The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-08-23 00:00:00

ACQUITTAL OF THE PRISONER.

THIRD DAY.
The court re-opened yesterday morning at 9 o'clock,—
the prisoner stepping forth with alacrity to his assigned
station in the dock.
The jury having answered to their names,
Mr. Digby Seymour proceeded to deliver his Speech
for the defence. After a very beautiful and fioriated
opening, setting forth the value of life, and the momen-
tous issue which was at stake, he said he had assumed a
task of great responsibility, and he hoped that, in the
discharge of it, he should not forget what was due to
the jury, what was due to the prisoner, and what was
due to himself. His own duty passed away with the
address which he was about to deliver ; but upon the
jury a more solemn duty was imposed, because they
were placed there by the law and constitution of the
country as supreme arbiters of life and death. His
lordship sat there to judge them, to aid them with his
long experience and lucid judgment—but, after all, not
upon his lordship, nor upon himself, but upon those who
sat in that box must rest for ever the responsibility : for
to them had been committed the question whether the
prisoner should perish upon the scaffold, or should not.
We ail rejoiced in a widely circulated press : at the
same time we all knew that the very freedom of
the press of England, and that emulation which
rendered each journal anxious to outstrip the rest
in novel intelligence for the reader, often led to the in-
sertion of matters affecting the liberty and life of our
fellow-men, without that strict caution which we were
accustomed to see applied in courts of justice. Reports
of this or that, every circumstance in a man's previous
life, upon hearsay or suspicion of a neighbour, these
things found their way into the public press. They read
them, lie read them; and at that mement, just in pro-
portion to the greatness of the crime or the darkness of
the guilt, so wore we disposed to go with the current of
public opinion, and to go with those who pointed the
finger of accusation against a suspected individual. But
in the box suspicion had no right ; and he exhorted
them to discard from their minds all previous impres-
sions, for they were in the dignified attitude of a judicial
jury, deciding upon the life or death of a fellow-creature.
Now, let them see what was the case, and what were
the bearings of that question which would be left to them.
He should read to them, in the first instance, a passage
from the celebrated work of Dr. Taylor, the eminent
gentleman who had been examined before them on the
previous day. The first question which they had to de-
termine was—What was the cause of the death ?
When they had satisfied themselves beyond doubt, when
they had arrived at that degree of certainty to say
they knew what that cause was, then they should
approach the other views of the case, which would
bring the great bulk of the evidence before them.
Mr. Seymour here read the extract from the work
referred to, showing the difficulties presented in arriving
at a positive conclusion as to death by poison.
"To establish a charge of murder against a prisoner, it
must be proved the poison was certainly and indisputably
the cause of death ;" and it was not safe to rely upon
" mere probability, doubt, or suspicion." The shape in
which the prosecution had placed the case was this .
They said, we do not charge that the death of Mrs.
James was in the ordinary sense caused by poison, but
we say that poison was there, and that that poison
operated so as to accelerate death. They would have
observed that Upon this point the medical witnesses all
guarded themselves—they said it would have been more
satisfactory to each and all of them if they had seen the
case. He thought the jury would agree with him that
the affirmative or the negative of the question which he
now put to them must depend mainly upon the accuracy
of Dr. Cameron's opinion. He should content himself
by introducing Dr. Cameron to the bedside of Mrs.
James. What were the symptoms he then discovered ?
Vomiting, purging, prostration, and intermittence of
those symptoms. He bad told them that upon the Bth
of May he had suspicion ; but unless his suspicion was
a vague and doubtful one, how could they reconcile
with that character which a careful medical man would
claim for himself, this fact, that not until the 25th of
May did he consider his suspicions sufficiently confirmed,
and not until the 6th of June did he decide upon her
removal. Dr. Cameron having been called for the pro-
secution to support an opinion which he had stoutly
maintained, he called upon the jury to observe how he
could reconcile with that strongly-expressed opinion the
long-delayed antidote. When Dr. Cameron saw Mrs.
James, he had stated, he suspected a diseased ccecum,
but at that time he had no suspicion of ulcers. Now,
was he dealing unfairly with Dr. Cameron when he said
that the fact of his ignorance of the existence of two
ulcers, so extensive as had been proved by the post
mortem examination, was at least a circumstance which
disabled him from coming to such a correct judgment in
his own mind as he might have done. Dr. Cameron
had told them that upon two particular days there was
severe vomiting. Did he see his patient on those two
days ? He did not. Who described the symptoms ?
