of a third party was the trouble. Did your sisters not ask you to leave the house as they had done?— But that did not govern me. Wasn’t the real reason that you quarrelled with your father over the business?—No.' How did you think you irritated and caused trouble?—l was the third party. You can’t explain how? But that was the feeling you had?—Yes. Beyond the pushing and platethrowing incidents there was no violence shown to Mrs. Munn, witness said. At the time witness left the house accused was taking Mrs. Munn out in the car. Mr. Northcroft: That is not the action of a brutal and cruel husband? —I didn’t say he was cruel. DRAWING MONEY Wasu’t another reason for your leaving because your father complained you were drawing money from the business and not paying board?—He did complain. Witness said that in the settling up over the business he had paid all'that was owing for board. He had paid board on the average every six weeks

and when he settled up £ls was owing. Re-examined by Mr. Meredith, witness said that the £l5O he put in to the business with his father was left to him under a will, but he was not told by his father of Its existence until a month before he attained his majority. His father urged him to invest the money in his (Munn’3) business. WITNESS BREAKS DOWN At this stage the witness broke down and some seconds elapsed before he composed himself. His father gave him three P.N.’s for the £l5O, and although he was supposed to be paid £5 weekly, he received only 30s weekly—sufficient to pay his board. On leaving the house he did not ask his father for the money for three months, as he knew the business was “pushed.” He then applied for it through a solicitor. Munn at .first offered £SO, but this, was rejected, and the offer was increased to £75 in full settlement. Mr. Northcroft: That is untrue. Proceedings were not taken until February 7. The witness said he had not been living with his mother since he left the Northcote home. Dorothy Ida Munn, a daughter of accused by the first marriage, said she was now living with her own mother. Up till three years ago witness had lived with Munn and Mrs. Munn at Northcote, and she noticed that accused had abused his wife and knocked her about. Once she had seen Munn strike his wife a hard blow with his clenched fist on the back, felling her. On another occasion, accused took a jam-stick from Mrs. Munn and struck her heavily with the hot end. Munn always claimed his wife did not do things correctly and Interfered. STRUCK ON SHOULDER Cross-examined by Mr. Northcroft, witness said her brother Oliver was in the workshop when these incidents occurred. On one of these occasions there had been words between the accused and his wife. Munn had struck his wife on the shoulder with a jam-stick. Mr. Northcroft: There was not much poiqt in hitting her with the hot jam-spoon?—She was burnt on the neck. Did you see that burn?—Yes; it came out in a blister. Notwithstanding the quarrels with your father, Mrs. Munn was always bright and cheerful?—She was always bright and cheerful to anyone else, but when accused was about and abusing her she was afraid and depressed. “Mrs. Munn told me she wanted to leave her husband,” said witness. Mr. Northcroft: Did she tell Munn that?- —No. Did she say why she wanted to

leave him?—She said she wanted to take the children and she would not leave them to his mercy. You told her that she could have the children if he had illtreated her?— Yes but she said she thought the children should have their father with them. You know your mother harboured enmity to your father? —Yes. And did she not advise your brother to take action?—l don’t know. And you know your mother went to the solicitor?—No. And you know she is actuated by malice to your father? —Yes. RETURNED TO MOTHER She admitted that after leaving her father's home she had returned to her mother, who had deserted her in childhood, and that she had not been back to see her father. Re-examined, witness said she had no wish to return to see her father, as he had beaten her. His Honour interposed at this stage to prevent further questioning, on the ground of irrelevancy, but the Crown Prosecutor said the girl had been chided for not returning home.

