THE TIMARU POISONING CASES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1502, 21 October 1886, Page 2

THE TIMARU POISONING CASES.

SUPREME COURT, OHRISTCHUROH. [Before. His Honor Mr Justice Johnston], EIGHTH DAY-TUESDAY. The cise against Thomas Hall and Margaret Graham Houston was resumed on Tuesday morning at 10 a.m. . Mr Joynt continued his address to the jury. He said the jury must be satisfied that the poison was administered by the prisoners, and that it was taken into the stomach. He referred at length to the evidence of Mary Hassen and Jeannie Turnbull, contending that it was at variance with facts, and characterised that of the former with regard to the tightening of Miss Houston's stays as a filthy Imputation. He held that the evid<sg went to show that whatever deleterious had been administered to Mrs Hall had been administered in the shape of medicine. The Crown had not shown Hi at the drugs were pure, and, considering how hugely drugs were adulterated, it was for the jury to satisfy their minds that the drugs were what they were represented to be. He ridiculed Hutton'a evidence, and dealing with the poison said to be administered asked the jury to consider whether, with such books on Poisons as Hall had at his disposal, it was likely that Hall would have selected antimony—a poison easily detected, and one that would remain in a body long after death. Certainly he would not. He asked the jury to look on the utterance of the police as highly colored. He held that it was shown that it was H«)l who first suggested an analysis of Mrs Hall's evacuations, etc., and it was Hall that got Dr Stacpoole to visit his wife, not Dr Maclntyre. He held it had been proved that Dr Maclntyre had not been a careful paintaking doctor. He held that it had been proved that Hall was a iroet devoted and attentive husband, and in concluding blamed the Crown for not calling Mrs Hall, and said that they had utterly failed to prove a case of any kind against bin client. He admitted that the case was pregnane with mystery—was so full of doubt and mystery, not cleared up by the CrowD, that the jury could rot find a verdict of guilty against them. He therefore asked them to givo a verdict of acquittal.

Mr Hay thfiti addressed the jury on behalf of Mis* Houston in a very able, searching, and lengthy address, and asked not timely for an acquittal but a vindication of character, as instead ? of being one of the basest of women she Was one of the purest and beet. Speaking of the arrest, he sud Miss had been arrested on a theory, a theory of falsehood—that she, on account of her illicit affection for Hall,, had taken part in his plans. This was not proved, and the evidence of the. wretched--womeOj Turnbull and Hassen, bad been simply led to malign his client's character, and' ruin ber reputation. With regard to the oysters, he asked th 6 jury to believe the nurse's evidence—that Mrs Hall suffered from eating too many of them. He held it had not been shown that the Oysters had been poisoned, ri and even hajd'tjj'ey, been they might have been po'isoffM without Miss Houston knowing anything about it. With regard to the "cup of tea episode," he asked the jury to believe, as he contended it had been shown, that Mrs Hamersley having a headache already had eaten too freely of the pukaki, and had made herself ill.' Regarding Miss Houston's exclamation, ("Antimony, that's what you use for your photography," he said it was only a natural and true one, knowing, as she did, of Hall's dabbling in amateur photography. Her interference was also easily explained. No interference really took place. : Mr Broham could not swear that she had got hold of him or that she hai' i taken hold of Hall. The whole facts of the interference clearly showed that his client was no accomplice of Hall's in hie alleged crime. Had she been one she would have put the cork at once into the fire and obliterated all traces of the powder seen plainly lying on the'hearth ru j. With regard to the flask of brandy, it had been analysed and proved to be pure. He asked the jury to look at the letter written by Miss Houston to Hall while in gaol, or at the sworn consuls ofit, and to see it in the light of a letter written by one of the most kind -hearted of girls to a man who was looking extremely unhappy, a letter written to cheer him up, the wording showing, as Mr Mathiis had said, a very keen sense of the humorous. The spirit of its sentences showed that they were written not by a bold, impudent woman, but by a kind-hearted girl. He denounced the story about the stays as a deliberate falsehood. The short facts of the case were that Miss Houston was