THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. Mrs Hall Not to Give Evidence.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 174, 16 October 1886, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. Mrs Hall Not to Give Evidence.

Christohubch, October 9 It has been definitely decided that Mrs Hall shall not give evidence in the Timaru sensation matter. Mr Justice Johnßton this morning charged the Grand Jury at some length, but was altogether inaudible at times. He prefaced fai« remarks t by reminding the ' Jury that it was unnecessary for them to examine all the witnesses whose depositions bad been taken in the Lower Court.but merely \to examine suck witnesses as they might . 'think necessary for the purpose ,6i satisfy* ' fag themselves that there was such a case as ; *t« demand further investigation. The'fqrm of indictment would probably be for ad-

ministering antimony, .that was to pay administerfng antimony with the intention of killing and murdering the wife of Thomas Hall. The prisoner Margaret Houeton lived with Hall and his wife on terms that he (Hie Honor) could hardly make out, but certainly on terms of familiarity. She seemed to have done some domestic duties iv the house, but her exact status he could not quite make out. On June 19th Mrs Hall gave birth to a child. It would appear that in the month of November last year, and consequently when the woman was pregnant, she showed some symptoms of distress which her medical attendant at the time naturally attributed to the fact of -her pregnancy. These symptoms again appeared in June last, after her confinement, and continued more or less severely up to August 15th last, when prisoner Hall was arrested. It would appear thut Dr. Maclntyre, her medical adviser, got rather puzzled with her symptoms. About June ths 27th or soon afterwards be had consultations with Dr. Drew, Dr. Stackpoole and Dr. Lovegrove, and DrB. Maclutyre and Drew separately analysed certain wine and vomit which would be stated as having come from Mrs Hall, and found-very clear traces of antimony. Now antimony wa3 a mineral irritant poison, the symptoms of which fully agreed with the symptoms which Mrs Hall had developed. Immediately before prisoners' arrest some iced water had been administered to Mrs Hall, and it produced violent sickness. By the contrivance of the nurse (Mrs Elliston) some of this water was secured, and on analysis it was found to contain comparatively largo portions of antimony. Antimony administered from time to time would produce gieatdepres sion and prostration and ultimately w ould cause death. There wasthis remarkable fact that from the time of the arrest of the prisoner, Mrs Hall rapidly recovered ; at all events she no longer showed the symptoms alluded. Now it was necessary to consider who had the opportunities of administering poison to Mm Hall. These were Dr. Maclntyre, the servants in the houeo, and the nurae. They were the perbons who were continually attending her, giving her tea and so forth. Bcnidea these there were Miss Houston who took part in nursing and tho accused Hall. Now the doctor and servants would aw ear that they were unaware of being connected with the administering of anything improper to the patient. Hallgoing backwardsandforwards would have had ample opportunities of administering poison to his wife. In considering whether he did administer antimony, they would have to judge of his conduct, his language, and other circumstances. His conduct was cortainly very remarkable. For some time before Mrs Hall had shown symptoms of poisoning, and for some timo thereafter he had been going about in a perfectly open manner, getting books on poison, especially those dealing with antimony. He had also purchased considerable quantities of colcbicum and tartar emetic. As to his conduct it was also important that at tho time of hia arrest he made a great struggle to get rid of something he had in Mb pocket, but was prevented by tho Inspector of Police, and this proved to be a phial, the contents of which, on examination, disclosed antimonial matter.

Prisoner's Motive. Coming to the question of motive, the case was very remarkable. The evidence showed that Hall was in a very embarrassed condition, and it was very desirable that he shonld raise money by some means or other. Now hie wife's life was insured in two policies of £3,000 each in the month of August, and we're, about 'to become due. Shortly before Mrs Hall's illness she had made oat her will, giving an interest to her husband at her death. If that waß so — if he was in great precuniary embarrasment— that charges of forgery were possibly pending against him, evidence of motive would be supplied. There was the additional fact that there was prima facie evidence of intention of setting tire to bis house, kerosene having been sent there by the prisoner ; but he was not quite sure whether this evidence was properly admiseable, in point of law, on a charge of poisoning ; but the Grand Jury were not bound by strict rales of evidence, and if they chose, could go into the matter. If they considered that antimony had been used to Mrs Hall, that her hußbaud had ample opportunities <of using it ; that Ihe had purchased medical books on poiaon, and had an object to attain by the death of Mrs Hall, it would be tor them to bay whether | their was sufficient evidence to satisfy them that it was used by him alone, or by him pr ! other persons.

