VANISHED HOPES.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 174, 16 October 1886, Page 3 (Supplement)

VANISHED HOPES.

•<-; 'The smiles 'cora'e buck to foxe' sufferer's face, - Aodjoy tcPtha mourner'si 1 soul; J> - ; •;< And tbe stars cojno b>»ck to their nightly pl^oe , tF^qnj.ttiqlr wanderinKS arnimd the.pple, „ ' The 1 ißpit\tt6 come back from the storm-tossea'^aal "> 'And'the flowers cdmeihacKiin th6?spring\tl • And \he livoKOQineß buokjat.eVe'o'or tho.leo.l 1 c iA^rl nhe.birda.come back to sinj?. „,, „; ■ Mayflower 6oml bide, ahdlKe violet,'"' M 'n ' And the bipss'oma that bloom on the tree';! But that oldshatf-eoveriegn.'lost'on 5 bet»^' -will never come baok to me t,

Continued from Page 2k lr t , w ►!• ;s i- "0., i n ; 71 •.«« t r i oolchicum at variousdates during.the monthi of July and August, «o that co far as the opportunity of getting poison is concerned, the evidence against ' Hall iff- olear and conclusive: For what pnrpoßO did he purchase the poison ! This I shall deal with by- and- bye. We shall find by the evidence that three points will be established : (1) that Mrs Hall was suffering from the effects of an irritant poison j (2) that an irritant poison had been administered to her ;' and (3) that the prisoner Hall had purchased poison. Now, is there any other circumstance connecting the prisoner with the administration of the poison? We find that he purchased a book, * Taylor on Poisons.' That work is locked upon by medical men and experts as the best authority on the administration of poisons and their symptoms. He purchased that book in Timaru on the 10th of June, 1885, yet we find that he wrote his name in thg first page M if it were purchased in Dunedin in 1882. We find from the evidence that he wished to get this work for the purpose of ascertaining the result of antimony on the human system, and that he spoke to Hutton on the subject. He also got another work from a bookseller named Farrey. describing the effect of poisons on the human system. Another remarkable thing is that if we look at the dates of Mrs Hall's illness aWd of the purchase of the poison by Hall, they tally. Mrs Ball wife bad on the 19th June, and her sickness continued until the 23rd ; Hall bought poison on the 13th and ISfcb. On the 26th he purchased two drachms of antimony, and the same evening, after eating oysters, Mrs Hall suffered from vomiting. On July 14th she was so bad that a consultation was held, and on July sth and 6th he had purchased no less than soza. of colchicutn. She improved for two or three days, and then the symptoms returned. During those three days he bad purchased 3oza of colchicutn. On July 26th he purchased 3ozs of colchicutn, and on July 28th she was so bad that a second consultation was held, at which Dr. Stackpoole was present. She got better, but three days after Rot worse, the prisoner having purchased poison on the 31st July. On August 4th he purchased half an cunce of antimony and 2ozs of colchicum, and On August lltb 2oza of antimony ; so that you will see, gentlemen, directly after each purchase by the prisoner of poison Mrs Hall got worse, and showed signs of irritant poisoning. It is for you to say whether this does not conclusively connect the male prisoner with the administration of the poison to Mre Hall. I will now say something about the 15th August. On that day Hall gave her some ice water, and after ten minutes or co she commenced retching bo severely that the doctor thought she would have died. She had been in an extremely low state just before this, and Hall himself said through the telephone to Dr. Drew that the slightest thing would kill her. On the 12th of August, after the con eultation, it was decided that Mrs Hall was to have no food— simply a little icewater to cool her mouth, and injections of brandy. A bottle of brandy was given for use after consultation. That brandy was subsequently analysed, and found to contain colchicum. Thus, it will be seen that if the woman was likely to escape poisoning by antimony through her mouth, colchicum waB put into the brandy, so that she could not escape being poisoned by means of the injection. Gentlemen, it is for you to say who put the colchicum in the brandy. I now come to the arrest of the prisoners. As I have already told you, Dr. Mclntyre nobly did his duty, and when he thought his patient was in danger of being murdered by poison he at once laid an information against the accused, and the result was the arrest. I don't ask you to deal with this arrest to magnify wbat occurred against the prisoners Persons quite innocent may so act when arrested that their conduct may appear inexplicable. Therefore, I don't ask you to take anything that occurred as against the female prisoner." The Attorney-General proceeded to say that at Mr Hall's arrest be endeavoured, with the help of the female prisoner, to destroy a bottle in his possession. Thebottlewas found to contain antimony. The excuse alleged for the possession of the antimony was that he wished to use it in the making of cigarettes for asthma. It could not be tound that antimony was used for the making of dgaretteg. Hall also said that he required the colchicum as an appetiser. Medical men would tell them it was the first time they had ever heard of colchicum being used for that purpose. A fact about the administration of the iced water to which he w^uld draw attention wae this : The nurse -was giving it to Mre Hall on October 15tb, out of a jug in the evening. Hall entered the room and pare his wife some ice water. She was taken ill and complained of the taste of the water. The nurse cleverly got hold of some of the water he had bet-n giving Mrs Ball, and on analysis it was found to contain an abundance of,antimony,Bgrains to 'he oz. He tried to throw the blame for the tas'e on to the jug. All connected with that jug had been analysed, and was found quite free from antimony. When his wife was ill, and supposed to be at the point of death, Hall was at hiß club playing billiards and amusing himself till a late hour. Another fact the jury would do well to consider was that when Hall and Houston were in the sergeant's room at Timaru police station, Constable Hicks heard Hall say to her, •'You are all right, but lam in for it ; 1 cannot possibly get off.' "