Probably Mrs. Cafferata, somebody in the house, or the
patient herself, but at all events it was by description
merely that he knew of it. Well, he thought they had
it clearly admitted in this case that vomiting was com-
patible with natural disease. Considering the little means
which they had of forming an opinion, considering that
the deceased had left no memorial of her evidence,
considering that the lips of the man who might be the
most important evidence were hermetically sealed, he
hoped they would not allow the life of the prisoner to
turn upon the fine distinction between natural vomiting
and that induced by poison, which Dr. Cameron had
drawn. Then came the next distinction—purging.
Purging, all the doctors admitted, might have came
from natural disease. What was the next sign ? Pros-
tration. Did not prostration lead to that emaciation
which she exhibited in the hospital, and had not more
than one of the medical witnesses frankly admitted that,
assuming a natural cause for the purging and vomiting,
they bad a natural cause for the extreme prostration
which she displayed. Then the last sign was the inter-
mitting exhibition of the symptoms. Dr. Cameron had
said that was one of the circumstances which had led
him to the conclusion that this was a case of poison.
He had called his attention to a passage from a very
eminent author, Dr. Watson, who, in his lectures upon
diseases of the stomach, said, " It is a curious feature in
these malignant diseases of the stomach that the symptoms
sometimes leave it in a remarkable manner, so as to excite
a hope in the patient and medical attendant that the
nature of the malady has been mistaken, and that
recovery is about to take place." He submitted, there-
fore, that this was a point not worthy of their attention.
This was not all. Dr. Cameron had admitted that he
never attended a case of antimonial poisoning. Where,
then, did he get his information ? From the same
source as he (the learned counsel) did. Medical men
did not consult the stars now or astrologists, but went
to professional works, the same source from which he
got his own information. If Dr. Cameron had said he
had attended a patient and had seen the working of
antimonial poison, his evidence would have been entitled
to far greater consideration. Turning for a moment
from the symptoms in life to the appearances after
death, the learned counsel contended that none of the
appearances were consistent with antimonial poisoning.
He commented also on what medical authorities term
" the toleration of poison" by some systems. It might
be conceded that poison was found, and yet the question
remained, could they say the death was caused remotely
or proximately by poison. It was a sad pity that Dr.
Cameron had not made an examination and obtained
some evidence from Mrs. James, for no one could have
given more important evidence than she could as to the cir-
cumstances attending her last illness. The learned counsel
commented next on the opportunities purposely thrown
in the way of the prisoner to administer poison in Mrs.
James's food at the hospital. That exhibited some-
thing like zeal. As to the evidence of Mr. Downes,
surgeon, he said it was a remarkable thing that when
Mrs. James went into the hospital she had a natural
pulse. It would be a question by and bye, a momen-
tous question, who mixed that up with the food which
was upon the table when the deceased was carried away.
The learned counsel paid a high tribute to Dr. Taylor
for the cautious manlier in which he had given his evi-
dence, which was, however, simply to the effect that by
depressing the powers, antimony would tend to accelerate
death ; but unless the jury could go further, and see not
only a tendency but a liability, how could they say that
the prisoner was the cause of her death. Would the
jury then do that which Dr. Taylor had shrunk from ?
He should leave the medical testimony with that.
Had he not confined himself within the fair and honour-
able limits of a counsel pleading for his client—had he
endeavoured to exaggerate ? If so, be begged them not
to visit upon his client the over zeal or infirmities of
himself. Another question arose, was the antimony
taken by accident ? It was possible it might be so.
How far upon the evidence could they say that
the administration of poison to Mrs. 4.anleg-_,w. as.
brought home to the prisoner at the bar. That
was the great question, and that
upon two classes of evidence—the direct evidence and
the indirect and circumsta4tial evidence. Mr. Seymour
again depended
then proceeded to analyse and review the evidence of
Eliza Brennan, who alleged that the prisoner had
wished her to purchase antimony in Dublin. I;Ie
denounced her statement as ridiculous and improbable.
She had spoken untruth according to her own confession ,
and she had a motive against the prisoner for having
been dismissed by hint for suspected dishonesty from
Mrs. James's service. The next witness in order was
Ann Foley. You all recollect her, the old lady who
supplied the how with cabbages. I will not say a
word about her character, but I do mean to say that
there is something very extraordinary in her statement
--,something very extravagant. What does she say?
She says that on a certain day she went to Mrs. James's
house, and sl3,e :ter and the prisoner, and she said