wearing a ball dress on that occasion, and that it laced up the back. She dressed in rather a hurry, and en coming into the drawingroom Hall noticed that the dress was not properly laced, and he H once volunteered to tighten it for her. The whole of Hassen's evidence on this point was prompted by pure spite, pure malice, and pure vindictiveness, and was like the statement about the tea—a wretched trumped up story. In concluding he, asked the jury was it likely that Hall would marry a penniless girl, or was it likely that Miss Houston, if she knew that Hall was doing the dreadful crime he stood charged with, would ever dream of marrying a man like him ? His Honor at 1.50 p.m. proceeded to sum up, and said that it was not necessary for him to impress upon them the responsibility whicii rested upon them, for no citizen would hold a higher position than he who was a member of a tribunal, having on the one hard the care of public justice, and on the other.tbe liberty of the subject. His Honor regretted that the indictment had not been drawn differently, as the legal argument which had prolonged the trial need not have taken piace. He came to the cpn-„ elusion, both on the evidence of experts and non-experts, that both in vulgar parlance and amongst scientific people they spoke of poisoning by tartar emetic as poisoning by antimony. This being so he came to the conclusion that he could not reserve the point, and he would direct 1 them that it would be sufficient to support the, indictment if they were satisfied that there was an attempt to administer poison. Then came the : question, it being established that somehow or other poison was administered to Mrs Hall, by whom was it administered 1 The theory of the Crown was that the administration was by the prisoners—either or both of them. Now as to the administration, it was not necessary to prove it dirsctly. The evidence in this case was that the poison had been administered over a long period. If they believed that Hall administered poison (antimony) to his wife, he must, having in view the motive, have been consideied to have contemplated her death. Now let him dissociate Hall and Miss Houston. He would point out that th 6 theory for the prosecution was that Hall had had a notion to get rid of his wife as there was the prospect of; receiving a large sum of money on her death. If they were satisfied that this motive existea, then they must read Hall's conduct by this light. Theresas no case made out of preference for Miss Houston over his wife, but they had to consider whether it was consistent with the evidence to believe that he, had in his mind the death of his wife a,* a means of obtaining her money. He now came to , Hall's conduct at the arrest. Was it consistent with his being' an innocent man? He said that whatever he had done was hit own act, and all bis language was perfectly inconsistent with his innocence, as he said when the book was found tliat he supposed that would tell against him. Then there was'the incident at the police station, when Hall used language which showed that Miss Houston had nothing to do with it, but that he had, and that it was impossible to get out of it. Was this the language of an innocent man ? He left it to them to say. As to the alleged intended arson and the cup of tea spoken of by Mrs Hamersley, His Honor thought the jury could not come to the conclusion that there was anything in them. Speaking of Miss Houston, His Honor said that a great dea' of. evidence had been given to endeavor to show that there' was a strong passion existing between the prisoners, and that ho wanted to get rid of his wife to marry this woman. Was there a tittle of evidence to prove this ? He thought not, nor was there the slightest foundation for saying that Miss Houston e\er entertained the idea of becoming Hall's wife or his mistress. A woman of such fair character, and of such kindly disposition, what motive had she to become a partner of this crime 1 Had one single motive been alleged. But more than thic, as men of sense he asked them was there a necessity for having an , accomplice at all, Hall had every oppor-

