FRIDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 175, 23 October 1886, Page 5 (Supplement)

FRIDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

TnE feature of to-day's evidence was of course the examination of the expert wit nesses, who were called to Bpeak as to the results of the analytical teats made by them, and describe the steps they took in arriving at the results. The gentlemen were Professor Black and Dr. Ogaton, the former recounting the narrative of his refusal to take delivery of a box sent to him, and which, to his great chagrin, he soon afterwards learned contained two bottles from Dr, Mclntyre in connection wi*h the case. The carrier demanded carriage on the case. This gives a very good idea of the troubles of a public analyst, the constant worry to which he is subjected by being pestered with applications to analyse all sorts and conditions of things without authority and without payment. When the Attorney General asked the witness if he hadbeen careful about the nature of his analytical matters the professorial dignity asserted itself, and the Court was informed that the question was absurd ; purity of the chemicals was the elementary part of the analysis. An important answer was elicited, by Mr Joynt, viz., that antimony was not necessarily poison, and the leader for the Crown said he might have to ask for an amendment of the information by the substitution of the words "tartaricof " before "antimony." Professor Black does not seem to entertain a high opinion of Taylor, the authority on poisons, of whom so much has been said during the last few days, and whose opinion was quoted to all the medical witnesses, and he informed Mr Joynt that it was only out of respect to his colleague (Dr. Ogston) that he had consented to follow Taylors method. Witness roundly stigmatised Taylor as antiquated. Dr, Ogston gave strong confirmatory evidence as to the results of the tests, and said that so far as Taylor was concerned he had no regard for him as a toxicologist, though he had tor him as a chemipt. Both the scientific gentlemen effectively disposed of the male prisoner's assertion that he used antimony for cigarettes, and that he took morphia for sciatica. The scientific witnesses disposed of, the Crown turned its attention to another branch of. the case —incident of' the cup of tea, and the sudden vomiting which Mrs Hamersley was shortly afterwards subjected to. This lady told us how she was cautioned either by Hall or Miss Houston that the cup was intended for Mrs Hall, as it had neither milk nor sugar, that she heeded

