THE DEFENCE.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 175, 23 October 1886, Page 4 (Supplement)

THE DEFENCE.

Mr Joynt'sjaddresa for the defence began at 3 p.m. He asked the jury to approach the consideration of the case from the evidence alone, and not from any prejudice which might un« willingly have been formed in their minds. Ha begged them to dismiss from their minds what* ever they might have heard on this case. At) other thine he must say— that, whilst satisfied with the ■pcrsoymcl of the iury, he mußt beg them to iudge by evidence* alone, and not to be Influenced by any prejudice from anything heard outride, either aa to this casa or any other. There was one matter whioh ho thought most deplorable should have come before the public on the eve of this trial. Hw Honor : I quite agree with you aa to its being reported, not its being done. Mr Joynt : This was done at such a time and. under buch circum^tancea an could not be otherwise limn roont prejudicial to the prisoners. It was. therefore all the more important that the jury should free from their minds all the impression thu^ caused. As to the female prisoner, he was glad that she was to be defended by another gentleman, as his feelings not having the cool temper of the Caledonian would consist so much of indignation that he could not do the caeo justice, which the greater c-thnnesa of his learned friend would ensure. He would first call attention to tbe indictment. Of: all the indictments be had ever seen on each a oharge, this was the most utterly meagre, shallow, and unsatisfactory, and ho would remind the jury that they would bo bound to go by the indictment. The indictment did not say that between certain dates poison, had been administered at various times, but charged one act alone — to that alone the Crown was confined. All the other acts shown in tho evidence were admissable only to show motive and intention. He submitted that the juryj ury must CO- flae themselves to the charge as laid, "That on August 15 the prisoners, or either of them, ad , ministered poison." His Honor: I cannot agree with that. They could prove administering at any time up to that date. The jury could select anyone ot the aots. it was not necessary to prove that the poisoning actually took plaoe ontha 15th August as said. Mr Joynt submitted that they could not go outside the one act as laid. His Honor said he Bhould rule to the jury that if they were satisfied as to the intention, they could find the prisoner guilty, though the date might not be that in the indictment Mr Joynt submitted that the questions beforo the iury were (1) Did the prisoners or either of to em administer a poison to Mrs Hall? (2/ "Was that poi?on antimony? (3) Waa that poison administered with intent to> kill? Here the Orowa Prosecutor, in order td show motive, had crone into evidence foreign to tho caBO. He had attempted to show that, owing to Hall's financial affairs, he htvd committed forgery. Now, let them look at the financial position. They saw that the banks were perfectly satisfied with their security. , The bank had allowed them a credit Qf £8.000, of which £1,000 was represented by bills under disoount, and there were seourities for £5,000 to cover ihe other £4,000. Then the bank in whioh Hall's private account was kept had told them that they were fully secured. This was what his friend called "hopeless insolvency." O£

oourae now, with these criminal oharges hanging the assets of the firm oould not bo realised at aIL Then there were equities of redemption, yet his learned friend told them that' Hall was hopelessly insolvent, and he told them it w*s perfeotly dear that Hall had committed several forgoriea, bat was this -so ? They had not heard one word of defence because it was not their duty to bring evidence on the subject. The jury therefore would not come to the conclusion that Hall had committed forgery, nor were they told that under certain settlements, and hla Wife's will. Hall would be entitled in case of his wife s death to a certain sum of money. Now every man whose wife had insured her life would, if this alone were accepted, live in dread that he might be acoused that he had made away with her. Under a freehold settlement of the principal property it was very doubtful as to how the property would go. Now, if thei c was any truth in the theory of the Crown evolved from Mrs Hamersley's evldeuce as to the tea, they would have to come to the conclusion that Hall was endeavouring to poison his wife before the birth of the ohild which was to bring him considerable riches and pass the property over to a collateral branch of the family. He now came to the story of the arrest. It was more than probable that they would be completely excited. They found that the utterances of these two people under the excitement were thus recorded. The female tirisoner, after puzzling her brains for a while, seemed to think that photography was the only thing for which antimony was used. Hall Baid ke must be very careful under the clrcumStanoea what ho said. The prisoner Hall also had stated that he had made a mixture of nitre tartar emetic and stramonium seeds for asthma. Then there was the evidence of a chemist on the subject, and his recommendation to prisoner to use it, yet they told by the Attorney-General