FfcoU Connecting the Female Prisoner. The facts showing the connection of the female prisoner with the cape were ; That happening on June 26, 1886, the nurse attending Mrs Hall had given on June 1 four oysters, which she had relished, and which agreed with her. On June 15, in the evening Miss Houston brought in four oysters which she said she picked herself, and which Mrs Hall ate. Immediately after eating these Mrs Hall was seized with all the symptoms of poisoning by antimony. On August 15 the cup and muslin used for the ice water was taken possession of by Miss Houston. The cup bad been washed, and what had become of the bit of muslin the prosecution had been unable to find out. On _ Hall's arrest, when he was striving to make away with the antimony in his possession, Houston went to his assistance. Would it not have been supposed, rather* that she would have been shocked when she heard him charged with such a dreadful crime ? Then, again, Miss Houston had- volunteered the suggestion that Hall used the antimony for experiments in photography, Evidence could be produced to prove that antimony never was used -for photography. Again ehe had told the nurse that Dr. Stackpoole had *aid that she (Miss Houston) was to administer the food, not the nurse. The nurse declined to allow her to do so, and she did not press it. Dr. Stackpoole would say < that he never gave "Miss Houston any " such in..etructipns. As to the ' ' relationship "betwoen the prisoners) ho would * toll, them frankly that there was no evidence -of any improper intimacy, aad it Srodld Sbtfimproptrfrr Mm to suggest, pny., ,"? Judge: You mean no illicit intercourse t

* The Mtorney™Generar imeainT no briminal intimacy, and it would be understood, in that} sense. ", , He, wished the jury to pui » way from their minds at once any idea of ■ criminal intercourse. He made no each charge and no euch insinuation, nor. did he wish to strain a single faot against either ot the prisoners. Still, there was evidence that the relations between them were closer than is ordinarily between a man and lady help. On one occasion he took her to a ball when hie wife wai dangerously ill, though it did not appear ho attended the ball himself. They appeared also to be thoroughly cognisant of one another's acts. Houston was the person to whom Hall was talking through the telephone whea Mr Kerr overheard him. She must have had a knowledge that certain wine had poison in it. It had been said that this wine had been doctored to catch the servant Mary Hallen. In reply it would be proved that Hall had the keys of the place where the wine was kept, and that, moreover, the girl was not given to drink. It would be proved also, that it was strictly not necessary in the case that Hall had made careful preparations to burn down his house with its contents, and per* haps the dead body of his wife. His Honor asked if Mr Joynt did not object to this. Mr Joynt said that he had come to the conclusion that he would not object. Sir Robert Stout concluded by exhorting the jury to do justice, and not to allow their own feelings or i-utside feelings to influence them. If they were not satisfied with the prisoners' guilt, it was their duty to acquit them.