not their remarks,*' she swallowed, ita contents, and within half-a-hour retched dreadfully. Of course the inference waB that this sudden vomiting was induced by drinking . doctored tea, intended for the patient ; but in cross examination Mrs Hamersley admitted that she did not associate her sickness with the. tea till after the arrest, and so that incident was got rid of. The witness further stated that at the time she discovered kerosene in the garret she had gone into Hall's room to search for the flask from which Houston had given Mrs Hall some brandy on tho day she was out driving, because ail the bottles at the time of the search (immediately after the arrest) were supposed to contain poison. In ten minutes Mr Joynt had done to ore for his case with this witness than he had been able to do with the whole of the other witnesses together. The chemists who sold antimony or tartar emetic to Hall, Wm. Gunn, Chas. B Eichbaum, and Wm. Salik, were then shortly examined; but the only new fact elicited waa that Hall was subject to asthma, for which he had purchased morphia, alleging that he injected it. Then camethe bookseller from whom works on medicines had been obtained by the prisoner, The first of these was P. W. Hutton, from, whom "Headland's Action of Medicine V, was purchased. The prisoner on March 3rd, 1885, went into the witness's shop and asked for a book which would give some information on antimony. Subsequently he borrowed "Taylor on Poisons," and eventually a month after purchased the book. Before leaving the shop ho made entries on first and last pages. These now proved to be "T. Hall, 1882,'J and T. Hall, Dunedin, 1882 " During the cross-examination of this witness the Court was convulsed with laughter. Hutton said that shortly after selling Taylors work h« had a slight argument with prisoner in reference te an account owing by Mrs Newton. Hall used language which he (wituess) should be sorry to repeat in Court. Mr Joyat persisted in knowing what the actual words were, The witness appealed for protection, saying it would be contempt of Court to repeat them. His Honor said it would be contempt if he did not repeat them, and the witness, after looking away towards the seats reserved for the ladies, as if he regretted having 10 usa what he conceived to be revolting language in their presence, mildly said, " Damn the ladies." I am sorry I have been compelled to repeat the words. When Hall said "Damn the ladies," I made a I sharp retort and said that I would not allow the üße of any language of that sort, and added, " If you say ' Damn the ladies,' I say • the gents.' " That was all, and we quarrelled. Mr Joynt : Are you a married man ? Witness ; I am. Hie Honor : And that is the language you thought would be contempt of Court ? Witness • Yes. Hrs Honor : Your acquaintance with the Court must be somewhat little. You are a perfect specimen of gallantry, I can assure you. (Laughter.) Mr Joynt : What did Hall then say ? WitneßS : He said, '• Mr Hutton, sendiup your account, and I will pay it." I said, "Yes, I will." Mr Joynt : Now, why did you want Mr Hall to pay Mrs Newton's account? Hutton : Because he was her brother-in-law, and, I believe, her trustee. He said he would nob advise her to pay it, as he did not think she was liable for a debt contracted by her husband for educational books while she had not the control of the children. I said the best part of it waß for what Mrs Newton had purchased herself. Mr Joynt : Thenyou did not say, " Damn such ladies as Mrs Newton ?" Witness: No Mr Joynt : I suppose you never use such language as that ? Witness : I hope not. Mr Joynt : Well, generally speaking, when ft man says he hopes not, I imagine that he does. Did you use this language ? Witness (most emphatically) : Excuse me, I did not, The two following witnesses were called in the Court below to give their evidence fully. Edwin Cotter, late gaoler at Timaru, was the last witness called to- day. This was the officer who received a letter written by the female prisoner while in the lock-up te Hall, and which he destroyed for some reason which he has since been unable to account for At tha preliminary investigation, his conduct with respect to that Tetter was severely animadverted on, and as a result he resigned his position. Cotter now gave the following evidence : At the time of the arrest of the prisoners he was gaoler. A day or two afterwards he saw on the desk of his private office a letter addressed to Mrs Thos. Hall, Woodlands, and another on the back of a telegraph* envelope, addressed to " Mr T. Hall." He read the letter and kept it for some time, showing it to Mr Howley, clerk, to the R.M. Courr, Timaru ; after that witness destroyed it. He thought he remembered the whole contents of it. It began : "Dear Tommy Dod, I should like very much to see you. I have not asked yet, and it is contrary to the rules. Cheer up, Monday will soon be here. Is not this dreadful weather ? If it does not clear up soon we shall have to make Noah build another* ark." It wound up, "Ever yours, Megrims, ' and by way of postscript — I have been writing to Kitty this afternoon.' At this time it had been raining for a whole week. The witness was then put through his iacingß by Mr Hay : " Can you say how long you had the letter before you destroyed it." "It might be a week." " Did you carry it about in your pocket?" "I kept it on my person till I destroyed it." His Honor :. " Was it destroyed before the first hearing" i before the Magistrates?" "I cannot say." ! "Where did Mr Howley see the letter?" In Judge Ward'B office. I destroyed it after ehowing it to Mr Bowley." " You are an old police officer, Mr Cotter?" "Yes." "Do you usually destroy communications like this?" "No." "What msdeyoudo it?" "I don't know." " Was it because you thought the letter was an innocent one?" ** I did not think it was so important until afterwards." "Are you sure of the words of the letter ?" " Yes ; I took a note a day or two after I destroyed it. I gave Mr White a copy of it," " The expression 'dear Tommy Dod' was in it?" "Yes." The writing of a few words, "I have written to Kitty. I received a letter fiom her this afternoon." No, in.the postscript, it said, "I have been writing to Kitty as a matter of fact." "Miss Houston had received a letter from Mrs Hall ?" " She may have, but I don't know." "Do you remember, now, when I put this letter into your hand, that Mies Houston did receive one?" "No, it is in Mrs Hall's handwriting." " Did the letter to Hall not say, 'I have told her (meaning Mrs Hall) that I will write you a few lines."' " No, I do not remember those words." " You destroyed the letter because there was nothing in it ?" " Well, no, not distinctly ; I cannot say why I did so." Before adjourning, the Attorney- General, in answer to the Court, said he had 17 or IS witnesses more to examine. The Attorney-General, having stated he hoped to complete his case to-morrow evening, the Court rose.