to put this aside because no cigarettes were found with this mixture in them. Then they had this in evidence, that Hall was in the habit of buying drugs and dabbling in chemioala. Bo had things in packets and bottles, and appeared to have been in the habit of making use of then*. The question for them was whether, because he -was buying these chemi :alB, h-j bought them to •administer them to hla wife, and did so administer. The Attorney-Genera) had so nut it to them that the insurance of Woodlands in the name of Cain's oxecut rs was a link in the chain against them. Now the evidence was that Hall had taken the insurance of the office where it was insured for a larger sum, and had put it into the Imperial Office at a lesser sum. Had the charge been o( -arson, no more exculpatory, evidence could have been (riven. The Crown, howevai . had evolved a theory of ira own to the tffiCt thai Hall intended to set fire 10 the house and to burn his wife's body and all record of his guilt. Now he (Mr Joynt) intended briefly to refer to the evidence. (Fhe learned Counsel Sen dealt with evideoce of various witnessed called for the Crown on this point). Were they satisfied that any addition vasmade to the rags in the garrett from the month of May up to the time of arreat. Muoh less, that they were put there by Ha 1. He submitted that they could not. Then would a man who wished to set fire to a houje quickly put a lot of rags into a bagi He:eubmitted not that the evidence for one moment led up to the fact th*t the rags were soaked in kerosene as stated by the Crown. He submitted that it had not for a moment Kirby was close to the little garret door .on the night of the arreat, but he smelt nothing.. Inspector Broham looked in, but smelt nothing. Then Mary Hassen could not say that she smelt anything when she went into the little bedroom alone to the garret door. Could they believe that freshly s*tarated kerosene rags were then , present? On .he following Friday Mr Inspector Broham went into the rojm. and then he got a strong smell of kerosene. Mrs Hameraley went into the room on the Wednesday and got the T smell of kerosene; but did they believe all this was there on the Friday? He said that they could not, and the evidence Proved that they could not be. as the rags would be far more strongly saturated with korpsme on Sunday than on the Wednesday or Hnday. So far. therefore, from the evidence being cogeut that Hall attempted to burn down the house. he said it was decidedly opposed to the praeump tion that he did so. They were asked by the Attorney-General to belteve that the tea taken "by Mrs Hamereley waspoisoned. Now, he asked them to believe that this was not so If Mrs Hamersley's evidence waa to' be relied on. Hall was trying to poison his wife some lime before tbe child was born trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The whole evidence as regards that cuo of tea headache, and the headache had gone, but the bile still remained. It might have been that the tea without milk and sugar, might upset her; but it did not occur either to Mrs Hall nor Mrs Hameraley that the tea had anything to do with r, until after the arrest. Possibly the casting about for evidence against th 9 unfortunate girl might have tended to this, because not a word h*d been said about it at the time It was quite possible that tea without milk and sugar might have upset the stomach, but they hid the fact that for months Mrs Hamersley Jhonght nothing of it. and lie did not think they would for one moment accept her idea Thau they had Nurae Ellison's statement that antimony was bitter, yet they found that Mrs HamQMley did not notice any bitterness, but thore was a stranger thing than this. The child was nos born therefore for the p-isoner to have attempted to poison his wife would have pepn to deprive himself of a chance income arising from the birth of the child. Then as to the oysters. His learned friend had asserted chat the oysters were poisoned, but he .Mr Joynt) said it wa-< a most reckless i assertion, founded only on the B ickneBa of Mrs Hall. Nurae Ellison stated that Mrs Hall was frequently sick without taking anything more than that, the nurse said MrsHallfrequently becacuesickin »he nH;ht. Now of itself, was it evidence which a jury even of children could accept. that because Mrs Hall se'd the oysterswere poisoned that thoy were so in reality? He said it was childieh for the Crown to rely on such evidence as this. They were told that antimony was a bit:er acid matter, involving constriction of the throat, jet they were told that Mra Hall ate four oysters and enjoyed them. Now 1 , could they have been impreanated with colchicum wine? It was colcbicum dissolved in wine and bo one could eat oyßters flavoured with wine without remarking on the peculiarity of the taste which would be sure to result therefrom. They were asked to believe that the symptoms they had heard detailed had arisen from Mrs Hall eating the four oysters which she had ss much enjoyed. Now, let them go back to the question of th^ administering of poison. If they asked him why Hall purchased these poisons, he could not tell them, except that he waa continually dabbling in them. Now the symptom which Mr 3 Hall suffered were described by the medical men a=j not indicative of any