The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-23 00:00:00

TRIAL OF BELANEY
THE STEPNEY POISONING CASE.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY and Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
Tha Learned Judges having taken their seats on the
bench shortly after ten o'clock,
James Cockburn Belaney was again placed at the bar.
The prisoner appeared far more dejected than he did
on Wednesday.
The following witnesses were then examined on the
part of the prisoner
Mr. R. Hembleton—Was a surgeon residing in Nor-
thumberland. The prisoner had consulted him with re-
spect to a disease of the heart under which he was
labouring, and witness advised him to take prussic acid
twice a-day, and an alterative pill at night. Witness
also advised him to take opium and morphine. Was
well acquainted with the prisoner and Mrs. Belaney.
He was invariably kind to his wife, and she was vo y
affectionate to him. The general character of the pri-
soner was invariably kind.
Cross• examined by Mr. BODKIN—The prisoner was
practising as an apothecary, when he consulted witness.
He thought the last time the prisoner consulted hire
with respect to himself was in 1841. Witness knew
the prisoner's late wife well before her marriage.
Re-examined—Did not know whether the prisoner
was practising as a regular practitioner.
Robert Swann was a druggist at Alnwick. The pri-
soner had repeatedly bought prussic acid of him. Had
known the prisoner for some time, and always consi-
dered him a kind and affectionate man.
Mrs. Robson lived in North Sunderland. Was ac-
quainted with the late Mrs. and Miss Skerrett. Recol
lected the marriage of the prisoner and Miss Skerrett.
She was a very pretty and fascinating young woman.
The prisoner and his wife appeared to be an affectionate
and happy couple. At the time of Mrs. Belaney's mis-
carriage the prisoner showed the greatest affection
towards her, and Mrs. Belaney had spoken of the pri-
soner to witness in the most affectionate manner. Mrs.
Belaney spoke to witness about going to London, and
appeared to be most anxious to go there. Witness said
to her, " Are you not afraid of going to London in the
state you are," to which she replied, that stopping away
from Belaney would do her more harm than the journey.
Mrs. Wilson—Saw Mra. Belaney after her miscar-
riage. She said it arose in consequence of stepping off
a chair. The conduct of Mr. Belaney to his wife was
most affectionate.
Andrew Gibson—Was a mason, living at North Sun-
derland. had also a farm, and kept an inn there. Wit-
ness asked the prisoner to go with him to the Cheviot
Hills, and he would not go without the consent of Mrs
Belaney. The prisoner appeared a most affectionate
husband, and she appeared extremely fond of him.
The Rev. Robert Belaney—Was the brother of the
prisoner. Had visited his brother and his late wife in
July, 1843, and they appeared to live most affectionately
together. During the time he lived in North Sunder-
land he had had a conversation about his will. The prisoner
was a very careless driver. and witness suggested to him
that he might come suddenly to his death, and he ou4lit
to make his will, especially where there was property
belonging to his wife.
Robert Hall lived in North Sunderland. Saw Mr.
and Mrs. Belaney frequently after their marriage. They
appeared to live most affectionately together. In speak-
ing of the journey to London the prisoner said he
thought he should give it up, in consequence of the state
in which Mrs. Belaney was. She laughed at that, and
said she should go. Knew that the prisoner took poison
as a medicine, but should not know what it was.
Ellen Kerras—Had been servant to Mr. and Mrs.
Belaney. Their conduct to each other was quite loving.
The prisoner was in the habit of continually taking his
wife out with him, to see the house he was building.
John Hancock, an ironmonger, at Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, hal known the prisoner for eight or nine year►.
Both witness and prisoner were fond of the study of
ornithology, falconry, and botany, and witness was often
in his company. The prisoner was most affectionate in
his conduct towards his late wife.