W&o AOmiolsterea the Poison?. Ac to the using, it was not necessary to prove that prisoner actually put poisons to his wife's lips. It would be sufficient if it were plao&d in water where he, had reasonable cause for believing it, would be administered. •" % " v <n ' u > '- % t _ > •

-,: u THo'C*w'A K»ln«t Houston. V '' ,the prosecution was that, she was-very familiar with Hall. Th©': evidence did 1

not go so far as to make out a prima facia case of adultery, but there was evidenco to Bhow that the terms on which they ilved was vulgarly, 1 but expre.°eively, called "ireo and easy." Her conduct might have been innocent, but it was not inconsistent with undue familiarity. Then, when prisoners weie arrested, Miss Houston said, "Oh! antimony; that is used for photography;" and when Hall triod to get the phial but of his pocket, but was prevented by the police officer, She struggles to extricate him. Her language and conduct were certainly evidence tending in the direction of complicity with Hall. In addition to this there was a rno°t curious pipce of evidence viz., after their arrest Houston applied to the gaoler for writing material, and wrote a loUer to Hall. It was hardly credible that an oflicer in an ICngliah gaol, in a community liko ours, could do such an insane thing as destroy the letter so written. However, the letter was destroyed, but ifa contents were admispable, and f,hcy showed that prisoners were on terras of great familiarity : — '«My dear Tommy Dodd" was a name connected with a comic song (laughter), and the use of it indicated a very conndeiable amount of familiarity between the writer and the prisoner to whom it was addressed. To the least, the letter was a remmkabie one for a woman just accused of co gi-ive a crime of murder to wit. Another circumstance against the female prisoner would be epoken to by Mr Keir, who heard telephone communication paging between the two prL-oners ivith respect, to a certain medicine whioh Hall wj>hed out r>f the way It could hardly be said that a decont motive could bo mode agauist her. It did not follow that there an arrangement be 1 , ween them thai on the death of Mr^ Hall he would take her as his wife or anything of that eort. There was no such direct or d>rect or circumstantial evidc-nce. That was merely a BUggpation consistent with the evidence, and was hardly the kind ut suggestion that could be rolled on for purposes of a charge of a grave nature.

Other Charges Against Hall In addition to this serioua charge again3t Hall, he was sorry to say that there wore no feweir than 12 indictments againet him for forgery and. as these were of the simplest possible character they did not requite any comment.

True Bills Found Against Both Prisoners. The grand jury have loturnod true bills against both pribonerb. There five 64 witneFi-e?, and the case is likely to latjt eight duys,

Mondays Proceedings. What will undoubtedly prove the most important criminal trial which has yet been heard in this colouy was commenced this morning before Mr Justice Johnston and special jury. Tfae prisoners, Thomas Hall and Margaret Graham Houston, were indicted for attempted murder by poisoning of Kate Emily Hall, wife of the male prisoner. The case for the Crown wae conducted by the Attorney-General (Sir Robort fcjtout), aBBieted by Mr Martin (Crown Prosecutor, Christchurch), and Mr White (Crown Prosecutor, Timuru). Messrs Joynt and Perry appeared for the prisoner Sail, and Mr Hay for the female prisoner. Very great interest was evinced in the proceedings, and us soon utj the doom were thrown open the sm»vll court house was speedily tilled, a large portion of the audience conferring of ladies. j Hall, wearing his beard well trimmed, looked anxious. Houston was very plainly dressed, and was lookmj; thin, careworn, and pale. She eeemed terribly depressed, but as the mechanical business uf ballotiDg the j jury progressed ehe regained her composure, j remaining, however,slightly depressed, while a sigh escaped her occasionally. Hall, lam told, looked better, than he did at Timaru, and seemingly had his courage screwed up to go through the ordeal of the trial, There wore seven challenges by counsel for priaonere, and none by the Crown, beiora the jury (of whom Mr JT. H. Barnes was chosen foreman) were aworn. , On Mr Joynt's application, all the witnesaes except Dr. Mclntyie and Professors Black and Ogston were ordered out of the Court room. Mr Joynt applied that the prisoners be 1 . allowed to tauo seats, but the Judge only permitted the female prisoner to ait.

Sir Robert Stdufc's 1 Address. The Attorney-General, in opeuing the case; said the prisoners were cWgcd uuder three counte, .vith administeriog poison to Kat« Emily' Hall, with intent to, kill and mutd«r her. . The form , under which the charge .Wflfi presented was not of much hnpqrWnce.' ptkpply puts the charged in 'three, cii'flferenfc" ways- firstly, administered .directly by priaone'M themselves 5 ; secondly,, 1 caußipgt ifc [jo. be aidmi'nifetercd ; and ' third Jy,; eaiiflin'^to'be : taken. " There would hot fc f e much (Question arise as to the way in