known disease, but were indicative of poisoning by antimony. Well, when thev-came to be crossexamined what a lamentable failure they wore. They admitted that in dlseaaes the symptoms miKht oocur, and that complication of disorders might exist. They admitted that constriction of the throat might follow on bile if the bile was concentrated. Then they had evidence that sometime? M-3 liall had this constriction, and sometime* not. So far as the symptoms *wer<i concerned, he did cot think there was muf.h in them. He (Mr Joynt > had drawn attention to a passage on "Taylor" in which cold clammy perspiration was stated as one of the Bymptoms of chronic antimomal poisoning, whereas Dr. Mclntyre bad said Mrs Hall's skin was dry, and that the skin was peeling. Thus he put it to them that they could not Tely on the symptoms. Then they were told that they must assume, .it as a fact that antimony had been administered, but what that analysis did not do was that they did not produce the metal itself, this they ought to have* done. There was no difficulty in reducing tartar emetic back to a state of antimony. It was perfectly simple to be done, am this is what tney should havo done. But what had they done ? Simply produced a certain number of pratty colours, and said: ' Here is antimony." Mr Joynt then went on to quote from the cvi dence of Profeser Black upon the point of the analysis. Thete3t3 produced twice as many colours as the rainbow, and yet they were asked to believe that antimony was present. He asked the jury not to believe these tests. The expert could, if they nad bo wished, produced the metal antimony. Why did they not do so 1 What did they find ? That Professor Black and Dr. Ogston had no respect for Taylor, and yet the Attorney-Genera In opening had stated that Taylor was looked on as the best authority on the adminsltration of poisons and their symptoms. It waa not contended that chemist science wasinfallible or that it was not undergoing mutations, therefore he Baid it was by no means a strange straining of possibilities when he put ie to them that the tests whioh were to-day regarded as thoroughly reliable would be ooked upon as not so. If tbey wished to prove antimony as being present to the iury they oustht to have produced the metal. The only point on which the Crown thought they had proof that Hall adminfstered poison to his wile was the 15th August ; and he would ask the jury to refer lo the evidence of Nurse Ellison to consider the question. The Attorney-General had said that on the Sunday morning Hail had -put poison with the ice ; that he had given this water to his wife to drink ; and that had it not been for the large quantity of antimony administered, which made her eject it, he would have been tried for the murder of his wife. Ntow, let them go through the details. The lady was ill in bed, the jug of ic«- water was .on a table by her side, and in the oup was some ice water which the nurse gave her to wet har lips on the Sunday morning the nurse had put the cud on the dressing-table where it remained. (Mr Joynt here nuoted from the evidence of the nurse). The Attorney-General had

said that Hall had given his wife poisoned ioe water, bat would she not have complained whnn Hall was in the roon. The Attorney-General's theory was tbat Hall oamo into the room with a phial of tartar emetic, dilated, and that he poured thin into the oup, and oho drank it. How oonld the evioonoe bear that oonfitruqtion. He said it would not Mrs Hall would* not require the ioe water at r all, because she had the jug with ioe on the top close by, and the cud was out of her reach. The evidenoe was that she complained to her her husband when he came in, and he submitted that it anything had been given to her by him when he was present she would not have done this. That was the evidence no far of tbre administration of poison by Hall to his wife, on 15th August, as laid in the indiotment. The Attorney-General wished them to believe that Hall administered a very large done of poison to his wife, and that it'was only by her throwing it off that she was saved. Now unfortunately for this theory, the evidence of the nurse was that Mrs Hall did not throw off any lar^e amount. On the contrary, she throw off so little that she had to mis it with another portion which she throw off later on. It was marvellous that Mra Hall had not been put into the wiineaa-box to Bneak as to what actually did take place. Tne Attorney-General had gravely informed them th*t he wanted tooallas witness everyone who oould speak to any of the facts. There was only one person except the prisoner (and his mouth was closed) who oould speak to the facts from beginning to end, and that person had not been called. The law was that where a husband had done a wrong to hit* wife she was a perfectly competent witness. The Attorney-Uencral : Kitho*- for or against. •Mr Jornt said had he put Mra Hall in to, the witness box, his learned friend would have objected. He submitted that it was incumbent on the Crown to call Mrs Hall, who would, of courso, havo been compelled to give evidence in fcbe in terest of justice.j ustice. It w%s the duty of tho Crown to put tjhat lady in the witness box, And allow her to tell her own story from beginning to end. Was there anything to show that she would