here is Mrs. Foley ; she will go for it. But this witness
did not know when, she could not fix the dates, but
some day. But she said Mrs. James had told her to
get something—what was it that she was told to get ?
She said she thought it was "poison." But even sup-
posing that it was true that she was asked to go for poison,
—who sent her ? Not the prisoner, but Mrs. James.
Again, supposing she did go for it, what was it for ?—to
poison a dog which was afterwards hanged. Martin Town-
send stated that the dog was hanged. But there was
something further. Mr. Rees had been called. It was
suggested on the part of the prosecution, that, to obtain
antimony, the prisoner had sent this witness Foley for
it. But then it turned out that the prisoner had not
done anything at all of the sort, for that, in fact, Mrs.
James had sent for the antimony. But Mr. Rees had
been called into the box ; and Mr. Rees was a chemist,
and kept a chemist's shop ; and what does he say ? That
he never sold the witness Foley any antimony. When
that witness was asked—" Do you know the prisoner ? "
what was his answer ? "He had seen him at the shop
frequently, but he could only imagine' that he was one
of the parties who called at the shop and asked for anti-
mony." The days were past when they could execute
persons on " imaginary evidence." But there was some-
thing extremely strange with reference to what had been
going on in this witness's (Rees) shop ; and here he (Mr.
Seymour) wished the jury to understand that he, as an
advocate at the bar, did not accuse any person ; it was not
his place to make any accusations—or to accuse any person
of being guilty of a crime, but his duty was to satisfy the
jury, on the evidence that had been brought before them by
the prosecution that the prisoner at the bar was inno-
cent—ghat the evidence brought forward would apply to
any other person as well as him. But there was some-
thing that was extremely doubtful in connection with
this shop of Mr. Rees', which deserved the most
careful consideration of the jury. The witness, Rees,
had stated the case as fairly as he could. After being
pressed most severely by the prosecution, he admitted
that he " imagined" it was the prisoner who called at
his shop for antimony; but, how strange, how passing
strange was it, that after Mr. Rees had given his evi-
dence, that he would not positively swear it was the
prisoner who had called for antimony at his shop. How
strange it was that after that, they would find Henry
Cafferata and Martin Townsend going to that shop, and
and all at once they find them exceedingly anxious
about Mr. Rees's health : for they go in and say How

do you do, Mr. Rees ? " That was Martin Townsend,
who 'also added that he might have said something
about antimony, and something about poison ; but they
would find that Henry Cafferata had also been to the same
shop for his soda, .and his laudanum, and he had then
offered a threat to Mr, Rees, of earthly benefits here, or

the promise of paradise hereafter, for he had told him
that " in the end it would be for his benefit if he spoke

the truth." On the statements of such witnesses he had

the right to comment, and without making any accusa-
tion against them, all he could say was: Could statements

of such witness as had offered such a threat, and who had

conducted themselves as he should show Townsend and

Cafferata had done, be relieved upon ? would the jury be

satisfied with such witnesses in condemning the prisoner
to execution at the hands of the common hangman ? He

