Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-12-18
1heMySt,. OfaHansonCab
By FERGUS ". HUME.

1
 the Melbourne club, at which am waiter
 l remember Thursday, 26th July. On tha
 night the last witness came with a letter t
 the prisoner. It was about a quarter to l.
 She just gave it to me, and went away.
 delivered it to MT. Fitzgerald. He left tn
 club at about ten minutes to I.
 This closed the evidence for the defense
 and after the crown prosecutor had made hi
 speech, in which he pointed out the stron, | evidence against the prisoner, Cation arose t,
 address the jury. He was a fine speaker | and made a splendid defense Not singl
 point escaped him, and that brilliant piece c | oratory Is still remembered and spoken O
 admiringly in the purlieus of Temple cour | and Chancerv lane.
 He began by giving n vivid description o | the circumstances of the murder-of ths
 meeting of the murderer and his victim 1T Collins street East-the cab driving down tt
 St Kilda-the getting out of the cab of the
 murderer after committing the crime-anG | the way in which he had secured himself against pursuit. Having thus enchained the | attention of the jury by the graphic manner in which he described the crime, he pointed
 out that the evidence brought forward by | the prosecution was purely circumstantial | and that they had utterly failed to identify l the man who entered the cab with the pris.
 oner in the dock. The supposition that the
 prisoner and the man in the light coat being
 ona and the same person rested solely upon
 the evidence of the caAanan, Royston, who,
 though not intoxicated, was, judging from
 his own statements, not in a fit state to dis
 tinguish between the man who hailed the
 >lb and the man who got in The crime was
 committed by means of chloroform; there
 fore, if the prisoner was guilty, he must have
 nIjrINhaSa6 nhlornfprD1 in
 obtained it from some friends. At all events,
 the prosecution had not brought forward a single piece of evidence to show how and
 where the chloroform was obtained. With
 regard to the glove belonging to the mur- dered man found in the prisoners pocket, he picked it up off the ground at the time when he first met Whyte, when the deceased was lying drunk near the Scotch church. Ger tainly there was no evidence to show that the prisoner had picked it up before the de ceased entered the cab; but, on the other hand, there was no evidence to show that it had been picked up in the cab. It was far more likely that the glove, and especially a white glove, would be picked up under the light of the lamp near the Scotch church. where it was easily noticeable, than in the darkness of cab, where there was very little room, and where it would be quite dark, as
 
 Royston, swore positively that the man who got out of his cab on the St Kilda road wore diamond ring on the forfinger of his right hand, and the cabman, Rankin, swore to the same thing about the man who got out at Powlett street. Against this could be placed the evidence of one of the prisoners most intimate friends-one who had seen him almost daily for the last five years, and he had sworn positively that the prisoner never was in the habit of wearing rings. The cab man, Rankin, had also sworn that the man who entered his cab on the St. Kilda road alighted et Powlett street, East Melbourne, at 3 o'clock on Friday morning, as he heard that hour strike from the postoffice clock, whereas the evidence of the prisoners land lady showed plainly that he entered the house five minutes previously, and her evi- dence was further supported by that of the watchmaker, Dendy. Mrs. Sampson saw the hand of her kitchen clock point to five min utes to 2, and, thinking it was ten minutes slow, told the detective the prisoner did not enter the house till five minutes past 3, which would just give the man who alighted from the cab, presuming him to have been the prisoner, sufficient time to walk up to his lodgings. The evidence of the watchmaker uendY, however, showed clearly that he had put the clock right at the hour of s on Thursday night; that it was impossible for it to gain ten minutes before 3 on Fri day morning, and, therefore, the time. Ave minutes to 3, seen by the landladv, was the correct one, and the prisoner was in the house five minutes before the other man alighted from the cab in Powlett street. These points in themselves were sufficient to show that the prisoner was innocent, but the evidence of the woman Rawlins must prove t0 ha hot was not the man who committed the crime. The witness Brown had proved that the, wo man Rawlins had delivered letter to him. which be gave to the prisoner, and that the prisoner left the club, personally, to keep the appointment spoken of in the letter. which letter, or rather the remains of it, had been put in evidence. The woman Rawlins swore that the prisoner met her at the corner of Russell and Bourke streets, and had gone with her to one of the back slums, there to see the writer of the letter. She also proved that at the time of the committal of the crime the prisoner was still in the back slun1 hY the bed of the dying woman, and, there being only one door to the room, could not possibly have left without the witness seeing him. The woman Rawlins further proved that she left the prisoner at the corner of Russell and Bourke streets at twenty-five minutes to 3 o'clock, which was five minutes before Roy ston drove his cab up to the St. Kilda police station, with the dead body inside Finally, 5he woman Rawlins proved her words by stating that she saw both the postoffioe and town hall clocks; and supposing the prisoner started from the corner of Bourke and Rus sell streets, as she says he did, he would reach East Melbourne in twenty minutes, which made it five minutes to 2 on Friday morn ng, the time at which, according to the land ady's statement, he entered the house. All 'he evidence given by the different witnesses agreed completely, and formed a chain which showed the whole of the prisoners move nents at the time of the committal of the murder. Therefore, it was absolutely impos- 'ible that the murder could have been com nitted by the man in the dock The strong st piece of evidence brought forward by the he prosecution was that of the witness Ha- oleten, who swore that the prisoner used threats against the life of the ~deceased But the language was merely the outcome # passionate Irish nature, and was not 'utficient to prove the crime to have been committed by the prisoner. The defense which the prisoner set up was that of an inni, and the evidence of the witnesses for he defense proved conclusively that the prisoner could not, and did not, commit the murder. Finally, Calton wound up his elab-, ,rate and exhaustive speech, which lasted for 'ver two hours, by brilliant peroration. 'all1ng upon the jury to base their verdict | lpon the plain facts of the case, and if they lid So they cOINd hardly fail ip b,-;D '.