George Hobson was a bookseller, residing in Croames-
row, Commercial-road. Was examined before the Coro-
ner, and bound over to appear, on the part of the Crown,
at this Court. Had known the prisoner for several years;
he had published a work on falconry. Witness intro-
duced bim and Mrs. Belaney to Mrs. Heppingstall. They
appeared to be very affectionate to each other. 'Went to
the house on the Saturday on which Mrs. Belaney died.
Mr. Belaney was in great distress, and appeared almost
distracted.
William D. Clarke—Was a master mariner, living in
King-street, Mile-end, Old Town. Had known the pri-
scner twelve months. Recollected his calling upon him
on the 4th of June. Mrs. Belaney was with him. Saw
tho prisoner and Mrs. Belaney frequently together, and
they appeared most affectionate to each other. Mrs.
Belaney was rather poorly on the Wednesday, but she
appeared cheerful. There was a great talk about Mr.
Belaney going hawking in Holland, and Mrs. Belaney.
Bought Mrs. Belaney some work, which he, laughing,
said he should be a long time away if he stopped till she
finished it. Upon the death of Mrs. Belaney the pri-
soner appeared greatly distressed. Witness was present
when she died. Mr. Belaney on that occasion said,
"My God, all this has been caused by
my gross neglect." Every remedy that could
be thought of was applied, and Mr. Belaney
assisted at it. All parties agreed as to the expediency
of holding an inquest, and the prisoner agreed. The
woman who came to lay out the body, claimed the
clothes as her perquisite, at which the prisoner ap-
peared indignant, and said he would give her any
money rather than be deprived of them. The prisoner
left the management of the funeral entirely to witness
and Mr. Robson. Mrs. Heppingstall said she hoped
the funeral would take place as soon as possible, as it
was a painful thing to take place in her house. On the
Monday night, in the Commercial-road, he said to witness
he had been the cause_of his wife's death. Witness felt
alarmed, and asked him, how ? He said she had
taken p icon. Witness said, " Good God, you have
never poisoned your wife ?" to which he said, " No,
thank God, that cannot be laid to my charge." Ile
said, further, that he had been in the habit of taking
prussic acid, that he had broken the bottle, and poured
it into a tumbler, and that she had taken it by mistake.
Cross-examined by Mr. BODKIN—When the prisoner
said that his wife would not recover, he also said that
her poor mother had died of the same disease twelve
months ago. 'Witness was present at the post mortem
examination. The prisoner was in the next room.
Witness noticed that the contents of the stomach were
sealed up, and taken away. Witness believed that he
stated to the prisoner what had taken place at the exa-
mination. When the prisoner related to witness how
the matter had occurred, he said that he seized the
tumbler from the hands of his wife, and emptied the
contents into the chamber vessel.
Mrs. M'Geachy, examined by Mr. ERLE—I am the
daughter of the last witness. I was introduced to pri-
soner and his wife on the 4th of June, and saw them until
Saturday the Bth, from time to time. I learned from
Mr. Belaney that she had miscarried last year ; and on
the Wednesday, when she was sick, he told me that
symptoms had occurred again. They appeared to be on
the most affectionate terms. I have seen her alone,
and she seemed perfectly happy in her marriage.
His conduct was always that of an affectionate husband.
.1 was sent for on Saturday morning. He was crying,
and she was lying insensible on the bed. I thought she
had been getting up, for her' night clothes were on, and
her hair was down, as if she had taken off her cap to get
up. Prisoner was much distressed. I fetched Mr. Gar-
ratt. Mrs. Belaney had told me on the Friday that she
intended taking salts. I saw two tumblers ; one of them
was empty, the other had some fluid in it. I saw Be-
laney empty it after Mr. Garratt had left. Mr. Belaney
had in her presence spoke to me about her staying with
us while he went abroad. I was examined before the
Coroner, and bound over to appear as a witness for the
prosecution.