(the learned counsel) was sure that they would not be

satisfied with such evidence as theirs in condemning
this prisoner. Then there was the next link in this
chain of evidence, of showing that the prisoner had
had antimony in his possession. A most important
link it was too, or he did not think that the Attorney-
General would ever have placed in the witness-box

such a person as Thomas Maguire. What did
the gentlemen of the jury think of Maguire ? They
bad seen the man. They bad seen his narrow head, his
contracted brow, and they had seen the demeanour of
the man who was to help the Attorney-General for the
Palatine out of the dilemma into which he had fallen
in not showing that the prisoner had actually procured
antimony. This Maguire was not before the magistrates,
he was not before the coroner, nor was he before the
grand jury; but by some means he appeared in that
court. They (the jury) had heard his statement, and
although he well knew that the prisoner was charged with
murder by poisoning, he had never come forward until
that day. But the jury had also heard the statement of
Inspector Horn, who had stated that he had no doubt
but that Maguire was in the Police-court, and was
listening to the evidence that was given at the Police
Court in this case. There can be no doubt kut that he
was, and that he heard all that took place ; but did he
give any information of the important evidence, if it was
believed, to Inspector Horn at the time, or to the
prosecution ? No. What was his reasons for not doing
so? "He was aware at the time that he thought
there was something wrong, but he did not mention it."
What he told them was, that the prisoner had sent him
to a shop to get some antimony, he did get it; and it
was given to the 'dog, and after that he went for some
more and got it, and gave it to the prisoner. This
Maguire had stated that two minutes after the dog
took the antimony it was vomiting and purging.

No doubt he had heard in the magistrates' court
that the deceased was so affected, and to bring it
home to the prisoner, and supply this important
link to the chain of evidence he lid volurteered his
statement. But even then, after having seen Mr.

Savage from the prosecution office, with all the broad
braid upon his coat, and to whom he had first made this
statement, he had been asked, " And did you tell him a
word about your having seen the prisoner put a white
powder upon the bread and butter intended for the
deceased ?" The answer was "No ; I did not at first
mention it to him." No, he had not mentioned it.
What was to, be thought of a witness who had, if it was
true that he possessed such knowledge, withheld it.
But there was something very strange in this part of the
case. Maguire had not given any evidence on this point
until he had seen Savage ; then he admitted that he had
received some money from the prosecution, and be had
then given the additional evidence about the " white
powder and the bread and butter." It would be
recollected that he had not spoken a word of the evi-
dence he was going to give to the inspector, nor to the
prosecution solicitor, until such a time as he had seen
Savage, and then he had received ss. from the Crown
to give evidence in this case, and with that money he
accompanied his friend, Martin Townsend, to a public
house, where a portion of the money was spent. No
doubt the jury would take that point into their con-
sideration ; but that was not all, for after he had told