which the charge was framed The charge was a very serious and a very grave one, and what the Crown hudundoitaken to do waa to prove that poison was administered by the' prisoners with the intention of killing and murdering Kate Emily Hall, and that the poison was antimony. These were the main tbiugß which ,the Crown bad undertaken to prove, and before he could ask the jury to find a verdict of guilty, they would have to be satisfied that the Crown had proved these things. , Now in this case, as often happens, it was impossible to prove direct administration of the poieon they had to take into consideration a great number of surrounding facts and circumstances. For example poison might be administered by accident or without any intention to murder or kill, and hence it was usually the d'ify of those representing the Crown to state circumstanoea which would show that the administration could not have been by accident, and that the administration was with intention as charged lv the indictment Of course, if they were convinced that the poison was administered wilfully, sufficient would be sh»wn that they were guilty. Evidence of motivo would be given for th.c commission of the crime. And here he wished to warn them on behalf of the prisoners that al'huugh a motive was supplied for the eoinmition of the crime they must not infer or assume that he was guilty of the eriuifct ; but at the same time, in dealing with the question ot motive, they might get some light that would enabfe them to understand something which might othetwise appear dark, and perhaps mysterious. Htmce it would be proved that the male prisoner was pecuniarily involved, and he had a motive for committing crime. Unfortunately there was such a tiling as the crime of poisoning and the law bad had to provide against it ; and history told them that this crime had not been rare in the annuls of this country. Therefore, while on one side before they could believe that any person, male or female, had been guilty of such a terriole crime as this, they would, on the other hand, require clear and decisive evidence of motive for ita Commission. They would consider that in dealing with the other facts of the case, and that brought before them

The Question of Motive. What, then, was Hall'd position (for he was dealing with tho male prisoner)? Firet, ho was carrying on business as a ctmmfcsion agent at Timaru in partnership with Mdson & Co., for 130 far as its financi&l position was concerned the firm w&s banfclupt. In fact, since his arrest the firm had been declared bankrupt, and taking their liabilities and a&eetg, there would be a deficiency of between £5,000 and £6,000. He was hopelc&sly insolvent, and wus guilty of forgeries which had accumulated, and in considering the question of motive, they mupt bear in mind, that the no an wa3 in dread of hia doings being discovered, and then of what service hid wife's death would have been to him. They were married on the 26fch of May, 1885. The first forgery for the amount of £600 took place in June following, and in the succeeding month Mrs Hall by her will loft all her property to him. In The month of August,, 18S5, ho proposed to insure her life. Two Bepa a c proposals were made out, and by her death he would, have got' from £9,000 to £11,000. They had to consider what motive a man in financial trouble and w ith charges of forgery hanging over his heid, would have for committing so grave a crime.

Did Miss Houston Administer Poison? Sir Robert Stout then went through the I evidence in a temperate adddress. He said that new evidence would be given that Miss Ron&ton administered oysters on June 26 to Mrs Hall, who thereafter exhibited pymptoras of antimony ' poisoning. Photographers would also be called to prove that antimony was not UBed in photography, as female prisoner eaid when Hall was arrested, evidence would also ba taken to show that Hall intended to burn down his house and contents, and burn bis invalid wife, bo that all traces of antimony poisoning might be' removed. * , Mr Joynt ad mi ted that this evidence would be tevolant, and waived his objection {id to i s admieeabilify, made in the Lower Court. In conclusion, Sir Robert Stout eaid :— "Now, gentlemen, I wish to draw my remarks to a close. I have done my duty' on behalf of the Crown in opening this caße, and it will be for you to do yours. It is a painful duty to prosecute anyone accused of a crime, especially in a , case , like this, when one_{ thinks of the position formerly occupied by the prisoners, and the pain that it will give to their relatives and to their friends. But, gentlemen, you must sink all personal feeling It is not for you to think of your 1 , own feelings ,in the matter,;. You aro called on tq> perform one of jthe blgKtest duties' tihafc 'twelve' men could, perform. Into your, handa'is^ gi^en f the .duty to s«e that crime 1 ' shall not' go' unpunished in this colony. If,, after

careful consideration of the evidence which, shall be offered is proved to your mind dearly and conclusively that the prisoners at the bar have beon guilty of the crime that has been laid to their charge, I ask | you then not to flinch from doing your duty,, and see that nothing shulldefer you in coming to verdict according to the evidence. It, a-on the other hand, of opinion, 'after carefully coAsideMng^-the evit deafce, that ftj you (have reasonable doubt; m your mind ' that ! these persons are innocent, then I aek you to fully do your duty to your country Japd the, oatb which you have tak^en '^ \. ; 1$ /, v 1 The address lasted an^hour and^a'quarter, and on adjourning for lunch, the Judge intimated that ho would not sit after five tonight.