The Supposed Murdes of Hugh Hamilton.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4360, 21 December 1882, Page 2

The Supposed Murdes of Hugh Hamilton.

A Press telegram from Auckland says : —Acting upon permission given by the Presbyterian Cemetery trustees, Super* intendent Thomson had the bodies of the late Hugh Hamilton and his infant child disinterred this morning, and conveyed to the morgue. Dr Goldsbro' made an autopsy, there being also present Drs Walker and Daw son. The body of Hamilton is in an advanced state of decomposition. The preliminary stage of the autopsy disclosed facts that have not even been suspected, and that will, when made public, intensify the painful interest which has concentrated upon the case. The fracture of the skull was found to be more extensive and serious than had been anticipated. As to strychnine there was nothing to indicate anything of the kind in either the body of Hamilton or the child. All that we are able to ascertain is that the child was not poisoned, and died a natural death. We believe that no fresh external wounds beyond those described at the inquest have been discovered on Hamilton's body. The corpse was too much decomposed to show with any certainty traces of flesh wounds.

" Charity " contributes a plea on behalf of the prisoners to the Auckland Star. He says:—" I rather think the poor dead fellow was a drunkard and an indifferent husband, and that any talk of divorce or separation would be probably caused by his infidelity, rather than by his wife's misconduct. That he was a drunkard was plain to most who knew him, and the other and worse wrong was no secret from his associates. How this would affect his home might be easily guessed. The poor woman is spoken of as being hard-featured, and as not showing the proper amount of grief, Such trouble as she has had would be likely to influence her features unfavorably, and years of living with such a man would school her to bear, if not wean her from, grief at his death. She did not go into mourning. Query, had she the means to purchase mourning clothes with ? And on the other hand, are all who fail to subscribe to custom in this par licular to be adjudged of callousness? Somebody thinks they saw her carrying an axe under cover of a broom, and that again is a ' suspicious circumstance.' To me it seems dreadful that the probably innocent action of carrying an axe and a broom together should be so construed. Must we never dare to hold au axe and a houae.broom in our hands at the same time? Was the neglect in not sending for help sooner an evidence of crime ? It was certainly wrong, but at worst appears nothing more than an error of judgment.

Imagine a worn-out woman with a sick child ; imagine a man who was in the habit of coming home drunk after mid night, hurting himself by-falling against a projection. Who can blame her, preoccupied as she was, and dazed with trouble upon trouble, for not realising the extent of the hurt ? Who can blame her for not raising the neighborhood to witness ■her sorrow and disgrace? Even the woman's instinctive cleanliness tells against her, and because she was not slattern enough to leave the place filthy for an indefinite time, she must, forsooth, be guilty of this serious crime. It is said that Hamilton wound up his watch and disposed of the lodge books. Why not? He was apparently used to it, and such a feat is no wonder, even if followed by a drunken fall over a carpet. And that axe —at present the axe proves nothing. The same suspicious axe, bearing the same suspicious marks, may be picked up in any back yard in Auckland. As far as I can see, all the ' facts' are far too flimsy to built such a serious theory upon ; while the surmises strike rue as scandal, which •for gratuitous wickedness could not well be surpassed. What evidence is there, for instance, that the baby died an unnatural death ? It is true that the post* mortem examination will settle that, but even facts will not set at rest the suspicion excited by the probable lie which some and everybody started as gossip."