The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-11 00:00:00

disnet not/it/GE:cm

LANCAM-TIRE SPRING ASSIZES

CROWN COURT

-FitlyAy, APRIL 7

Before Mr. Baro❑ PARKI

THE POISONING CASE AT NI ANOFIESTER

The trial of Mary Hunter was resumed this morning.
The court was again crowded, and many ladies were present.
On the motion of Mr. Wilkins, the medical witnesses to be
examined, and whose evidence would be merely speculative,
were ordered out of court. He then called
Sarah Horsfield, a neighbour of the deceased, and the pri-
soner. She deposed nearly to the same effect as Mrs. Street,
and the dreadful sufferings of the deceased.
Mr. John Davies, lecturer on chemistry at the Royal Me-
dical Society and the Pharmaceutic Society in Manchester,
deposed that he analysed the contents of the stomach and
some porridge given to him by Mr. Beswick. the officer, and
found no poison whatever. He thought it possible that the
prescriptions administered to the deceased would have a ten-
dency to remove arsenic from the stomach and bowels.
Cross-examined.—From the tests he applied he should
have discovered the smallest fraction of a grain of arsenic
had it been present.
Re-examined,—The questions put to him in cross-exami-
nation are much more lit for a pathologist to decide than a
chemist. •

Mary Ann Jackson, wife of Thomas Jackson, and sister of
the deceased, prOVed that when she asked the prisoner why
they had not been sent for, she replied that she could not
send, and that Mr:. Harrison's young man told her that her
husband had the Hier complaint, and, if opened, his liver
would be found no bigger than a nut ; and that when it was
proposed to open his body, she objected to it; that they had
no quarrel about the money ; that about six weeks before the
death of her husband, she had asked witness to lend her £5,
saying that her husband had drawn £lO out of the building
society, £5 for herself and £5 for a widow lady ; that he had
given her the latter to take care of,. and somebody had picked
her pocket of four sovereigns, in the market. Witness lent
her £2.

Cross-examined.—The deceased and his wife had been
married ten years, and had always lived comfortably together
for anything she knew. The prisoner was a little given to
drink. Her husband was of rather a hasty temper.
By the JUDGE.—Witness had quarrelled with the prisoner
about seven years ago, but they were on speaking terms.
Thomas Jackson gave somewhat similar evidence. They
had never laid claim to the money of the deceased, but he
and another person offered to advance money for the mourn-
ing.

Cross.examined.--It was a common thing for persons in
her line of life to object to have a body opened.
Re-examined.—Had his wife died so suddenly, he should
not have objected to her being opened.
Ann Whittaker, of Walter-street, Manchester, next door
neighbour to the deceased, and whose husband worked with
him, proved that the prisoner had told her that her husband
was struck with death when he began to be ill, and that he
would be black when he was first struck, and those who laid
him out would see it. She said they were troubled with
witchclocks some months previous to this.
Martha Ankers, a silk-winder, neighbour to the deceased,
spoke to his regular habits. The prisoner, who was not a
sober woman, told her that her husband allowed her £1 a
week to keep house. She was in the habit of pawning a good,
deal, and said if he found it out he would kill her. Some
time previously she had kept a cat.--Cross-examined : She
was a good wife, and very fond of her husband, and had often
expressed to witness her intention to act better. It was three
years since they kept a cat.
Martha Ankers, sen., said the prisoner had told her, 12
months ago, that her husband was going to draw some money
from a building-club ; that she owed money, and, as she was
much involved unknown to him, she thought she would take
it, as the only chance of redeeming herself,
.and would never
do anything unknown to him again; and that it would be a
greater a shock to him to find she had deceived him than to
lose the money.