The Defence. From what fell from the counsel for the male prisoner, it would appear that no witnesses are to be called for the defence. Up to the preBeut, no idea con be gathered as to the line of defence to be set up, but I have heard it rumoured that Dr. Mclntyre (the gentloman who swore the information, and Mrs Hall's medical attendant) is to be subjected to a very severe cross-examina-tion. Charles Barnes, land surveyor, was the first witness called. He merely proved a plan of the bouse at Woodland?, the scene of the alleged crime. Mr White then proposed to put in the order of adjudication against Hall and Houston, but this was objected to, and His Honor held that it was not admissible at present. Arthur Steadman, manager of the Bank of New South Wales at Timaru, testified to the statement of the account of Hall and Meason. Hall transacted banking business from January, 1885, to August 15th, 1886* The account averaged £8,000 over-draft. The witness also detailed circumstances in connection with the production of the various forged notes In answer to Mr Joynt, he stated that the £8,000 for which the account was overdrawn included discount and overdrafts. The average amount of discount was about £400 ; the overdraft proper would be about £4,000. Mr Hay : On August 15th had you given notice to the police that Hall and Meason were overdrawn ? His Honor : You have no right to embaraßS Mr Joynt's defence. Mr Hay : I wish to show that Mica Houston should not have been arrested ; that a possible motive was not known to Miie Houston. Sir R Stout : That is as far as we know. Dr. Mclntyre kne^ nothing of Hall's circumstances at the time of the arrest. Robert Silvius Black, manager of the National Bank, Timaru, testified as to the state of Hall's private account from March to May, 1886. It was sometimes in credit and sometimes overdrawn. On May 3 1st it was overdrawn £685 From that time till August 15 last it fluctuated slightly, and on Anguat 15th it was overdrawn £677. The bank held a? securities against the overdraft a transfer of mortgage for £600 from Thomas Hall'to the bank. Mr Joynt raised a point as to the necessity of proving the accuracy of the bank account, but on reading the Act of 1880 gave up his attempt to sustain it. G. Laing Meason, the next witness, testified concerning the position of the firm and one or two matters connected therewith, Mr Joynt cross-examining rather closely about a lease that bad been given up. The rrain point of Mr Meason's evidence was that he knew nothing of any of the promieeory notes. Charles A. Wilson, clerk to the late firm, deposed that he made the entries of the various promispory notes, and posted the accounts, the system being for Hall to give him the necessary information, and all he knew was by Hall's instructions. , Michael Mitton, station owner, had had several monetary transactions with the firm of Meaeon and Hall, giviDg Hall money to i invest for him. He never gave them a promissory note. The signature to the transfer of mortgage produced was a forgery. Jehn Fraaer, shepherd to the Mackenzie Company, had given Hall various sums, amounting to £250 or £300, to invest for him. The money had not been returned. The signature to memorandum of mortgage and the promissory note (produced) were not hie. To Mr Joynt: He wasquite eurethesignature was not his, nor did it resemble hie in any way. William Montague Syms, accountant at Timaru, and one ot the liquidators appointed at a meeting of the creditors of Hall and Meason on August Bth, Baid he had made a thorough examination of their position. Tne books were kept by Mr Wilson (the clerk) with an occasional entry by Hall. After allowing full credit for all assets he found a deficiency of £5,765. There were several properties which he had not taken into account, as he considered them mortgaged for their full value. To Mr Joynt: He only consulted Mr Wilson with respect to the properties. The- depressed condition of the land market caused him to place low values on them. He was not aware whether Mr Wilson had seen the properties, nor did he know what value the Southland property represented to the firm. As be had been told they were under mortgage, he placed no value on them. To His Honor : I ignored these properties altogether because they were ' under mortgage. The Attorney-General; We have other evidence, your Honor. They were mort gaged twice. Witness continued : He was agent for the Victoria ' Insurance Company, with whom Woodlands was insured. The policy expired by effluxion of time a few days after Captain Cain's death. Arthur Steadman, re-called, ■ gave evidence that the Bank' of New South Wales had a mortgage over, Hall and Meaeon's Southland property. . Arthur Onneby, solicitor, practising in Timaru, was examined as td the preparation of Mrs Hall's will, under instructions from the male prisoner. 'It was drafted on July 2?tbj and signed by MVs BalFtwcfdays later. Witness wae one 'of the attesting witnesses. Hall came for. the will ft few days later. ' ''* j<'s"..tm'« 'sr'l'u 1 .-**' .' Td Joyat : 'Hull got' the%ill without ktif 'written l atfthorityV 'or "-* 'suggestion of authority,' from His, wife. » * * tf "*1 ' • s •