tanity of administering poison himself, and even supposing they had been immoral ly conneoted—which was not the case —what need bad he by making her.an accomplice to furnish evidence against himself 1 The only grouad of suspicion against Miss Houston was her language and action at the arreßt; but they had to consider the evidence on this question, and they would see that the worda might be used in a way that might mean anything. It would be for, the jury to say what interpretation they would put on it. With regard to the four oysters, he said this to them, that it was quite inconsistent ffith the evidence that she poisoned them, but it was consistent with the evidence that Hall i did so. Could they see any evidence to prove that it was as easy for her to poison them as for Hall to do so ? Besides, it must be remembered that Hall Carried poison about with him. Now he had summarised the evidence to them. If they were-of opinion that beyond reasonable doubt the prisoners Were guilty of the crime, then they were bound:to find a verdict against them. If, on tie contrary, they thought there was a reasonable doubt in their minds, then they were bound to give the prisoners the benefit of that doubt.. The jury retired at 3.10 p.m.. and returned at 3.17 p.m. with their verdict. His Honor, who had also retired, resumed his seat on the Bench. ; t'„In answer to the usual question) the foreman of the jury said : We find "the. prisoner Thomas Hall "guilty," and the! prisoner Margaret Graham Houston M not guilty." Can we, Your Honor, add anything to that verdict] ■'■ His Honor: I shull not object to you making any statement, Mr Foreman.' : The Foreman : Then the jury wish to state that they are unanimously of opinion that Margaret Graham Houston ' leaves the Court without a stain or blemish on her character. \ <th ;.■<., The announcement was received!with a murmur of applause. His Honor : Mr Attorney-General, is there any other charge against Miss Houston % . ,■ i hi The Attorney-General : jsoj. your Honor. His Honor: Margaret Graham Houston, you are discharged. Mr Registrar, please charge the prisoner, Thomas Hall.; ' The Registrar: Prisoner at the.bar,, have you anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon you I ! Mr Joynt: Your Honor, ( as a ! special jury was appointed to consider the! charge of poisoning, a general verdict brought in on the several counts of the indictment is not a good one. i His Honor : The only course, Mr Joynt that you can have in reference jto this point, is to move in error.'.'.; It cannot be taken as in arrest of judgment. i , Mr Joynt:. TJ nder these circumstances, Your Honor, I will aot press the point. THE SENTENCE. j His Honor: Prisoner at the I bar, — After a long and patient investigation, the jury have come to the conclusion which at once satisfies the ends of public {justice, and'• ensures the "protection of persons accused, but _not guilty. The cHme of which you have been convicted ijj one cf the most inhuman and most detestable crimes that one has ever read or,heard of. You were a young man, recently married to a young wife ; that young wife was the mother of your first child. She was a woman whom you treated, in the world's eye, with all the consideration and respect due to her. She was a woman whose bed you visited every morning with the deadly poison in your hand; a woman whom you saw day by day,; hour by hour,, stepping nearer to that grave to which you were endeavoriog to consign h er; You were getting - for you rself a possible reputation for "beihgi a kind and considerate whilst all through those long months you were ! seeking her dastruction and her-death.! ~Frpm the very hour you led her jto the altar the thought was, in your heart of Bending her to her grave. No language that I can use will "sufficiently describe the . detestable character ; of the crime of which you have been found guilty. You had no excuse of intrigue or the temptation of sexual desire, such as we read of in poisoning cases, to urge you on to the commission of this crime. Most murderers are kind when compared to you, for you have murdered f rom jiour to hour, from day to day, from week to week. I am bound to say—though 1 make it a rule not to speak in strong terms to anyone fallen to such great depths of degardation—still, in the interests of public justice, it is ray duty to say that you have achieved in the annals of crime the proposition of being the vilest criminal ever tried in N«w Zealand. If the law, as applied to the crime for which you have been found guilty, was not merciful you would most certainly have forfeited your life. The law does not permit me to pass the sentence, of death upon you, but I shall proceed to pass a sentence which will stamp the detestation and horror with which the crime of which you have been guilty is held in the community. I now pass upon you the next dread sentence of the law which ia that you be kept in' penal servitude for the rest of your natural life. In reply to a question the AttorneyGeneral said he would inform His Honor on Tuesday next the course he intended to pursue with regard to the forgery cases, and the Court at once; adjourned.