the tale about " the white powder on the bread and
butter," he could not fix the date, he could not say
whether it was a month or two months since he had
seen the prisoner put this mysterious powder on the
bread and butter, but he adulated that the prisoner had
always prepared the food openly and pablicly, and that
Mrs. Cafferata and Bagnall might have seen him do it.
There was another point to which he would briefly
allude, and that was, that it was quite clear that there
had been some talk about the aeceased having a cottage.
It was admitted by Martin that he had been to Waver-
tree to look for a cottage for the deceased the day before
she was taken to the hospital. But was it not a
monstrous conclusion for the prosecution to arrive at—
was it not monstrous and unparalleled to believe that
the prisoner, if he really intended to have committed the
act with which he stood charged—was it likely, could
the jury believe, that if the prisoner contemplated such
an act, he would have carelessly taken the powder from
his pocket, and deliberately dropped it over the bread
and butter, in the presence of the witness Maguire, when
he could have done it otherwise, and, as Maguire ad-
mitted, not only in his presence, but in the presence of
others ? But the jury had also heard the evidence of
the witness Bagnall, and he had seen the prisoner mix
the food for the deceased, times and often, but he had
never given a word in evidence of having seen such an
occurrence take place, but had merely confined him-
self to the actual facts, and which were confirmed by
the proceedings of the prisoner, that when the deceased
knocked and required any food or nourishment, the pri-
soner was always anxious to rise from his slumbers and
prepare it. Then he (Mr. Seymour) would ask could the
jury place any reliance upon the evidence of Thomas
Maguire. He thought that there was great suspicion
to be placed upon it. But there came another scene in
this strange eventful history. It became important to
have the evidence of the death of the dog brought for-
ward, the dead dog was brought against the
living man. It occurred in the course of the evi-
dence of Inspector Horn that the prisoner had been
experimentalising with poison upon dogs. It was,
therefore, thought, as he (Horn) understood, necessary
that this dead dog should be exhumed. Napire had
told the jury that the dog had been poisoned, that it
had " vomited and purged " after the antimony had
been given to it. Maguire had heard of "vomiting and
purging" in the case of Mrs. James, at the Police-court,
which had caused her death ; therefore, he had said,
" that three minutes after the antimony had been given
to it, it was taken with violent purging and vomiting,
and was placed in the privy." They had heard the evi-
dence given by Dr. Edwards on this point. The dead dog
was handed to him—he took it away—he had it at his
laboratory—he had tried, no doubt, every test that could
possibly be applied ; but, yet, notwithstanding all the
strides that science had made, all the beautiful tests that
could be possibly applied for the discovery of atoms in
chemistry, it had been clearly proved that no atom of
antimony could be found in the dead dog. Maguire had
said the dog was
poisoned; Martin Townsend said the
But there was proof that the dog did
ntooofl tdt
hd iee
them,wf
to nmi
esst.
dog was hung.
ti
it
ad,
al
must
smt
hadltona yvs
ea; i been
fe
there er eh a.s found, a
no
oaDr ryt
oc
aE4
idiat
iwtaygr d. ass hadßonuet
this Maguire, who was to prove that the prisoner had
had antimony in his possession, had also told the jury
that he had been to the shop where he purchased that
article for the killing of the dog, and directly he left
the Witness-box the assistant at the chemist's shop was
called. His name was Copeland. The jury would all
remember his evidence. He said, I do not recollect
ever having seen you (Maguire) before at the shop, and
I did not sell yel;1- any antimony; and in cross-examina-
tiont d that, upon his
he *() stated 'responsibility,
have sold antimony at 14.fte such
he would not a r
,
contradictions, what 'became of the evidence given lay
the witness gagnire ? That was the case for"the'prOSecu-
tion; they sought to establish the fact, by direct eyidOce,

tHE DAILY TIMES, THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1860.

that t prisoner had antimony in his possession. But still
we must not. forget this fact, that in consequence of the
statement made by this witness (Maguire), the prisoner
had had his waistcoat taken from him, and his trowsers
pockets cut out. Ne other person's pockets had been
cut out; but the prisoner's pockets had been subjected
to every possible chemical tests and examinations, and
microscopic observations, that science Could suggest, yet
no antimony—not a particle of antimony had been
found in either one or the other—if there had been, it
would have been brought forward with the greatest
exultation on that trial, to further surround the prisoner
with difficulties. That was the direct evidence by
which the prosecution sought to prove, that the prisoner
had had antimony in his possession. This he (the
learned counsel) he thought he had shown, that in this
prosecution, as far as the evidence was concerned, link
number one was broken, link number two was wanted,
and link number three was more rotten still. The
learned counsel then made a most eloquent appeal to
the jury to dismiss from their mind all minor considera-
tions, and return a verdict according to the evidence,
as to whether or not he ever bad any antimony in his
possession. That was the fact that they had to
consider. The questions were, did she die from
poison ? They had heard the evidence of the
medical men. If she did, was it the hand of