be an unwilling witness. From the glimpse of her mind that they had had, it seemed that she was most anxious to trace out this crime which she believed to have been committed against her. They found it was Mrs Hall who suggested tho idea about the oysters being poisoned. In conversation with Mrs Hamersloy it was she who had evolved from her inner conscience the cup of poisoned toa, and it was she who had got Mrs Hammersloy to look for the flask which wag supposed to contain poisoned brandy, but which, fortunately for the female prisoner could not have been, because the flask was found and if it had contained poison it would havo been produced at the trial. Mrs Hall was anxious to trace^ this crime io its proper source, and ho asked the jury to say whether in the interests of the Crown —that meant in the intcros of public justice and of tho prisoner. She ought to have boon called. Another circumstance with regard to the ice water was not satisfactory, and it was this. "When given by Mrs Ellison to those doctors it had a glass stopper, while now it had a cork. Another curious circumstance was that Dr Lovegrove had not been called. Not only was he one of the consultants on the 12th, but tho senior consultant. As the Crown had made their examination so exhaustive they should have called all witnesses who knew anything whatever about the ease With regard to the colchioura, the evidence showed that colohicum had not beon administered, so it could not be taken into account except as no intention. If Hall had attempted to poison the brandy would he have persistently denied its impurity and then offer to drink somo of it himself. His action in so doing was sufficient to make the Jury infer that ho did not poison it for an iniection as the Crown Suggested then it was a pure assumption on the Eart of the Attorney-General that tho wine had eon poisoned at all. The defence was that it had been severally tampered with cither by jalop or otherwise with a view to breaking the servant, Mary Hassen, off drinking wine. There wag evidence that Mrs Hall suspected this pnrl of drinking wine and there was colour for believing that Hall too suspected it. Approaching the matter as men of sense was Hall's conduct with regard to the wine such as to lead them to say that the decanter had been placed there for the deliberate purpose of poisoning his wite. Surely if there had been anything of a guilty nature pertaining to the decanter Hall would not have spoken through the telephone, naming Miss Houston iv the presence of a J.P. Such conduct was clearly contrary to the idea of a guilty man. (At this stage, (5.30 p.m.) Mr Joynt said he would be from an hour to an hour and a half yet before completing his address, and the Court adiourned till ten o'clock next day. Mr Joynt is certainly making the best of his case, and he speaks in good style. His suggestion as to tho tests was however a bold .one, and tho conduct of the jury at this stage showed that he had not succeded in breaking down the expert testimony on that point. On resuming to-day, Mr Joynt wished His Honor to direct the jury that there was no evidence that poison was taken into the stomach, and that therefore there was no administering. His Honor simply laughed at the suggestion. Mr Joynt then cited a case. His Honor interrupting, said that the authoutiea cited were entirely irrevelant to the case. Mr Joynt— l am submitting my authorities to the jury. His Honor : Pardon me ; you were submitting them to them, and asking me to direct. Mr Joynt : On the legal aspect of the case. His Honor : With regard to this point I shall not direct the jury at all. Mr Joynt said he «ould not do more than ask the Court to so direct the jury. Resuming his comments on the evidence, the learned counsel said the domestics were called to suggest unchastity and immorality on the part of the prisoners — an imputation which had been proved to be entirely without foundation. Miss Houston had been described as modest, retiring, and ladylike ; and yet the jury were asked to believe that she had boldly walked into the dining-room and aeked Hall to fasten her stays. JJe invited the jury to discredit this evidence entirely, and to believe that it had been manufactured by the girl Hassen, because she had been charged with pilfering wines. The cvi dence of Jeannie Turnbull was also given with a strong bias, and he asked the jury to reject this testimony as utterly worthhless, and evidence of a moat depraved mind given with the deliberate intention to ruin the female prisoner. In Watkina's chemist shop all the mixtures were compounded, yet, strange to say, Mr Watkins was not called. The Attorney-General : Mr Watkins is dead. (Laughter.) Mr Joynt said there was was no evidence that the drugs, in being compounded, did not contain deleterious matters. Was it not more likely that medicines would contain a better drug like antimony than the food ? If farinaceous food were made the vehicle of an astringent substance the bitter taste would probably have been detected by Nurse Ellison. Witheut imputing anything to Watkins shop, he said i the jury had no right to assume that the drugs obtained from that establishment were chemically pure. Coming to Hall's coni duct, it was plain that he purchased all his l poisons openly in Timaru, and the