Mr. EXILE—And we have consequently forborne to
examine you or your father. If they are not accom-
plices it is the strangest conduct on the part of a pro-
secution I ever knew.:

Cross-examined by Mr. BODKIN—I saw her on Wed-
nesday night, and she said she was better, and there was
no fear. He alluded to the probability of miscarriage as
something that had passed by. On the Saturday
morning she was lying on the bed on her back.
Peter WArdell was called, but did not answer.
Mr. CLARKSON said his name was on the back of the
bill, but he had not been called by the prosecutor.
Mr. Baron GURNEY—The usual way in such cases is,
for the counsel for the prisoner to say to the prosecutors
I should like to see such or such a witness.

Mr. CLAaxsoN—l have applied over and over again,
to the Solicitor-General on the subject. No matter,
call the other policeman.
W. 11. Shaw, examined by Mr. CLARKSOIq—I was
examined before the Magistrate and Coroner, and was
bound over to 'appear, but I was not examined before
the grand jury, or by the attorney for the prosecution.
I was the yergeant at the Stepney station, when Mr.
Marley was brought in. I gave him a caution as to
what he said. I visited him during the night.
He asked for pen. ink, and paper, which were
furnished him by his friends. He asked if
he might put a letter in the post. I said I must first
inspect it. He said, " Very well," and at six o'clock in
the morning he gave me this letter, addressed to Mr.
Embleton. I did not put it in the post, but I showed it
to the magistrate's clerk, and afterwards to the Coroner.
I think it was produced to the clerk during the examin-
ation, but I will not be sure.

Peter M'Ardell—l took the prisoner into custody, and
attended before the Coroner to produce the things which
I had taken. I was present before the Magistrate, but
was not bound over. I produced the bundle there. I
was questioned by the Magistrate. I was not questioned
in a private room by the clerk. I took the prisoner on
Tuesday, 11th June. I was bound over before the Co •
roner. I was in waiting to- go before the grand jury
and sworn, but was not examined. I produce the
morphine which I took from the prisoner. It has
been opened and tested by a surgeon. I also
found a box of tooth powder and a bottle of crystalised
vinegar in his trunk at Captain Clarke's. In his rooms, at ;
Mrs. lleppingstall's, I found some carbonate of soda, ;
some tartaric acid, and a paper of Epsom salts in his bed-
room.
_ The prisouvr was rather in an excited state when
1 took him. I told him what I charged him with in the presence of Mr. Hicks. lie said " Oh, my God r When be saw his brother, who was crying, he said, " Oh,
Archy, Archy, why do yoil take on so—this is an inquiry '
which must be instituted." lie afterwards said in a low
tone, " Oh, my angel, I have caused this—l am a mur-
dered man."

Mary Gotobed examined by Mr. ERLE—I live with
my brotlnr, at the Berlin warehouse in Regent street.
One day in June a gentleman and lady called, and pur-

chased the pattern produced. They appeared on good
terms.