EVIDENCE CONTINUED ? THIS AFTERNOON . THE NORTHCOTE TRAGEDY The first 'witness this afternoon \ ;nas Mavis Neone Munn, another | daughter of the accused by the first j niarriage. She said that before going to live •with her mother at Mount Eden she stayed with Munn and his wife at Northcote. She was a week j <.ld when her father and mother I parted. Munn did not treat his wife j as such, rather more as the one who was working for him. He spoke to her as though he was annoyed with her. and on one instance witness saw him chase Mrs. Munn through the house into a bedroom, the door of which she barricaded, saying, “You won't, you won’t.’’ Munn pushed the door but was unable to gain entrance. This conduct of Munn toward his wife lasted the whole time she lived there, and witness had seen Mrs. Munn j crying during these incidents. Cross-examined by Mr. Northcroft, witness said her mother was only depressed when her father was angry with her and between times she was bright and cheerful. Witness was 15 when she left Northcote and she had been with her mother ever since. Mr. Northcroft: Does your mother bear enmity toward your father? —- j Only the way a mother would do under such circumstances. PREPARATION OF WILL Robert Bell, an Auckland solicitor, j said he knew the late Mrs. Munn and \ acted for the family. On December j 2 1 last year he received a letter from Mrs. Munn instructing him to prepare a will, under which she left everything 10 her husband, who was to be sole trustee. She asked also when the document would be ready for signature. The will was prepared and advised Mrs. Munn to call to sign it. On January 15, 1930, Mrs. Munn came over and executed the document. In event of intestacy the property would have been divided among the husband. who would have received one-third, and the children, two-thirds. Mrs. Munn was then in normal health. Mr. Northcroft: In December last year Munrr gave instructions to you to make his will?—That is so. What is the effect of it? —The effect of it is to leave everything to Mrs. Munn, but in event of her death a irustee is appointed and the estate was left to the little girls of the second marriage. Is it common to find husbands and wives making wills on mutual terms? Yes, but no invariably. ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY He knew the encumbrances on the Northcote property, and he considered there was no value above the first mortgage. Mrs. Munn had also a third interest in a property acquired in 1925, and witness understood the money was provided by Munn, who put his wife’s name in tile title. Munn also bought another property and wanted to put it in his own and his son’s name on the title, but on witness's advice the son’s name was left out because the latter was under 21. Last year when the mortgage fell due. the money was raised on the sections collaterally with the house which was in Mrs. Munn's name. Mrs. Munn was informed of the effect of the mortgage and was fully aware of the extent of her action in signing the document. The witness proceeded to refer to the agreement of partnership entered into between Munn and his son, and later the partnership was dissolved, hut before this Munn’s son's—solieilor made an accusation that his client had been induced to enter the partnership by misrepresentation. Mr. Meredith objected to questions relating to the letter, but Mr. Northcroft said the document was significant because Mrs. Munn had written it on behalf of the husband who signed it. It was in answer to the son's accusations. His Honour agreed to admit the letter, which witness declared was written by the dead woman. The letter gave instructions how to deal with the son’s accusations. (Proceeding.)

CROWN PROSECUTOR’S SPEECH YESTERDAY

Following is a report of the latter part of the address by the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Meredith, in the Munn trial yesterday afternoon. Continuing. Mr. Meredith said that Munn had lost much time in ascertaining there was a telegram for him at Takapuna, for although he had not received the message from Mrs. Stuck in time for him to meet her, he was in the city early in the morning inquiring Mrs. Stuck’s whereabouts. The accused, on returning home, reported to Dr. Dudding that the first bottle of medicine was finished. Mr. Meredith read a letter by Mrs. Munn to her mother written from her bed on Sunday, February 9. In it the sick woman described her illness, which she said the doctor thought was blood pressure. “Arthur is goodness itself.’’ Mrs. Munn wrote. This after a week of illness, was hardly the sort of letter a woman attempting suicide would write, Mr. Meredith commented. HORROR OF HOSPITALS On Monday. February 10. Mr. Meredith said, Munn was again in town with his car and drove Mrs. Stuck to her new job. On his return home accused found Dr. Dudding in the house and the doctor found the sick woman comparatively comfortable and joked about her condition, was quite cheerful and looking forward to being up and about again. Munn had stressed to the doctor the fact that his wife had a horror of going to hospital, and the inference* might be drawn that this reference was to anticipate the doctor sending her there, because in hospital she would be under trained attention and the presence of any strychnine must undoubtedly be detected. Ou the morning of Mrs. Munn's death, a woman living underneath the Munn house heard the sick woman crying ard moaning in pain for some hours, and footsteps as though accused was moving about the house. When Munn asked the neighbour to go for the doctor, the hatter remarked that Mrs. Munn must have been very ill to be crying, and accused said his wife had found difficulty in obtaining her breath, and that she had left the bed and he had difficulty in getting her back.

On Tuesday, February 11, Dr. Dudding found Mrs. Munn hysterical, calling out and desiring not to be touched. This was the first time the doctor had seen her in this state. Munn had evidently been applying water bandages to the heart. The doctor found Mrs. tiiiaa't body arched and her face coni