asaer- ; tionsbe made for their use had not been , disproved. Hutton, the bookseller, from I whom " Taylor on Poisons " was alleged ■ I to have been purchased by Hall, I had posed before tho jury ao the ! buffoon of the case. If his evidence , was to be relied on, Hall, by making a 1 false entry in the book at the time, was 3 manufanturing evidence against himself l The learned counsel asked the jury io look J on the witness as a man who was half 7 buffooa and half malicious, Moreover, was t it not more probable that Hutton had 0 consigned the ladies to perdition, and not '*■ Hall. According to Professor Black's \ evidence, antimony was the most easily 1 detected of all poisons, and was it likely | that the prisoner, with this book on the I* subject in his possession', would resort to c antimony to poison his wife? The nurse >* gave the medicines to the patient, and q surely if any poison were administered c with the medicines it could not have \v been by tho prisoner Hall. Coming to lt Hall's confepaion, he pointed out that I", the evidence of police officers aB a rule ,d showed the intention to colour and strain,

without perhapa the intention bo to do, and some allowance should be made for thePwords of those getting up a prosecution and endeavouring to' secure a conviction. , At the. time of his arrest appearances certainly looked ' againftt Hall. Seeing the evidence of poison around him, it was probable the words he used were :— *' You, Miss Houston, are all right. I cannot possibly get out of these suspicious evidences against me." Such statements were made hastily, under feelings of strong excitement, 'and were not to be taken as deliberate evidence of guilt. Could the jury believe all the prisoner's acts of solicitude towards his wife went to show not only that he intended to kill her, but that he was a gross hypocrite as well. Early in July, before thi-re was any suspicion of foul play, Hall asked Nurse Ellison to save some of her execretion for purposes of analysis. Thia was the first suggestion as to the advisability of an analysis. Was such conduct consistent with guilt Dr. MeIntyre, anxious to have all the kudos, said that he alone had first suggested the various conultations held. Nurse Ellison, who was an impartial witness, had, on the other hand, said that Hall suggested the firat consultation. Seeing that Dr.JStackpole was a friend of Hall's fomily, was it not more reasonable that Hall, suggested him as' co - consultant rather than Dr. Mclntyre? As to the final consultation,' neither Dr- Drew nor Dr. Mclntyre had the manliness to suggest to Dr. Lovegrove what their suspicions were. The latter, though the senior consulatfoniste, was allowed by his associates to grope in' the dark, and in not communiqatfng to him their suspicions the other two were guilty of the grossest direliction of duty, and of the grossest dishonesty as professional men. Hali's conduct in sending the vomit and urine to Drs. Lovegrove and Mclntyre was inconsistent with guilt. Throughout he had courted analysis, and blamed Dr. Mclntyre for inattention. Instead of wanting to destroy his wife he was anxious for continual consultations, ani blamed his family physician for ouly paying perfunctory visits. In conclusion, the learned Counsel said he could repeat his reflections on the attitude of the Crown in not calling Mrs Hall. She alone could have spokee to her feelings and symptoms, and the Grown, in the interests of public justice, were absolutely bound for the purpose of the prosecution, to bring forward every piece of available information on which they could lay their hands. The Crown had been wanting in their duty in not having called Mrs Hall. They had not to con eider any *eelings or compassion on her part for those charged with her attempted murder, but they did not put her into the box, and no explanation lor her absence was offered except the scoff of the Attorney General, that she might have been called by the defence. The case was impregnated with mystery, and no doubt there were circumstances which on the surface showed guilt on Hall's part ; but there were also circumstances beneath the surface which showed innocence, and these circumstances certainly predominated. Considering Hall's genial conduct and the main springs of his action, the jury could come to no other conclusion than that Hall was entitled to acquittal. The Crown were to blame for the doubts existing as to the alleged administration of poison by him. Had Mrs Hall been called she would have given a complete narrative of the events — when they occurred, and how they occurred —of her feelings and symptoms, and what had taken place on every occasion between herself and her husband. If guilty she would have sheeted the offence home to him. The Crown in not calling her had been gruilty of gross direlection of duty, and in her absence there must be gravest doubt with regard to the administration on the Sunday morning charged on the indictment. With regard to the_ other dates there wae no evidence of administration. He invited the jury to say that the case was surrounded with so much doubt and uncertainty that they could not possibly arrive at a verdict of poisoning against the prisonera, or against either of them. He atked at thoir hands a verdict of acquittal against Hall.