The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-18 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Yorac, DEC. 16.
THE PONTEFRACT POISONLNG CASE.
Mr. Justice Williams took his seat on the bench
shortly after nine o'cicck this morning to dispose of
the only remaining case for trial, namely, that of
Fanny Speed, 24, who was charged with the
wilful murder, by poison, of her husband, John
Speed, the younger, at Pontefract, on the 25th of
July last. The prisoner was also charged under
the coroner's inquisition with the like offence.
The prisoner, whe is a good-looking young woman,_
was respectably attired. She pleaded not guiltyil2
a firm tone of voice. She appeared quite calmil and
_
collected, and did not manifest any symptoms
dof
fear at the awful position in which she was place .
She was far advanced in pregnancy, and on the
application of Mr. Daarsley, her leading counsel,
the judge allowed her to be seated during the trial.
Mr. Blanshard and Mr. Maule were for the pro-
secution • Mr. Dearsley and Mr. W. J. Blackburn
appeared for the prisoner.
Kr. Blanshard stated the case. The prisoner was
charged with the murder of her husband, John
speed, the younger, who at the time of his death
was about twenty-seven years of age. He was
married to the prisoner about a year and a half ago
previous to July last, and was a farm labourer in
the service of Mr. Barker, a farmer, at Pontefract.
The prisoner and the deceased resided together in
Barbican-road, in that town, and on Wednesday,
the 22d of July last, the latter was taken seriously
ill, and continued in that state until Saturday, the
25th of July last, when the unfortunate man died.
The inquiry tritescourt and jury were then entering
Into was to ascertain the cause of death of the de-
ceased, and ou.;the part of the prosecution it was
alleged that his death had resulted from the adminis-
tration to him of a quantity of poison at the hands
of his wife, the prisoner. On the part of the pro-
secution it would be the learned counsel's duty to
point out suggestions and reasons which he thought
a sufficient motive in that case. It appeared that
the prisoner, while living in service at Knottingley,
some years ago, formed an attachment for a young
man named Benjamin Wilke, whom she called her
cousin, and whom she promised to marry when
Its returned from sea, he being then about to
start on a voyage. Wilks left Knottingley, and
went to sea, and the prisoner also left her service
and went to live as servant with the same master
as the deceased. The prisoner and the deceased
being thus brought together, an attachment sprung
up between them, and eventually they were
married, the marriage being celebrated about
two years ago. It was denied on the part of
the prosecution that the prisoner and her hus.-
band had lived happily together after they werp
joined in wedlock, at least as far as the neigh-
bours and the people living in the neighbourhood
could judge. Benjamin Wilks returned from sea,
when it appeared that the love the prisoner had
felt for him had revived, and this, it was alleged,
was the principal reason why the prisoner designed
and determined upon effecting the death of her
husband, John Speed. On Wednesday morning,
the 22d July, John Speed was free from any symp-
toms of illness, he went about his work as usual
before breakfast. He partook of his breakfast at
eight o'clock, being then perfectly well ; but the
learned counsel said he would be able to show, from
the declaration of a female named Ann Smith, who
lived next door to the prisoner, that the deceased
was taken ill soon after he had partaken of his
breakfast that morning, being seized with violent
retchings, purgings, and vomitings. His hands were
drawn up, he complained of thirst, and was in
great pain and suffering ; in short, he evinced all
the appearance of a person under the effects of
poison. The deceased continued more or less in-
disposed from this time up to the time of his death,
which took place about midnight on Saturday, the
2oth of July last. The learned counsel then gave
an outline of the evidence he should produce, and
which will be found fully stated below. He said
the evidence would make out satisfactorily : Ist,
that:death had been caused by the deceased taking
a large quantity of arsenic ; 2dly, that he did not
take the poison himself, but that it had been ad-
ministered to him by the prisoner ; and, 3dly, that
she had done so for the motive to which he had al-
ready alluded, namely, to get rid of her husband,
because she loved Wilks. He would now advert to
the prisoner's conduct, and to certain forebodings of
her husband's death which she related to other par-
ties. On Tuesday night, the 21st July, the prisoner
called at the house of a witness named Hannah
Agar. She told Agar that a gipsy woman had been
at her house, and had told her that her husband
would die soon, and that within six months of his
decease she would be m irried to another man. The
prisoner said she hoped it would not be the case.
She also went to another neighbour, Mrs. White-
head,
and informed her that she had had some
.e, curious dreams respecting her husband. The learned
counsel said he should call a witness named Re-
becca Pawson, and she would state that whilst
Betej .min Wilks was staying at the prisoner's house
she saw him sitting upon her knee with his arm
round her neck. Mrs. Pawson remarked, " Why
really, Fanny, lam surprised at yon ; I thought it
was Jack," meaning her husband, to which the pri-
soner replied, " Oh, it's only our Ben l'' Wilks
then went up stairs, when the prisoner remarked
to Mrs. Pawson, in reference to Wilks :
" It is happy to meet, but lonesome to part,
When he goes away, it will break my heart.'