7" "WilHamUawibni ageiifc' aFTimaru for the Australasian .^Mutual Provident Society, was the next witness; ' [He' remembered prisoner Hall coming to his office early in August, 1885, and asking for one of their prospectus formal"-' A day or 'two afforwarda he said he thought hie wife would insure for £5,000 for his benefit, that in the event of her death before his her. income would lapse, and that she wished to insure for hia protection. Subsequently he decided to take out two policies for £3,000 each— one payable at death and one after seven years. Hall explained that it would depend on how long Captain Cain lived which of the policies would be kept in force. The policies were executed about August the 12tb. Hall said he did not intend to renew the short-dated policy. Be further stated that his wife was ill but she had improved very much, and telephoned Ur Mclntyre whether any reply had been received to his letter to Dr. Batchley. Hall explained that the tatter's opinion «a« asked as to Mr* Ball's health. Dr. Mclntyre telephoned back that he had had no answer to his letter. In cross • examinatiou the witneps adhered to the statement that Thomas Hall had said that the continuation of th« short-dated policy would depend on the duration of Captain Cain's life. Hall did not pay that it would depend on whether his wife had children. Witness could not understand Hall's remark that the matttr would depend upon Captain Cain's life. Witness a few day?' ago made a valuation of the furniture at Woodlands, and estimated it at £800 or £900 for in- | surance purposes. Edward Denham, Registrar of Deeds for the Canterbury district, produced a deed of settlement dated February 26th, 1870, made between Henry Cain, on the 2nd, and Frederick LeCren and F. W, Stubbß on the 3rd, Mr Joynt here raised the point whether the Attorney General had the right to reply in criminal cases. Although the point had been raised in England, and it had been decided that the Attorney-General had the right of reply when prosecutor there, such a right, according to the English judges, was applicable to England only. His Honor failed to see that it was his place to decide that point at present. If , no witnesses were called for the defence, and the Attorney-General wished to reply, then it would be time to have the point raised, He had no right at present to ask the Attorney -General whether he should claim a reply. [ Mr Joynt said his conduct of the defence would depend on that question, and His Honor said that he failed to Bee any difference in the status of Attorney-General here and one in England. He should certainly treat the Attorney-General as he would be treated at home by English judges. Sir Kobert Stout said he did not object to the point being raised. He could enow cases in Victoria aud New South Wales where it had been held that the AttorneyGeneral had the right to reply. Hiß Honor : I never doubted it. Mr Joynt would like to refer to a case where the matter was reserved for the full Court in New South Wales. Though it was eventually decided in favour of the Attorney-General, some of the English judges, while admitting that there was the right, thought it an exceedingly bad practice, and one that should be strongly objected to. His Honor reaffirmed that here the Attorney General had all the powers and status of an English Attorney-General, Mr Joynt submitted that it would be necessary »o give them by statute. Hie Honor : In that case, there has never been an Attorney-General in New Zealand. It is a matter for the Attorney-Generarto say whether he chooses to use his privilege to reply. It is very rare, I think, in cases where no witnesee? are called in, for the Attoraey General to use his right. Mr J^ynt: Two English judges have said the practice is a very objectionable one. Sir Robert Stout said he could cite cases where it had been held that the AttorneyGeneral ha- the right to reply in all criminal cases. He did not know at present whether he should reply. His Honor : Having raised the point, Mr Joynt, I understand that you leave it undecided at present. Mr Joynt : At this stage of the case — yes. His Honor : The point is new in this colony, and I am not sorry you have mentioned the Attorney • General's claim to the right to reply. As at present advieed, I Bhould not ccc my way to refuse him. That is all I can say at present. The Attorney- General ought to be allowed to sum up if he is not going to reply. The Court then adjourned till this morning at 10 o'clock.