THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1894. THE ARDLAMONT MURDER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2631, 10 March 1894, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1894. THE ARDLAMONT MURDER.

The Scotch law which enables a jury to leturn a verdict of “not proven” has apparently saved from the gallows one who richly deserved to die. For several mouths the cable news has given us glimpses of the famous Ardlamont murder, but now fuller details are to hand, and as it is a case which excited an extraordinary amount of attention, a few words concerning its main facts may not prove uninteresting. Ardlamont is the name of a place in Argyleshire, Scotland, where the murder took place. There Major Monson lived with his wife and family and a young man named Cecil Hambrough. This young man was the son of Major Hambrougb, who had placed him in charge of Munson to be educated for the army. This was the young man who . was shot dead, and Monson was tried for having murdered him. The story is a most extraordinary one, and the only motive Monson could have in murdering his young charge was a pecuniary one. It appears that though young Hambrough’s father was in receipt of ah income of x £sooo a year he had to borrow money from Monson, who also had to borrow before he could lend it. All this financing was done on the strength of a fortune which young Hambrough was to have become possessed of as soon as he came of age. It would therefore appear that it was to the interest of Monson that young Hambrough, who was 20 years of age, should live until he attained his majority, so that he might be repaid the money advanced to his father; but there was another matter to be considered. Monson had insured Cecil Hambrough’a life for £20,000, with his full knowledge and consent, and the insurance policies had been assigned by him to Mrs Monson, in consideration of some money advanced by her to him. Herein lay the motive Monson had in murdering young Hambrough. Monson’s wife would get the £20,000 for which young Hambrough’s life was insured, and, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is every reason to believe that, although the verdict of the jury set him free, he was guilty of this foul deed. Monson was a gambler, and associated with the harpies of the turf, and it was well known that at the time of the murder he was pushed very hard for money by a money-lender named Tottenham. Two attempts were made on the life of young Hambrough, the second proving fatal. A man named Scott, who is supposed to have been sent by Tottenham to enforce the payment of a debt, visited Ardlamont, and it was during his stay that poor young Hambrough was murdered. Indeed, there is room to suspect that this man was there for the purpose of urging Monson to commit the foul deed. A day or two after Scott arrived, Monson and young Hambrough went out on the river boating, and came back half drowned. It appeared afterwards that there was a rudely-cut hole in the boat, and that she sank immediately after being launched. The prosecution insisted that the hole was cut purposely with the view of drowning young Hambrough, but that as it was too large the boat sank so near the shore that he was able to swim ashore. Next day Mrs Monson left the house with her children, and Monson, Hambrough, and Scott went out shooting. Shortly afterwards Hambrough was brought home shot through the head. Scott left the house immediately afterwards, and has not been heard of since. Monson was arrested and tried for the murder, the result being a verdict of “Not proven,” This verdict does not clear Monson of the suspicion of having committed the murder, but it relieves him of having to stand his trial a second time. It sots him free, but the public may yet suspect him, and indeed it is almost impossible to do anything else. He was a gambler, and associated with the worst characters connected with the turf, but the judge told the jury that this should not be taken into account, because a man may be very bad in other ways and yet shrink from committing a murder. In addition to this it was shown that he was a liar, and indulged in wholesale falsehood in connection with the murder, giving different versions of it to different people. This is more than suspicious,—it is convincing. He tried to conceal the fact that he had insured the young man’s life and that the insurance policy had been assigned to his wife. It also came out that he had attempted to effect a further insurance of £50,000 on Hambrough’s life a short time before his death. Everything, therefore, pointed to the murder having been committed by Monson. He was a man of a bad character; he was in financial difficulties; he would gain £20,000 by the death of Hambrough ; yet the jury returned a yerdict that set him free. There is, however, very little room to doubt his guilt, and the supposition is that the jury were influenced by the eloquence of Mr Comrie Thompson, who received a fee of 1000 guineas for defending him. It is undoubtedly a tribute to the advocate’s abilities, but it is very much to be regretted that they were not employed in some nobler cause.