the prisoner that administered that poison ? They
had heard the evidence on that point, and also
heard what observations he had thought it right, as a
duty to the prisoner, to make on that point, and that
point alone be would place before them in the front
ground, and ask them could they, as honest men, having
taken the oath they had to give a verdict on the evidence,
say that it was not a case of suspicion. If they tried
the prisoner on that point alone, which, the learned
Midge would tell them in more lucid language than he
could, was the essential point, then he would ask them
were they satisfied with the evidence on that point.
Let them be satisfied upon that point, and he should not
fear for the verdict that would be returned. He then
directed the attention of the jury to the next class of
evidence which had been brought forward, and pro-
ceeded to comment upon the evidence given by the first
witness, Mrs. Jane Cafferata; and also to give a brief
history of that witness, who had admitted that she went
to the house of the deceased, who was her aunt, and
received three shillings per week for acting as an
assistant in the eating-house. She had admitted that
she had had a child before her marriage, which
showed that there had been some irregularities in her
life. But she went to the deceased's, and, while there,
Henry Cafferata went to lodge in the same house. • It
was true that they were married, and subsequently to
that it was clear that there had been some misunder-
standing concerning a letter which the prisoner had
found and given to the deceased ; and there was a dis-
sention between the Cafferatas and the deceased. He

(the counsel) would admit that he had not got the
answers from Mrs. Cafferata in reference to that letter,
which he expected, but at all events he had got quite
sufficient to show that the Cafferatas left the house,
and were not at all on friendly terms with the prisoner.
Again, Mrs. Cafferata had been asked if she was aware
that the deceased had any property, and her reply was
she did not believe it; and yet she was aware that the
deceased was anxious to make her will, and when the
gentlemen went to make the will she did not express
any astonishment. Was that not strange if she did
not know that the deceased had not any property ?
The learned counsel next referred to that witness's state-
ment relative to the teacup found in the room, in which
was some sago, which, upon being taken by the police,
and analysed by Dr. Edwards, was found to contain a
portion of antimony, and contrasted her statement with
that given by the servant, Margaret Higgins, and the
statement of the prisoner, who said that, at five o'clock
on the morning of the 10th of June, he had given the
deceased some sago, that she had eaten a portion of it,
and he had left what remained on the chair. Margaret
said, at eight o'clock she went into the deceased's room,
found the cup with the sago in it, took it down, it was
then warm, and she ate it—not an unusual thing for
servants of that class to do—and had not been sick or ill
after it. Margaret had given evidence before the coroner;
she had done the same before the magistrates, and also
before the grand jury, but she had not on that trial been
asked orle word by the prosecution, although not a word
could be said against her. Mrs. Cafferata had given a
detail of how she slept that night with the deceased.
The jury would recollect, also, that the evidence
showed that Mrs. Cafferata always supplied the de-
ceased with food during the day, and the prisoner
by night, and yet, as the witness Margaret and her
sister had stated, she was always worse in vomit-
ing and purging from two o'clock in the afternoon
and later. She was always worse at night, and better
in the morning. Again Bagnall, who was called, stated
that he had always seen the prisoner prepare the food
at night openly, and given it to the deceased. This was
a great point in favour of the prisoner. The next wit-
ness to whom he would direct the attention of the jury,
was Martin Townsend, the ex-sailor, the ex-sol-
dier, the ex-cooking-man, and the ex-baker. What
could they think of such a character, and how he had
given his evidence. The jury would recollect that when
he (the counsel) had asked him if he had ever prepared
any food for the deceased, his answer was, "no ;
especially fried fish." The witness had never been
asked about fried fish, but he knew full well what
Eliza Higgins had before sworn to, and he had
therefore put in " especially fried fish," and, after ad-
verting to the other parts of his evidence, and the
manner he had given it, referred to his conduct after
the deceased had been removed to the hospital. Martin
Townsend had visited her once—it was true that Henry
Cafferata had only been there twice—but here was a
nephew, who had received the greatest kindness from