torted. She complained of thirst. The doctor’s suspicions were aroused. To his question Munn replied that the condition was similar to that when his wife first became ill. Although suspicious, Dr. Dudding said nothing, but j administered morphia to relieve the sufferer and went away. Ou returning later to the house, Mr. i Meredith said, Dr. Dudding found Mrs. : Munn was dead. The body was! arched and the muscles were stiff, indicating that the woman nad died as a result of a further convulsion. The doctor was then very suspicious of strychnine poisoning, and he dipped his finger into the contents of a cup in the room and found it tasted bitter, a j strong characteristic of strychnine. He j took a small sample of the fluid and at a chemist’s found that Munn had purchased poison. The doctor then roughly tested the fluid. Although he did not find definite proof, l>e got the violet. colour on the bichromate potash crystals, consistent with the presence of strychnine. MUNN RETURNED While Dr. Dudding was in the house preparing to take samples of other liquids in the dead woman's room, Munn returned, saying he had forgotten to put on a collar. It was to be assumed that if accused got a collar he obtained it from a chest of drawers in which strychnine was found. Samples from the body were found to contain strychnine and the analyst’s report was to the effect that Mrs. Munn had died of more than one dose of strychnine poisoning. “From the time Mrs. Stuck returned to Auckland, in spite of his wife’s illness there was not a day on which he : had not. seen this woman,” said Mr. j Meredith, “and on the night of her. j death he went to see Mrs. Stuck, who i declared he broke down in stating his wife had gone. On the Thursday night after the funeral, Munn invited Mrs. Stuck to keep house for him and took her to his home. On the Saturday, Mrs. Stuck was installed as house-keeper. When Mrs. Stuck asked Munn the reason for the inquest, accused said his wife must have taken her own life. Shortly afterward accused proposed to her, but she was not anxious and he took her first wedding ring from her until he could give her another ; one. FINDING OF STRYCHNINE When police inquiries were instituted, continued Mr. Meredith, it was clear Mrs. Munn had not died from natural causes, although no suspicion then rested on accused. Counsel detailed the conversation which Detec-tive-Sergeant Doyle, accompanied by Detective Power, had with Munn the day after the death, and read the statements made by accused. Under questioning, Munn told the detectivesergeant he had strychnine in the house, which, he said, he kept in the pantry, but when he searched for the poison he found it was not in the usual place. At Munn’s suggestion a search was made in the woman’s bedroom, and in a chest drawer, in which Munn had shirts and collars, a bottle labelled “poison” was found under some collars. Munn at once recognised the bottle, and asserted he had left it in the pantry a fortnight ago A peculiar circumstance connected with the fluids found in the cup and jug in the dead woman’s room, said Mr. Meredith, was that there was no indication of the presence of strychnine or epsom salts as a result of the tests made. The contents were only tap-water, which was not bitter to taste. Counsel reminded the jury that when Dr. Dudding’s suspicions were first aroused he tested the cup's contents by inserting his finger and on licking it noticed a bitetr taste, which the medical man was unlikely to mistake. He even took a sample for analysis. On returning to the house for larger samples, Dr. Dudding unfortunately had not tasted the fluid in the cup a second time, and, he suggested, what might have happened to it between the time the doctor took his first and second samples, was not known. The post-mortem examination, according to Drs. Murray and Gilmour, pathologist, showed no signs of disease in the organs, in which there was no indication of death from natural causes. There was no trace of anything in the organs that would cause high blood-pressure, which, however, could be caused by strychnine. POISON IN THE BODY After dealing with the amount of strychnine recovered from portions of the stomach, liver and spleen, by the Auckland public analyst, the Crown Prosecutor went on to say that the balance of the stomach had been sent to the Government Analyst at Wellington, Mr. Donovan, who had recovered another 3-40ths of a grain, making in all 11-40ths, which had been obtained. The evidence would show that with the methods adopted, recovery of a greater quantity could not be expected, and there was no test as to the amount administered. It was clearly indicated, however, that immediately before Mrs. Munn's death a lethal dose of strychnine was administered to her. The amount that entered the stomach was sufficient to kill the woman, and a quantity exceeding a-quarter of a grain had not had time to work through into the blood vessels before she died. It was Suggested by the Crown that death was caused by strychnine, because of the absence of any organic defect and the finding of poison in the stomach and other organs. The arching of the body, inversion of the feet just after death, and the symptoms displayed by Mrs. Munn during her illness, including the convulsions, were all consistent with poisoning. It was clear that not only did she die of strychnine poisoning, but the whole of her illness was caused by it, he said. SEVERAL DOSES Experts would prove that several doses had been administered to Mrs. Munn, and that there could be no relation between the first .slack and her death, continued the Crown Prosecutor. Whatever dose was given her on February 4 would have been ( eliminated from the body in 48 hours, and if no more poison had been given her, she would have recovered rapidly. The woman's serious illness on Friday, February 7, was an indication of further administration of the poison and if nothing more had been given, it would not have affected her on Tuesday, February 11. The convulsions, which started very early that morning, must clearly show she had been given a heavy, lethal dose of poison earlier. The paroxysms must have been severe, for they did not cease and leave the woman exhausted, but continued and enabled Dr. Dudd- j ing to judge what was wrong. The usual time in which death ensued I from strychnine poisoning was from two to four hours. and it was ; evident that the fatal dose had been given about four hours before her ! death about 10 o’clock. Th* court then rose. 1