The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-01 00:00:00

TO TIIE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,—ln the report of the proceedings in the case
of Mr. W. F. Windham in the Times of to-day, it
is stated that so favourable was the impression pro-
duced by Mr. Windham's examination before the
Master and the jury that the opinion expressed to
your reporter was, that if the examination had
taken place at the close of the case for the peti-
tioners, neither the Master nor the jury would have
thought it necessary to subject Mr. Windham to
the expense of adducing evidence in his defence. In
this opinion we must entirely concur, and we beg
to be allowed to state that when the case of the
petitioners was drawing to a close, on the 30th of
December, 1861, Sir Hugh Cairns suggested that
Mr. Windham should be examined, according to
what he believed to be the usual practice, at the
close of the petitioners' ease ; and that Mr. Wind-
ham's advisers are not responsible for the course
that was ultimately taken.

The following is an extract from the shorthand
writer's notes of what passed :
" Sir Hugh Cairns—There is one question, Sir,
which is entirely in the jury's hands and yours—
viz., when they would desire to see Mr. Windham.
I believe it is the usual practice that that should be
done at the end of the petitioners' case. Of course,
Mr. IN indham will be in attendance.
" The Master—l will tell you the usual course I
take, and which I have adopted on several occasions,
perhaps three or four of them without juries. I
hear all the evidence first, and then have the sub-
ject of the evidence in, to see whether his appear-
ance, demeanour, and conversation accord with the
evidence or not.

"Sir Hugh Cairns—lt occurred to me that it
might assist the jury, with reference to the obser-
vations I should have to make, if they saw Mr.
Windham at the end of the petitioners' case.
" The Master—l have never done that.

" Mr. Chambers—As far as my experience is
concerned, having first been taught so by the books,
it confirms what Sir Hugh Cairns says—that it is
done at the end of the petitioners' case ; and in the
cases in which I have been engaged generally at
the end of the petitioners' case the alleged lunatic
is subject to examination ; but any course that you
(the Master) and the jury think proper my learned
friend Sir Hugh Cairns and myself will agree to.
" The Master—The jury leave it in my hands.
" Several Jurors—Certainly."
We are, sir, your obedient servants,
GREGORYS AND Co.,
Solicitors to Mr. Windham.
1, Bedford•row, Jan. 31.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF
ADMINISTERING POISON.

One of the most extraordinary charges of attempt

ing to poison that we have heard of was on Tuesday
last investigated before the magistrates for the
liberty of Peterborough. The evidence showed an
amount of credulity in fortune-telling scarcely'to be
believed in persons moving in respectable society.
It appears thaton the 17th ult. the police authorities
received information that Mr. Albert Adolphus
Armstrong, farmer, of Deepingate, and his house-
keeper, Mrs. Halls, had been poisoned, and, from
inquiries then made, it was ascertained that these
parties had for some time been suffering from pains
in the stomach, &c., the symptoms, in fact, being
exactly those which are generally caused by poison ;
and from a statement made by Mr. Armstrong's
wife that she had administered to her husband and
Mrs. Halls some powders provided by an old for-
tune-teller, named Pat Rowlett, residing at Crow-
land, awhich were meant to prevent Mr. Armstrong
inheriting some property, warrants were issued
against the old fortune-teller and Mrs. Leaton (Mrs.
Armstrong's mother), who were thereupon taken
into custody ; and at a special petty sessions, held
at the Justices'-room on Tuesday last, were ex-
amined before the Rev. Wm. Strong (chairman),
and J. M. Vipan, Thos. Walker, and Wm. Paley,
Esqs., when the following evidence was adducedi:—
The first witness called was Albert Adolphus Arm-
strong, who said he was a farmer, and resided at
Deepingate. He married his present wife, then
Catherine Jane Leaton (daughter of Catherine
Leaton, one of the accused), in 1855. He then lived
at Cambridge, and afterwards in London. In 1800
Thos. Leaton, his father-in-law, died suddenly, and
M .sse
itodrrmoe.
rnmagbe
niLeatontecheeidne
admlri eea dsnai
and
gwde ir
pahweotiruthshteo
naf
haawlri
smi
el
he (Mr. Armstrong) was sent for from London.
d
nsi\
ildar
w.o fAcaromond:
sml. )t. aoptt ehosse.sre.
There is a su'm of
£2,000 in dispute, being Mrs. Leaton's pro-
perty apart from her husband's. She has repeatedly
said she would do all she could to prevent his
_ _

having that money. In 1860 Mrs. leaton left
his (Mr. Armstrong's) house, and went to reside at
Beeping. There was then no unpleasant feeling
between them. About hay time in 1861 he went
to Mrs. Leaton's house, and found her engaged with
Pat Rowlett. lle himself behind a screen in
the room in which they were, and heard them his-
sing into each other's ears, they at the same time
eating white currants. e heard the old woman,
Rowlett, say, " I will bring some white powder
that will do for them ;" and Mrs. Leaton said, " It

shall be done." He expelled the old woman from
the house, and threatened if he found her there
again to give her into custody. In the summer of
1861 he was taken ill with pains about the body
and cramp, accompanied by vomiting and sickness,
and has had the like symptoms up to the time of
taking these proceedings. Never suffered in the
same way before. Went to London in November
last, and stayed two months, and durieg his stay
had none of these symptoms, but improved in health
generally, and gained flesh, as did also Mrs. Hulls,
who was there at the same time. Soon after he got
home he was again taken ill with the same symp-
toms, and suffered very much. Then expressed a
wish that if he died a post mortem examination
shonld be made of his body. Soon after consulted
his solicitor, Mr. Caches, by whom he was advised
to take these proceedings. In cross-examination
Mr. Armstrong admitted that since his marriage
with his present wife he had been convicted of
bigamy, and served nine months' imprisonment.
On Tuesday, the 21st ult., about 3 o'clock in the
morning, he took his wife into the police-station at
Peterborough, and charged her with attempting to
poison him. A former servant of Mrs. Leaton's
corroborated plaintiff as to his finding the old
woman, Rowlett, with Mrs, Leaton in the summer
of 1861, and expelling her from the house. The
old woman told her that she had had a very superior
education, and was highly connected, and had
learnt astrology and the Hebrew language at
school, and she could now read the firmament.
Mrs. Leaton had told witness that she allowed Pat
Rowlett 2s, per week. Rowlett advised Mrs.
Leaton to get a divorce for her daughter, "as
the good must be separated from the bad before
anything could be done." Mrs. Leaton told wit-
ness that Rowlett said there was a pot of:goldunder
an apple tree, and they were going one night for it,
but something prevented them, and that she still
believed it was there, as there was £2,000 missing.
Catherine Jane Armstrong deposed that she knew
Martha, commonly called " Pat" Rowlett. She
professed telling fortunes, and had told her her for-
tune before her marriage. She met with her at
her mother's house. She (witness) had faith in
what the old woman told her, and the latter had
promised to do all she could for her, meaning to
.;(:t the money (the £2,000)
from her husband for
her. In hay-time, 1861, witness saw
" Pat Row-
lett" at her mother's house; went upstairs with her,