The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-09 00:00:00

had had many interviews, and opportunities of con-
versing with him, and he had come to the conclu-
sion that in consequence of his violent conduct to-
wards his wife he would turn out to be a mono-
maniacal homicide. Such was his opinion, and
such it remained.
Mr. Chambers—Then it is your opinion that he is
still insane
Witness—lt is, towards his wife. On other
points he was capable of conducting his affairs.
Dr. P. Webb, M.R.C. of Physicians, of Woburn-
place, said he had visited the plaintiff,at the request
of Mrs. Hall, in Sept. last, He found him in a
very excited state, with a very rapid pulse. The
wife told him of his having, on his return home
from the asylum, thrown the frying-pan, contain-
ing the dinner, across the room. He asked him his
reason for such conduct, and he said his wife was
constantly out, and was in the habit of pawning
and making away with the shop things, and get-
ting drunk, and he added he believed she was drunk
then. Witness said that was not so, as he exa-
mined Mrs. Hall at the time. Plaintiff then
said his wife was constantly out, and in
the company of other men. Witness then asked him,
" Do you mean to charge your wife with infidelity ?"
Mr. Hall replied in a jeering manner, " Oh dear no.
Do you think Mrs. Windham was unfaithful to her
husband ?" (Loud laughter.) After this the daugh-
ter came into the room. Dr. Semple and Mrs. Hall
came into the room also, and Mrs. Hall asked
Dr. Semple, as her husband kept her without
necessaries, if she was not justified in pawning
things to obtain food. Dr. Semple said if that
were so she was. At the request of Mr. Hall he
examined the house, and found it in a very dirty
state, and observed a great absence of furniture.
Mrs. Hall said it was caused by her husband not
allowing her to have any assistance or to employ a
servant. If the plaintiff was under delusions that
his wife was unfaithful and was addicted to drink-
ing, when it was not true, he should consider it
evidence of insanity.
Some controversy took place between counsel as
to the evidence.
The learned judge said a great deal of evidence
had got into the case which ought not to have been
given. By-and-bye he should tell the jury the
question would be for them to say whether Dr.
Semple had been guilty of negligence, and had not
made proper inquiries before granting the certificate.
Cross-examined by Mr. Huddleston—Was of
opining that the plaintiff was under a dominant
idea against his wife. He had seen Dr. Semple
before he visited the plaintiff, but did not know
him at the time of the action. He would not say
that the plaintiff was insane at the present time, and
would not sign a certificate without further inquiry.
It was no delusion that the house was in a dirty
state. He did not recollect when he asked Mr.
Hall, on his visit in September, relative to his
throwing the gridiron across the room. He said he
had provided some dinner, and his wife had taken
it off to cook her own,
Re-examined—He told Mr. Hall that he must be
insane to use such language as he had done to his
wife. He called her a fool, and applied other
epithets to him ; but doctors were not usually
called " fools." (Laughter.) He concurred it
was desirable to see Mr. Griffiths, the plaintiff's
regular medical attendant. He had not been
witness to any assault committed by the plain-
tiff on his wife ; but if he (plaintiff) had killed her,
he should have said he was a monomaniacal homi-
cide. The plaintiff's daughter, Mrs. Harding,
had not said to him that it was ridiculous in him
to say that her father was mad ; but she had said
to him her mother was not the bad woman her
father represented her to be. He (Di. Webb) had
bought china at the plaintiff's shop, but his son paid
for what he purchased.
Mr. Chambers here put some questions to the
witness, indicating that the reason why the son had
paid for the articles was that he (witness) was not
solvent.
Witness, in explanation, said—l am very seldom
solvent. (Laughter.) But I owe very little, per-
haps £lO, besides my rent. (Laughter.) I never
flattened my nose against the window of the plain-
tiff, as he states. (Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Pigott here put some questions to
the witness, to which Mr. Chambers objected, and
Mr. Justice Crompton said—Let us get on ; we
are in for to-morrow, that's clear; but I am afraid
of Wednesday. (Laughter,)
Cross-examined by Mr. Huddleston—l do not
say that Mr. Hall is insane now. Dr. Semple applied
to me three or four days ago to be a witness; but
neither he nor Mrs. Hall asked me to give a certi-
cate of Mr. Hall's state of mind.
Harriet Sarson, 15, Robert-street, Hampstead-
road, shopkeeper to her father, stated that she had
known Mr. and Mrs. Hall twenty-seven years, and
during that period she had witnessed numerous
acts of the most painful violence on the part of Mr.
Hall towards his wife. He was always quarrelling
on the most trivial occasions ; and she had known
her to be kept without money and necessaries for
the family, and had visited and assisted Mrs. Hall
out of pity. The language of Mr. Hall was most
shocking, and terrified her (witness). On one
occasion she recollected, before the daughter's mar-
riage with Mr. Wright, Mr. Hall pulling down the
curtains and tearing the room paper, and on that
occasion ho threw the slops in the room over Mrs.
Hall. She never saw any indication of her being
in the habit of drinking, nor did she notice any
familiarity with other men.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Cham-
bers, but her answers only related to money matters.
She was godmother to two of the children, and
she felt it her duty to take care of them out of
pity. She would not say Mr. Hall was mad, but
his manners were very violent and strange, and his
language very bad. On the occasion when Mr.
Hall tore down the paper and the curtains witness
was with his daughter Jane, now Mrs. Wright,
and they were engaged in repapering the bedroom,
when Mr. Hall took a candle and rubbed it over
the paper, and said he would not have such expen-
sive paper, and ordered witness to leave the room.
Mr. Montagu Chambers—Had you any other re-
lationship with Mrs. Hall than that of godmother
to two of her children ?
Miss Sarson—Yes, I was her bridesmaid.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Crompton—Well, now, Mr. Cham-
bers, mind that. (Laughter.)
Miss Sarson—But it is the truth, my lord.
(Renewed laughter.) When Mrs. Hall was con-
fined of Mrs. Wright, that is—(laughter)—l was at
the house, and I saw that the room was stripped.
That was at the time of the Coronation.
Mr. M. Chambers—That is going a long way
back.

