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

t.

6titril lAMAgititit 6Piti

eg,OWN COURt3;-TitiDAY,
Before Mr. Baron PARSE.

THE POISONING CASE AT MANCHESTER

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 satne 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 liver 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 give❑ to
drink. Her husband was of rather a hasty temper.
By the Junes.—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.—lt 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 rind she had deceived him than to
lose the money.
Caroline Bedford, living near to the prisoner, had charred
for her, but heard nothing of her having witchclocks. The
prisoner had sent her to borrow sheets to lay her husband out
shortly before he died.
Hugh M'Gilion, who formerly lodged with. the deceased,
spoke to his beie'g a robust, healthy twin.
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, when 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. Davies,
together with some paper containing a white powder that had
been found in the prisoner's house.
Mr. John Carson, surgeon, who heard the evidence of the
medical men the previous day, arrived at the conclusion that
the symptoms described could not be formed by any disease
coming on suddenly in a person in perfect health. He be-
lieved the deceased had died from acute intla mutation of the
stomach.
Mr. Thomas Blackburn was then called. He had been in
practice as a surgeon in Liverpool for upwards of 30 years.
Heard the evidence of the medical met, 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. POLLOCK 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 wlach
Mr. Dyson denied the observation showed him there was no
foundation for it.
[\Ve understood there we re 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 bv,rglary 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 Dahl-tie, 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. TouLINSoN, and Mr. COWLING ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and Mr. DeNDAS, 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.
Bathes) 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 to wards the latter part
of last year. They were drawn by the plaintiff on Mr. Todd ;
they were accepted by Mr. Todd ; and %viva he (Mr. Baines)
contended for was this, that the defendata. was liable to the
plaintiff, either as an actual member of ghat firm, or, at all
events, as having held himself out in the c haracter 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 t person of the
name of Thomas Todd as that of the conce rte 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 engt toed in several
situations in Manchester as warehouseman anal buyer—first
at Townsend and Co.'s, and then at Ainsworith and Co.'s.
He seemed to have contracted an intimacy with Mr. De-
flinne, the present defendant; for, at the end'
was advised by Mr. Deflinne to go into business fear himself,
the latter saying that he was possessed of capital with which
he would render him assistance. Todd according! y took a
warehouse in Marsden-place, Manchester, and, befo re 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 To, dd, 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. Ver y soon
after, Deflinne interested himself greatly in the cones all by
coming to the place and acting in every way in which t . part-
ner could act; and it would be material for the jury to see
in what light he exhibited himself to the persons conai:ng to
the warehouse, for he (Mr. Baines) would contend be :knew,
and must have known, that, though his name did not appear
in the firm, the fact of his being a partner must h ave been
notorious to
,great numbers,of persons, and; among; otafiers,
16 the plaintiff; who, upon the credit of Deflinne, man' not
upon that of Todd, had gone on, from the year 18; 14 down
to the final stoppage of Todd in July, 1842, o
supplyin gds
at an average rate of £4OO per month, and, all the t imgo e, on
the bona fide belief that he had Deflinne for his debtor;
and it would be strange if he had come to any other t tonclu-
sion, for he had the statement of Deflinne's partner on the
subject, and be also had an opportunity of seeing ho iw the
defendant conducted himself in the management of th, s con-
cern. Some of the things which the defendant did as a part-
ner were these :—he came three or four times a clay t• 7 the
place, wrote in the books of the concerti, was seen b. cone
t
clerks and others to do so, examined the accounts, was con-
sulted about raising the wages of the servants, gave direct inns
to the buyers and sellers for the concern as to-what they i rare
to do, conducted himself in every way as a partner, and was
very urgent with the clerks and servants to make as in tch
profit as Possible ; and, whether it was that he had ant add
way of expressing himself or not, it was difficult to say, b afr,
at all events, his usual remark appeared to be—" Take ca lie
you rob the natives (a laugh); get as much out of them
Lis
you can M. So-and-so is making so much, mu, it
make as much as him." The bills of acceptances that becam e
due of the concern were taken up by him ; parties were always:
referred to him and he settled the accounts ; and it would be
shown by the evidence of several employed in the concern that
no other conclusion could be drawn thanniathniasm,
eth:,ataMnort.
Deflinne was a partner, and that, though.
included in the firm, he was appearing personally and taking
an open and ostensible part in the general business of the
house. This state of things continued till 1837. Todd had
nothing. He had come out of a situation with a capi of
only £2O or £3O in the world ; and it would be seen fromtal
the
evidence that he 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 the other side that a dissolution of
the partnership took place in the year '37, and that after
that dissolution the liabilities of Deflinne ceased ; but Deflinne
would find himself very much mistaken if he had taken any
such notion as this into his head, for the dissolution had been
of the most secret kind, not known to any human bein g ex-
cept to Mr. Todd and himself : the servants of the concern
had not the slightest knowledge of it,
of t
persons
i dealing
il with
the concern had not the slightest notion and i plain-
tiff and all others continued to transact business with the
the COO.
cern down to the time of the stoppage upon the supposition
what at
A place,t ht.
tee time After
thingstho
jh
ae
nlvuoenanrqtvi (toe
os f-
that Deflinne continued to be,
tionably was, a member of the tirm.
1837, when the secret dissolutiond took
e, exactlyarehouasse
,t hbeey
Has
dot-tile'
so far as the world was concerned,
before. The defendant was at th.,
stilted about everything, lie examined the. books, took supeothne.
dishonoured acceptances, met the billsttuncohnwoeerarens,feavwleliarnaginodotuhne;,
provided for all the emergencies of
con-
sidered by the customers and servants. as much
concern, and no one had the slightcso.ttkonnoewole...tA_hgeelfi.ruaint.ilTthhee
n
time of the bankruptcy, that he was
colour of the dissolution appeared to be this . vetitspe had