Caroline Bedford, living near to the prisoner, had charred
for her, but beard nothing of her having witchclocks. The
prisoner had sent her to borrow sheets to lay her husband out
shortly before he died.
Hugh M`Gillon, who formerly lodged with the deceased,
spoke to his being a robust, healthy man.
After a number of witnesses had been examined, whose
testimony did not throw much light on the investigation, Mr.
Beswick, the chief superintendent of police at Manchester,
proved that he apprehended the prisoner, and cautioned her
not to say anything that might commit herself, whet) she de-
nied that she had bought arsenic from Mr. Davies or any
other person; and that she then said she had bought it to
kill witchclocks with, but had lost it, and observed, " you
think I gave it to my husband, but you are mistaken." He
afterwards, with policeofficer Green, searched the house, but
found no oatmeal balls. Mrs. Whittaker gave him a basin
with some water porridge, which he handed to Mr. D'avies,
together with some paper containing a white powder that had
been found in the prisoner's house.
Mr. John Carson, surgeon, who beard the evidence of the
medical men the previous day, arrived at the conclusion that
the symptoms described could not be farmed by any disease
coming on suddenly in a person in perfect health. He be-
lieved the deceased had died from acute inflammation of the
stomach.
Mr. Thomas Blackburn was then called. He had been ih
practice as a surgeon in Liverpool for upwards of 30 years.
Heard the evidence of the medical men yesterday as to the
death of the deceased, and his illness, and the appearances of
the body, and I think it within the range of possibility that
arsenic could be detected. I, however, think the probability
rather the other way.
The learned JUDGE here stopped the case, and asked the
Jury whether they were of opinion that the case should go
on.

