THE TRIAL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1498, 12 October 1886, Page 2

THE TRIAL.

At the Supreme Court, Christchurch, yesterday, before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston aud a special jury, Thomas Hall and Margaret Graham Houston were arraigned on an indictment charging them with having attempted to poison Kate Emily Hall, wife of the male prisoner, by administering poison to her oa the 15th day of August last. The greatest interest was taken in the trial, and the Court was crowded. Both prisoners were looking very unwell. The female prisoner was allowed to sit down, but Hall had to eland.

The Crown was represented by Sir Robert Stout, Attorney General; Mr J. W. White, Crown Prosecutor, Timaru; and Mr W. Martin, Crown Prosecutor, Christchurch ; and the prisoners were defended by Mr T. L. Joyot and Mr C; T. H. Perry, for Hall, and Mr J. Hay, for' Houston. " ' '■ :n'

The Attorney-General opened the'caßft by first referring to the form of the indictment. The case the Crown undertook to prove was a very serious and grave one, the prinonera with administering poison to Kate Emily Hall with intent to kill and murder her. It might be impossible to prove that the poison had actually been given by one prisoner, but this vas not necessary, and if the 'Crown -cont'd prove poison had been administered no more was necessary. It was necessary to present a mass of circumstances in such a case in order that the jury might determine whether, if poison had been administered, it was not given accidentally. Though appearing for the Crown he did not wish them to find a verdict against the accused unless they were clearly satisfied of their gailt. They had no right to assume guilt because Rail was accused of other crimes. Surrounding circimstances, however, would be tiken into account to explain certain matter which would otherwise be mysterious. ' It would be proved thnt Hall was in partnership with a Mr Meason and that the firm was bankrupt. Since his arrest the firm had been declared bankrupt. It was supposed their accounts would show a deficiency of £SOOO. lEUII had no money of his own, there was no way of escape from his difficulties, and he had been guilty of forgeries in order to . get ouf of his difficulties. This was the man's position. What relief would the death of his wife have been to him under the circumstances? The Crown assumed that by the death of Kate Emily Hall he would have obtained a sum of £9OOO. It was right to say he would have lost an annual income of £250, which would have gone to someone else, but the Crown assumed that to a person in difficulties the obtaining of large lump sum wouid be of more importance than retaining an income of between £2OO land £3OO a year. Though the motives were proved the jury were not to assume there from that an attempt had been made to murder Mrs Hall. The symptoms of Mrs Hall's confinement were not consistent with any known disease, but were consistent with poisoning by autimony or colchicum. It must be remembered that often all that the Crown had to present to the jury were the symptoms of the person supposed to be poisoned. Fortunately for th 9 sake of justice, the Crown did not have to rely solely on symptoms in this case—unfortunately, at all events for the male prisoner, the evidence of the presence of antimony, and that this lady had taken antimony, was clear. On August ] 5 th Mrs Hall was exceeding'y sick after she had taken ice water, and Lr Maclntyre came to the conclusion that she had taken antimony in it. He then took steps to have the prisoners arrested. This ice water had been analysed* and it had been found to con-