Whil,t Wilks was in the room above, the prisoner
related the substance of a dream, real or imaginary,
which she had a few nights before. She said that
she dreamed her husband had fallen off a load of
hay, but that she did not seem to be much
concerned about it, as there was one who would
marry her, and that she had a lock of his hair.
The learned counsel, in conclusion, said these
were the principal fat s of the case, and it
would be for the jury to say whether the
prisoner had administered poison to her husband,
and whether that poison had caused his death.
If they felt any doubts or difficulties arise in their
minds, he asked them to gee) the prisoner the
benefit of those doubts and acquit her ; but, if on
the other hand, the facts should lead them to the
conclusion that the prisoner was guilty, they must
say so by their verdict.
On cross-examination the witnesses proved that
the deceased and his wife had always lived on the
most affectionate terms, almost like a newly married
couple. It was also shown that the deceased at the
time of his death was labouring under a severe dis-
ease which he had not communicated to the sur-
geons who attended him in his last illness, and which
was one of a nature which would cause him to avoid
purchasing medicines of a regular practitioner. It
was proved that there was a savage dog in the row
in which the prisoner lived, and that it has flown at
and bitten another person ; that there was a Gipsy
woman in Pomfret who was accustomed to tell for-
tunes and interpret dreams, and one of the witnesses
bad seen her at Mrs. Speed's ; that the deceased was
as much attached to- Benjamin Wilks as the prisoner
was ; that the prisoner and Wilks bad been brought
up together as children, and that she had said that
she thought as much of him as of her own brother.
Mr. Dearsley addressed the jury for the prisoner,
and strongly urged upon them the absence of all
reasonable motive for the act assigned to her. He
denied that he was called upon to offer any sug-
gestion as to how the deceased had taken arsenic.
He did not deny that he had died of that poison,
but he hid asserted that there was no proof that
the prisoner had administered it. With re-
gard to her application for arsenic at Mr. Priestley's
on the Tuesday night, it was proved that she did
not obtain it there • yet, if she did obtain any
arsenic it must have been obtained that night, else
she would have required to apply for it. The
prosecution had bad ample time to find out where
she had obtained it, and if she had obtained it,
as it was clear from the evidence that it must have
been got in Pontefract. Mr. Dears'ey also sug-
gested'that, as the deceased was also labouring
under a disease which ho carefully concealed from
the regular medical man and from his wife, he was
secretly taking medecine for his disorder from some
quack or inexperieecA person, an i he might have
taken one very large dose of arsenic by mistake
on the Wednesday morning, which did not cause
his death till Saturday ; and from the evidence of
the Inedicecipeu it was possible and probable that
he might hie so lineered. The learned counsel
dweltfor.
it.l
, ,y' on the'conduct of the wife through-
out the
to ease, which was proved by many
awfritenetei-3•Z:tlf'
tebew.all that the conduct of a careful and
should be In conclusion, he
urged the great ' improbability that a wife so harpy
as it appeared gas should have committed so
foul and unnatural aas. „inie
as the murder of an
affec'ionate husbael.
Tito Court Veen to e.

-.
1
TIIIIRSDA.Y, bEe. 17.
This morning M j i wta
0.-thn jury not
r. _ us ice _ taiatni,
Ise, 1 r,,e of their dutyto
the defence, who had painted, .
their verdict in such colours that it was calcul*ted
to scare them from returning ei --verdict of guilty,
His Lordship then summed up the- evidence Very
carefully. He dwelt on the fact that when before
the coroner the prisoner hal denied having been
in Mr. Priestlcy's shop on the Tuesday' night,
whereas if they believed Mr. Priestley and hid as-
sistant she must have been there and must
have asked for arsenic. The difficulty
in the
case was, that no arsenic was traced to herpos-
session, nor was any found in her house; a d it
was difficult to say how .he could'have obtai it
in Pomfret on Tuesday night, after hting, re Sed
at Mr. Priestley s. If, however, the deceased did i
not take the arsenic iv the manner suggested by

the counsel in the defence, from whose hands did
he take it It was not even suggested by the
learned counsel that any other person than the
prisoner had an opportunity of administering the
poison, and the statement of the prisoner also
excluded this supposition. If, however, the jury
had any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
prisoner, they would be bound to acquither. The
jury retired and in about 20 minutes returned iuto
court with a verdict of Not Guilty.