The Jury said they had heard quite enough, and under the
direction of his Lordship, a verdict of acquittal was taken,
and the prisoner was discharged.
Mr. Pot. Lock said, in justice to Mr. Dyson, one of the
medical gentlemen who was examined yesterday, he wished
to withdraw the observation he had made respecting him'.
The gentleman who instructed him had been misinformed,
and the moment he found it was without foundation he
wished to do justice to the gentleman.
The learned JUDGE observed, that the manner in which
Mr. Dyson denied the observation showed him there was no
foundation for it.
[We understood there were about a dozen witnesses in
attendance for the prisoner, all differing in opinion from the
medical and chemical testimony given on behalf of the prose-
cution.]
Mr. Herford was solicitor to the prosecution ; and Mr.
Bent, solicitor, of Manchester, for the prisoner.
Two or three cases of burglary of no interest occupied the
court until it adjourned at half-past six.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
FARRAR v. DEFLINNE.—This was a special jury case, in
-which the plaintiff, James Farrar, sought to recover from the
defendant, Francis Deflinne, the amount of three bills of ex-
change for £1,123. The counts were for goods sold and de-
livered, interest, and on an account stated. The defendant
pleaded that he had not accepted, and denied his liability.
Mr. BAINES, Mr. TOMLINSON, and Mr. COWLING ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and Mr. DUNDAS, Mr. BRANDT,
and Mr. WATSON for the defendant.
Mr. BAINES stated the case. He said the question to be
decided on that occasion was one of very considerable im-
portance, not only as it affected the amount at issue, but also
as it affected the character of the person whose conduct the
Jury would have to inquire into; because, with respect to
the defendant, be (Mr. Baines) would have to submit to
them that his conduct, as regarded the present matter, had
been utterly inconsistent with those principles of honesty
and fair dealing by which every British merchant ought ever
to be actuated. The plaintiff was a respectable manufactu-
rer, carrying on business in Manchester. The defendant was
also carrying on business in Manchester; he was one of a
firm called Deflinne and Colt ; and he was also, as he (Mr.
Baines) contended, a partner in a firm called Thomas Todd,
in which name the bills of exchange, the subject of the pre-
sent action. were drawn, and in which name they were ac-
cepted. Those bills had been drawn towards the latter part
of last year. They were drawn by the plaintiff on Mr. Todd ,•
they were accepted by Mr. Todd ; and what he (Mr. Baines)
contended for was this, that the defendant was liable to the
plaintiff, either as an actual member of that firm, or, at all
events, as having held himself out in the character of a part-
ner. This was the short question which the jury would have
to try. The evidence would necessarily run into much de-
tail; and he (Mr. Baines) would be best able to assist the
Jury in; listening to it by giving them a short and general
statement of the transections, entering as little as possible
• into detail. They had already heard of a person of the
name of Thomas Todd as that of the concern on which the
bills had been drawn, and in which they were accepted.
There was a young man of that name, who, in 1833, down
to the latter part of that year, had been engaged in several
situations in Manchester as warehouseman and buyer—first
at Townsend and Co.'s, and then at Ainsworth and Co.'s.
He seemed to have contracted an intimacy with Mr. De-
, filmic, the present defendant; for, at the end of 1833, he
I. was advised by Mr. Deflinne to go into business for himself,
the latter saying that he was possessed of capital, with which
he would render him assistance. Todd accordingly took a
• warehouse in Marsden-place, Manchester, and, before three
months had expired, an actual written agreement of part-
nership was entered into between him and Deflinne, which
specified that the concern was to be carried on by Todd, and
that Deflinne was to be a dormant partner. That an agree-
-ment of this kind had been entered into, there was no doubt.
'The 'instrument was dated in February, 1834. Very soon.
:after, Deflinne interested himself greatly in the concern by
'coming to the place and acting in every way in which a pan-
nier could act; and it would be material for the jury to see
in what light he exhibited himself to the persons coming to
the warehouse, for he (Mr. Baines) would contend he knew,
:and must have known, that, though his name did not appear
sin the firm, the fact of his being a partner must have been
notorious to great numbers of persons, and, among others,
to the plaintiff, who, upon the credit of Deflinne, and not
upon that of Todd, had gone on, from the year 1834 down
to the final stoppage of Todd in July, 1842, supplying ds
- at an average rate of £4OO per month, and, all the time,gooon
- the bona fide belief that he bad Deflinne for his debtor;
. and it would be strange if he had come to any other conclu-
sion, for he had the statement of Deflinne's partner on the
subject, and be also had an opportunity of seeing how the
defendant conducted himself in the management of the con-
. cern. Some of elle things which the defendant did as a part-
. ner were these :—.he came three or four times a day to the
-place, wrote in t,•te books of the concern, was seen by the
-clerks and others to, do so; examined the accounts, was con-
: stilted about raising the wages of the servants, gave directions
to the buyers and se hers folithe concern as to what they were
to.do, conducted hin nself in every way as a partner, and was
-very urgent with the clerks and servants to make as much
profit as possible ; an d, whether it was that he had an odd
way of expressing him ,self or not, it was difficult to say, but,
-at all events, his usual remark appeared to be—" Take care
Iyou rob the natives (a . laugh); get as much out of them as
;you can ; Mr. So-and.: .o is making so much, and you must
.make
as
much
as him. The bills of acceptances that became
due of the concern were taken up by him ; parties were always
referred to him and he s, qtled the accounts ; and it would be
shown by the evidence of several employed in the concern that
no other conclusion cote 'ld be drawn than this, that Mr.
Deflinne was a partner, a nd that, though his name was not
included in the firm, he Ras appearing personally and taking
an open and ostensible pa rt in the general business of the
house. This state of thin gs continued till 1837. Todd had
nothing. He had come of tt of a situation with a capital of
only £2O or £3O in the woi ; and it would be seen from the
evidence that lie was not to ,supply any capital, but that the
capital was to be supplied by Deflinne. It would be con-
tended by the counsel on ti se o ther side that a dissolution of
in the year '37, and that after
the partnership look plac s
that dissolution the liabilitit aof L'eflinne ceased ; but Deflinne
would find himself very tn- eel mistaken if. he had taken any
or
tothe dissolution had been
such notion as this into his bead,
human •
any being ex_
servants of the concern
of the most secret kind, n kuuni
cept to Mr. Todd and him Reif: thr
with
the not the slightest know ledge of it, persons dealing with
.
the concern had not the sl; &test notton of it, and the plain-
tiff and all others continue Stn .transact business with the con-
cern down to the time of ~
w eeg .eppage upon the supposition
that Deflinne continued to .he. what at the time he unques-
tionably was, a member 0 f the firm. After the January of
1837:when the secret diss elu,tion took place, things went on,
so far as the world was co ace' ned, exactly as they had done
before. The defendant a!aslet the warehouse, be was con-
suited about everything, 1 se exa mined the books, took up the
dishonoured acceptances, tact th e e the
concern, bills which were falling due,
provided for all the em' wgencie, 01
'rants as much as wasincon.
the
con-
sidered by the customers , and set ever
t knowledge,the
slightest 'until d the slig
concern,
and no one h:
not one of the firm. The
time of the bankruptcy, that he wa s
D trine ad
colour of the dissolutio a appeared toe t : efr