Miss Ann•Rebecca King examined by Mr. CLARKSON
—T live with a bonnet-maker in the Mile-end-road. On
Friday, the 10th of June, a gentleman and lady calle I,
and purchased a bonnet. They left a pair of stays to be
sent home with it. They appeared to be so remarkably
affectionate, that I observed upon it after they were
gone. The bonnet was sent to Mrs. Heppingstsll's.
Frederick Salvey examined by Mr. ERLE —I live at
Lenten Spring, Yorkshire. I hare known prisoner two
years, and have visited him. His wife and he, and his
wife's mother, lived together ; they seemed perfectly
happy together. He has always borne a high character
for humanity and kindness in every relation of life. I
knew him when be was in practice. He was of very
careless habits, and his medicines were always thrown
about very carelessly. I have frequently remonstrated
with him on the subject.
Mr. George Dunn, of Edington, near Sunderland—
Has known the prisoner three years. His character for
11-humanity and kindness of disposition has always been
excellent. I always considered him a most kind man.
Mrs. Smith, of Commercial-road, with whom the priso-
ner lodged for some time in 1839, considered him a re-
spectable well-conducted kind-hearted man.
This concluded the case for the defence, and the Court
adjourned for a few minutes, for refreshment. When the
Court re-assembled,
Mr. BODKIN commenced his reply, by expressing his
regret that, in consequence of the absence of the Soli-
citor-General, the painful duty of replying had de-
volved upon him. It was a duty, however, from which
he felt bound not to shrink. He did not
understand that Mr. Erie had complained of the
spirit in which this prosecution had been conducted.
None of the friends of the deceased lady had interfered,
and if the prosecution had not been instituted by the
Government, the case would have gone without investi-
gation ; and a prisoner had no cause to complain that
instead of being prosecuted by the frisnds of the de
ceased, who might be expected to follow up a case vin-
dictively, he was prosecuted by the Government, which
could only have in view the fair and impartial adminis-
tration of justice. Observations had been made on the
fact that persons who had been examined be-
fore the Coroner had not been called for the
prosecution. Now if, as their Lordships well knew,
the prosecutor was in every case obliged to call every
person who had been examined before the coroner, the
ends of justice would frequently be frustrated. The
counsel for the Crown always made a selection of wit-
nesses, and placed the names of those they intended to
examine on the back of the indictment. The prisoner,
therefore, had no cause to complain of any hardship.
With regard to the two policemen whose names were on
the back of the indictment, they had not been called by
the prosecution, because their evidence was consi-
dered to be quite immaterial. They had been called
for the defence, and the jury could judge whether it was
so or not. He trusted the jury would not suffer
themselves to be influenced by prejudice. He felt they
would not do so, but that their verdict would be the re-
sult of calm and dispassionate deliberation. The main
ground on which he understood the defence to be founded
was the inadequacy of the motive which could actuate
..he prisoner to the commission of this heinous crime.
He had no wish to deteriorate from the legitimate force of
that argument, or from the effect of the character which
the prisoner had received, but let them consider for a
moment the relative situations of the prisoner and the
deceased. His Learned Friend was right in his state-
ment of the power of the prisoner over the copyhold pro-
perty, but with regard to the leasehold property,
although he might dispose of it during the
life of his wife, yet if she died it would
go to her heirs. It appeared that the property to
which she succeeded at the death of her father and
mother was 6,000 L, and in looking for a motive, they
must consider, not what were his legal rights, but what
he conceived his rights to be ; and whatever cause there
night be for his making a will, where was the necessity
..or his wife to make a will ? She was not going abroad,
her health was good, and yet he had armed himself with
an instrument, securing to himself all her property at
her death, and which could be only available in the
event of her death, and which could only be required
in the contemplation of her death happening suddenly.
cle feared that the annels of courts of justice contra-
dicted the position that crime was never committed with-
out an adequate motive, and it would be a most dange-
rous doctrine to lay down to make the enormity of
the crime itself an excuse for its commission. It had
never been suggested that the journey to London had
been undertaken for the purpose of committing the
crime, but the letters written to the north showed that,
from his first arrival in London, he had prepared her
friends there to expect the news of her death.
Mr. ERLE—DO read the letters themselves.
Mr. BODKIN would do so presently, but he would first
call their attention to the, morning of the Bth of June,
and the account which the prisoner gave of the circum-
stances attending his wife's death. He had stated that
he was in the adjoining room. Now, could that be tree;
or was it not the fact that he was in the room at the
time his wife swallowed the poison? He says he placed
he poison on the drawers, and then it was suggested that
having taken the salts, she poured water into the glass
containing prussic acid, and drank it, and also ate some
biscuits to put the taste out of her mouth. Now, the
probability was that whoever-gave-I;er the salts gave
her the prussic acid. He rang for warm water
and a spoon, and the glass and spoon were found by the
bed-side. lie was up. She was in bed. He was a medi-
cal man. Was it not probable that he mixed the salts
end handed them to his wife, who was in bed? He said
that in preparing some prussic acid for himself, he
broke the bottle, poured the acid into the glass, which he
placed on the drawers, and went into the other room for