Miss Sarson—l recollect it well. Mrs. Hall was
penniless, and I lent her the money to pay for the
christening. The eldest child had not been chris-
tened, and when I went to the church, I said to
Mrs. Hall, " What a shocking thing it would be if
that dear child was to die without being christened,"
and—

Mr. Justice Crompton—And you lent her the
money to pay for the christening.
Miss Sarson—Yes, my lord, I did.
Mr. Justice Crompton—And I hope you saved
the child. (Laughter.)
Examination continued—As to acts of violence, I
have witnessed them by Mr. Hall towards his wife,
not actually in his striking but in ill-using her in
other ways.
Re-examined—When Mr. Hall tore down the
curtains and smeared the paper with a candle, I
was teaching the girls to paper the room.
Mr. Chambers—Pray, Miss Sarson, are you a
paper -hanger ? (Laughter.)
Miss Sarson—No ; but 1 am a god-mother ; and
as such, I thought it my duty to teach the chil-
dren everything. (Laughter.)
Dr. Griffith was recalled and examined as to his
attending Mrs. Hall in her confinement in 1851.
He gave her medicine to relieve pain from violence,
but he could not remember whether she said it was
caused by a fall or a blow.
Amelia Homeston examined—Deposed that she
had been in the habit of charing at Mr. Hall's
house, and she recollected that she on one occasion
saw him seize Mrs. Hall by the throat, and heard
him say he would have her life. Mrs. Hall, on
that occasion, told her to go and fetch a policeman.
Mr. Burge, of Tottenham Ciurt-road, deposed
that Dr. Semple had called upon him respecting Mr.
Hall, and told him he was, in his opinion, labouring
under some delusive idea about his wife's chastity
and conduct iu business. His answer was that he
had never known her guilty of unchastity, nor did
he know her to be addicted to drinking and intem-
perance ; but he heard her complain of her husband's
conduct to her.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott then summed up the evi-
dence, and said the question for the jury to consider
was whether Dr. Semple had been guilty of negli-
gence in signing the certificate of lunacy in the
defendant's case. The defendant justified his act
by reference to, and conformity with, the Act of
Parliament, which required that no person should be
committed to a lunatic asylum, unless on the certi-
ficate of two medical men, who should not examine
the alleged lunatic together, and who should not be
relations of the family, or in any way unduly in-
fluenced by them. He contended that all Dr. Semple
oafn pdairnliament. conformity Looking
ookwiinthg
had done was duly and regularly done in the
provisions practice of his
of profession,the
Act
the
at the reports of the present trial "
which appeared
in the newspapers, he (Mr. Sergeant Pigott) must
say he could not approve of the comments made in
the report in the limes on
on the evidence of some of
the witnesses while the case was sub juciice ; but
whether a witness was or unshaken shaken in his
testimony, according' to the opinion of the party,
would not, in his (Mr. Sergeant Pigott's) opinion,