the deceased, who by her had been several times pur-
chased off when he had enlisted, and on the night after
her death he had said, "I have waited a long time for
this opportunity, it has come to my turn at last, I am
master now." He had, it was true, tried to explain
what he meant by " I am master now," and had said it
was because Mrs. Cafferata had just left the room. But
had she not left the room fifty times before, and yet he
had never made that observation: He did not make
any accusations against any person ; but he would ask if
such an observation had been made by the prisoner,
what would have been its effect on the jury, When
pro-
nounced as evidence by the learned Attorney-General,
if such had been the case. But that was not all. He
had also stated that Eliza Higgins was " drunk." Did
the jury believe it ? Next he said that she was "dirty,"
and that "he would ruin both their characters if they
did not hack out of the statements they had given before
the coroner." It was clear, as he had never madc, such
aeensations before, that he wished to intimidate those
girls—who had lived in the service for years, and had
never had such aspersions cast upon ern—for some
reason. It was true they were poor, but they must have
been honest and industrious, or they would not have
lived there so long. Again, there was evidence to show
by his having so frequently left the house and enlisted
that there had been words of anger passed between the
deceased and this Martin Townsend. TTe (the
counsel)
would also allude to the witness Rowe. Martin Town-
sendns admitted that he was on friendly terms with her—
very ; and it was proved by the witness Higgi , that
she had stated, after the inquest, "thank God it is my
turn," the very words, "my turn," having been used
by Martin. The counsel earnestly appealed to the jury
to be careful how they looked upon such evidence, arguing
that it must be with a great amount of suspicion, to say
the least of it. Having briefly alluded to the evidence
of the other witnesses, he procoded to say that at beet,
it was but circumstantial ; he asked where was the esser„
tialingredient in a serious chargellike the present. Motive,
there was no motive. The prosecution had set up the
making of the will, the transfer of the gas shares, and
an alleged forged document which had been found, for
getting the money from the Savings' Bank. But what
were the facts. Mrs. James, who was ill, had requested
to have the gas shares transferred to the prisoner. He
had purchased them for her ; and when the prisoner
went to the gas-office he was told it could not be done
only by will, and then he went, not to an unheard-of
lawyer in a back street, which, if his motives were not
correct, he could have done, but he went to the solicitor
to the Gas Company, one of the most eminent
attorneys in Liverpool, and a magistrate, and by that
gentleman the will was made, by the instrqctions of
the
deceased—not with the
prisoner standing over her, but
alone with the gentleman who made it. And when
that legal gentleman was making it, he suggested that
there should be two executors ; but her reply Was " No,
I have every confidence in him (the prisoner) ; I know
he will do his duty ; he shall have my goodwill of the
business, because he has made it." With regard to the
forged document, it was to draw the money from the
Bank in a week ; but that could not be done : and
although the body of that notice was in the handwriting
of the prisoner, it was clear that the signature, "Ann
James," was written by the same hand that signed
the will. He next pointed out those parts of
the evidence in which it had been admitted that
the deceased and the prisoner lived on the most
friendly and affectionate terms ; and drew a most
feeling and affectionate picture of his interview with
her at the hospital, as described by the nurse ; and con-
cluded a most eloquent and earnest appeal to the jury
(which occupied two hours in its delivery) by calling
upon them if they had a doubt in their minds to give it
to the prisoner, as by the law of England he was
entitled to it.
Mr. Baron Martin then proceeded to sum up the
evidence to the jury, and in doing so observed that the
prisoner was charged with the wilful murder of Ann
James, and that this was the first case of the descrip-
tion that had been tried under the law which made
it murder for a person to accelerate the death of
another by the administration of poison. He then
explained the law in nearly precisely the same
terms as the learned Attorney-General had done in
opening the case to the jury, saying, that if the jury
believed t4t the death of the deceaSed had been in the
least degree accelerated by the. administration of the
antimony, then a naurdeT had no doubt been committed.
If death had been caused by the slow administration of