a bottle. Now, as he knew the deadly nature of the acid,
was it not likely that he would have taken the glass
into the other room with him? Now,'in the other room
he found the servant, but he did not ask
her for a bottle, but sat down to write letters
to his friends, and then heard his wife give a shriek, and
rushed in. Now, it was most remarkable that, in a house
so slightly constructed, no one else should have heard the
shriek. He called up the mistress of the house and the
servant, and they found him in the bed-room. He now
came to a part of the case on which the Learned Counsel
for the defence had not touched. No attempt had been
made to impeach the accuracy of the medical evidence,
according to which it appeared that in all cases of this
nature all power of volition ended with the shriek,
which was a convulsive action of the respiratory organs,
and yet they were asked to believe that the deceased had
gone to the drawers, swallowed the poison, and after-
wards walked back to her bed, and spoken to the pri-
soner and told him what had happened. If the medical
testimony was to be believed, such an occurrence was
impossible. They had heard the conduct of the prisoner
on that morning detailed to them, and it was for them to
say whether it was consistent with innocence or not.
Would he not, as a medical man, having been
told by his wife that she had taken prussic acid,
have given an alarm, and called for those remedies with
which, as a medical man, he must have been acquainted,
and which were at once at hand—cold water, a smellineo
bottle, and brandy ; for, as one of the witnesses had''
said, as long as there was life there was hope. Why
had he not adopted these means? Why, because he
would either have restored to life a person he did not
wish to live; or by the use of the remedies betray his
knowledge of the fact that she had taken poison. It
was said he was alarmed, but would alarm lead him to
coin upon the moment a falsehood, and to go through a
mock ceremony in applying remedies which he
knew to be perfectly useless. The deceased was
represented to have been in bed and awake ; there
were no curtains to the bed. Why his wife must have
observed him attempting to open the bottle, and must
have seen what he did ; and yet he represented that his
wife got out of bed, poured water upon the prussic acid,
and drank it. The odour of prussic acid, when spilled,
remained in the atmosphere of the room some time. No
odour was observed in the room. The room was swept.
No broken glass was discovered ; but outside the street
door,on the steps, some broken glass was afterwards found.
They would not fail to observe that on his arriving in
the front room he represented that suddenly a thought
came into his mind of writing to his friends in the
north; but this was more deliberate, for he desired the girl
to leave the room, and not to bring up the breakfast
until he called her. They would have to say whether
having thus removed a person, who might have inter-
rupted, he availed himself of that opportunity of re-
turning to the bed-room, and administering, first the
salts, and then the prussic acid. If he had at once
given his account of the transaction it would have been
open to the gravest suspicion, even if it had been taken
alone, but when taken in conjunction with the letters
which he had written to the north, he feared it was a
ease pregnant with much more than suspicion.—[The
Learned Gentleman here read the letter, dated from the
Euston Hotel, and sent to Mr. Bell, and which was given
yesterday, in the Solicitor-General's opening.] Had
that letter steod alone, it would have been nothing, but
it was the commencement of a series. On the 29 th May the
will was executed, on the Ist June they set out for Lon-
don, and on the 3d of June this letter is written, in
which allusion is made to the delicate state if her health.
On the 6th June he wrote another letter, intended, as it
appeared to him, to prepare the way for the news of her
death, and stating that two medical gentlemen were in
attendance on her. Now, that letter was written on the
Thursday, the very day on which the prisoner had ob-
tained the poison from Donaghue. Undoubtedly the pri-
soner had been in the habit of using prussic acid up to
the year 1841, but there was no evidence that he had
been in the habit of using it since that period. It was
also true that he obtained it where he was known. The
prisoner was entitled to the benefit of that circumstance,
although it should be remembered that he might have
found difficulty in obtaining it where he was not known.
lie now came to the letter written to Mr. Bell on the
Bth June. This was written on the Saturday, the day of
the death. [The Learned Counsel here read the letter,
which was given in the Solicitor-General's opening
:address yesterday.] That letter was posted after
half-past five on the evening, of that Saturday on
which the death took place. That letter, describing her
dangerous state, and' saying that she was attended by
two medical men, who pronounced 'her to be labouring
under a diseased heart, was written hours after he had

seen her expire, and after he had applied at the cemetery
on the subject of the funeral. Th'it letter had been
written before the necessity of a coroner's inquest and a
post mortem examination had become manifest. The post
mortem examination took place on the Monday, and the
prisoner had expressed a desire to be present. He was not
permitted to be present, but Captain Clarke was there,
and described to the prisoner that the contents of the
tomach had been analysed by the medical men, and
had been placed in a glass and removed. This was
ample notice to a medical man. He went to Mr. Gar-
rett, and received; what was evidently intended to be an
evasive answer to his inquiries, and then, and not till
then, he expressed a desire to get Captain Clarke into a
Private place, and made to him that communication
which Captain Clarke had stated to them. It would be their
painful duty to consider the evidence, and to pronounce
a verdict on which the life of the prisoner would depend.