The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-22 00:00:00

Sarah Williams recalled, and examined by Mr. ERLE
—Some articles were brought for Mrs. Belaney to the
house. Those were a bonnet and some other articles.
The wills were then put in, and read. They were
dated the 17th of May. One conveyed all the pro-
perty of James Cockburn Belaney to his wife, Rachel
Belaney, and the other conveyed the property of Rachel
Belaney to her husband.

The letters of the prisoner were put in and read.
Thu/tease for the prosecution having closed,
Mr. ERLE asked the Court for time to proceed with
the defence till to-morrow, as he felt that he would ba
better able to do justice to the case if he was allowed
time till to-morrow.

The COURT thought that it was too early an hour to
break up.
Mr. ERLR rose to address the jury on behalf of the
prisoner. He commenced by entreating them to dismiss
from their minds all they had heard upon the subject of the
charge against the prisoner out of door, and not to allow
any rumours or reports that might have come to their
knowledge on the subject to prejudice the inquiry. He
then proceeded to state that there would be no difficu'ty
as to the cause of death, which was clearly occasioned
by prussic acid, and the only question for the jury was,
whether the prisoner had wilfully administered that
poison to his wife, and with the intent to murder her ;
and this was the point which the jury had to decide. He
then proceeded to remark that the evidence showed the
prisoner to be a man of respectability ; he had contracted
what appeared to be a happy marriage ; there was no
imputation of any rival affection ; and yet, without any
apparent motive whatever, the jury were called on to say
that he had committed the most enormous crime that
could possibly be committed by any human being. He
begged the jury to remember that it was impossible
there could be any pecuniary motive for this act,
for it was proved that from the moment of his
marriage the whole of the property had been placed in his
uncontrolled possession. The copyhold property was
handed over to him, and he might have dons what he
pleased with it ; therefore there could not have been any
pecuniary motive to induce him to commit the murder.
The will that had been been referred to gave the pri-
soner no more power over the property than he possessed
before, for by his marriage the property became hip, and
if his wife had died first the whole would have devolved
upon him. He begged them to recollect that if the
prisoner had died his property would have been divided
amongst relations, and it was, therefore, a most natural
and honourable course for him to endeavour to secure to
her, in such an event, the property which he had himself
derived from her. As to the will of the deceased, it was
mere waste paper, and was invalid in every respect ; and
if it had been a valid instrument it would not at all have
benefited the prisoner. With regard to the letters being
dated from the Euston Hotel, when the prisoner and his
wife had left that establishment, it might, he considered,
be very easily accounted for by the fact that the prisoner
and his wife were not anxious to have it known that they
were living in a small apartment, but desired to have it
thought that they were in a stylish place, like the
Euston Hotel, It should be recollected, also, that the
place where the prisoner did take up his abode was of
all others the only part of London where he had any
friends, and ho would ask them if it was likely that he
would have chosen such a spot for the commission of a
cool and deliberate murder? The Learned Counsel then
proceeded to remark upon the other facts of the case,
and he said it certainly appeared that the prisoner's
statement that two medical men were in attendance
upon his wife was not true, but the prisoner's explana-
tion was, that if the illness of Mrs. Belaney had con-
tinued, it was his intention to have called in medical
assistance. As to the possession of the poisonous arti-
cles, he should be in a position most satisfactorily to
account for this circumstance from the fact that
the prisoner had for several years laboured nnder
dyspepsia, and the only means of relief were
the administration of strong acids, and the medical
gentlemen who had prescribed for the prisoner was in
attendance to prove this fact. He then remarked upon
the affection which it was proved existed between the
prosecutor and his wife, and the kind manner in which
he had ministered to her comfort, and asked the jury
whether they could reconcile such conduct with the
belief that the prisoner all along intended to carry out a
deliberate plan of murdering his unoffending victim?
He contended that the prisoner's story as to the manner
in which the poison had been taken by the deceased
was most probable, and that it was borne out by all the
circumstances spoken to by the witnesses. What was
more probable, then, than that the unfortunate deceased,
after taking the salts, which it was proved she had done,
should have got up and taken some water in order to
remove the taste of the salts from her mouth,
and seeing this glass upon the drawers, that she should
have employed it for that purpose? He called upon the
jury to weigh all the facts of the case minutely, and he
felt satisfied that the result would be that they must
acquit the prisoner; and he felt convinced they would
think it impossible for human nature to be guilty of so
monstrous and aggravated a crime as that imputed to his
unfortunate client, for if the charge were true, he must
be the blackest fiend that ever walked upon the face of
the earth. It was impossible that he should be guilty. He
had been acquainted with the deceased in early life.
They had grown up together, were united, and
during their conjugal intimacy lived most happily
together ; and he would ask what possible motive the
prisoner could have had for the commission of so heinous
a crime? His Learned Friend might tell them that he
would exchange his life interest for the foe, but what
would that be ? He could sell the property, and that
was all. Was there the least evidence of any intention
on his part to dispose of the property? He would ask
the jury, as husbands and as fathers, whether they could
believe it possible that the prisoner had committed this
awful crime under such circumstances? He had a young
and lovely wife, in the flower and bloom of life, and
about to become a mother ; and the prisoner was charged
with the murder of that wife, without the slightest
motive being assigned for the commission of the act. It
certainly was a most mysterious case, and he begged the
jury to recollect that they were inquiring into the intention
oftheir fellow-man, an intention which could only be known
to God ; and he therefore, implored them, if they bad
but a single doubt, to give the prisoner the benefit of
that doubt, and acquit him.
At the conclusion of the address of the Learned Coun-
sel, the Court adjourned until this morning at ten o'clock.