tain abundance of antimony eight grains to the ounce. Antimony was also found in abundance in the vomit, stools, and urine of the name day. These were signs which allowed that the poison wag working out of the system. The medioa! gentlemen would tell the fury that it was the nbundance of antimony wbiuli had prevented Mrs Hall from being murdered. Hid the doses been lest d°rth would have resulted. He would be able to prove that Hall had purchased poison. He would caution the jury that supposing no evidence of the porcbese of poison by prisoner had been that could not be taken ak evidence of his innocence—there were opportunities of obtaining poison in this Or otheT'Co'onies, But there was clear and'conclusive evidence that the male prisoner had purchased antimony in quantities, and also colchicum, from several chemists. For what purpose did he buy these poisons ? It was remarkable that there appearad to be a connection bet ween Mrs Hall's illness, and the purchase of poison. The evidence showed that she was suffering from an irritant poison, and that her symptoms were intermittent. It was a strange fact that every purchase of poison, whether antimony or colchicum, was followed within a few days by fresh manifestations of irritaut poisoning, Did not rrthis throw light on the subject? It *as for the jury to say what connection there was between the two.' There ' was n also that about the same time!Hall purchased two books on poison. It had Dot'been laid in the indictment that calchicum was administered on August 15th, but the jury had a right to take into consideration the supposition of colchicum poisoning as bearing on the charge. The symptoms of poisoning by colchicum, and antimony were so much alike tbnt it could not he told from which the patient was suffering. On one occasion the doctor had arranged that Mrs Hall was to receive no food, bat only ice water and injections of [brandy, and a bottle of brandy was procured for the purpose. This brandy was afterwards analysed, and found to contain colchicum. It would be for the jury; to say who put that colchicum there. , He asked the jury to judge impartially Hall's con* duct at the time of the arrest, /_• His endeavor to conceal the antimony he had in his possession ; his conduct when bis wife wasi 11—playing billiards at his.cjublate at night when she was: trembling between life and death; The first; fact showing connection of the female prisoner, wit,h the base was that happening on'June 26th, 1886. The nurse attending Mrs Hall had given her" on'-"- June2s(h two oysters, which "she " relished, 1 and (which agreed with her. On June 26tb, in the evening, Miss Houston brought in four oysters, which she said she had picked out herself, and which Mrs Hall ate Immediately after eating these Mrs Hall was seized with all the,.symptom» of poisoning by antimony, f On'(August 15th the cup and muslin used for the ice water was taken possession of by Miss Houston. The cup had been washed. What had become of the muslin I On Hall's arrest she went to his assistance. Then again Miss Houston volunteered the suggestion that Hall used antimony for experiments in photography. The evidence would be produced to prove that antimony was never; used/inf/photo"' graphy, l Shehad told the nurse that Dr Stackpoole said she (Miss Houston) was to administer food, and not the nurse. The nurse declined at first to allow her to do so, but she did press it. ( , Dr Stackpoole would say that he never gave Miss Houston any such instructions. (Mr Hay : We have no notice of this.) As to the relations between the prisoners he would say frankly that there was no evidence of what was termed criminal intercourse, but there was no'doubt they were on familiar terms. They'Seemed to consult'each other and drive!out together. I'Btfrange to ! say, he took her to a ball when hi»w,ife^as,thought, to be,dying. She seemed conscious of what he was doing, and he of what she was" doing. There was a greater intimacy than was to be expected between master and lady-help. Were Miss ; Houston the person to whom Hall was"/ talking through'"the telephone when Mr Kerr overheard him, she must have had a knowledge that certain wine had been poisoned. Hall said that, this win* bad been doctored in order lq catch Mary Hassen. In reply it would be proved that Hall had the keys of the place where the wine was kepc and that the girl was not given to drink. It would be proved, though it was strictly not necessary in the case, that Hall had made careful preparations to burn down, his house with its contents, and perhaps the dead body of his wife, and so do away with the evidence of his guilt. He had done bis duty in opening the cast and now asked the jury to do theirs—to give their verdict with the evidence, setting aside nil. feeling one way or the other. The', ; Attorney• General concluded a- speech of great power, in which: he,had almost entirely avoided any ' declamation, by exhorting the jury to perform their duty faithfully as good citizens. . • Chas. Barnes "^hands',' Government Staff Surveyor,'produced flans' 1 of 5 Woodlands, where the prisoners and Mrs Hall had lived *■''

Mr White: endearored to get in a proof of Hall's bankruptcy, but Mr Joyot objected th»t this was an after fact. The Judge, ruled that it could not be admitted yet. Arthur Steadman, manager of the Batik of New South Waloa, Timnru, deposed that Hall and Meason had an account there. Prisoner Hall did the, business. At the time of his arrest, ho'w*,B overdrawn about £BOOO. .In June 1885 Hall gave the Bank a promissory note for £650 signed "E. H. Cameron." ThU was afterwards retired, as was also ..another signed " John Fraser" for £150: jn, July, He also referred to other promisdqi'y notes which, it is understood, would tie' shown to be forgeries and formed tbe"basis of twelve charges of forgery ;upon : which Hall had been

R. S. Black, Inspector of jtbe; National Bank, Tiraarn, another witness,-, deposed that Hall was in a pecuniarily embarrassed state. lie said that in August last the private account Hall kept at this Bank was overdrawn £617. 1» cross-e'xamina-tioo he said that the bank held securities for the overdraft. ■•■' > ! : '< * ,;

Michael Mitton, Manager Mount Peol Station ; John Hansen, shepherd at Mackenzie Country ; W. M. Sims,' accountant, Arthur Ormsby, solicitor ; and William Davidson, insurance agent, gave evidence similar to that advanced at Timaru, »Ed the Court udjournsd at 4.35