The Sun. — 1846-12-03 (London, England)

THE MURDER BY POISONING. SUDBURY, DEC. I.—ln The Sun of Monday last was a notice of an inquest held on the previous Friday, at Acton, near this town, on the body of John Foster, who was deelared by the verdict of the jury to have been wilfully poisoned by his wife, Catherine Foster, three weeks after marriage. By many it was thought that the evidence was far from being conclusive against the woman, and that it did not warrant the returning of such a verdict. Since then, however, disclosures have been made which tend to strengthen the presumption that the poison was intentionally administered to the deceased by his young wife. The coroner, Mr. Wayman, met the jury yesterday for the purpose of having the usual criminal inquisition document signed by the jury, when the superintendent of police intimated to the Court that the boy Morley, a brother of the accused, who bad been examined at the previous investigations, was in possession of more facts in reference to the death of the deceased than he had stated at the former inquiries. It should be mentioned that at the last meeting of the jury this lad made it appear that his sister only made one dumpling on the night the deceased wes taken ill, of which he ate part with his sister. On the boy being recalled, the coroner proceeded to examine him in very pointed terms, and it was elicited from him that on the evening his sister's husband was taken ill she made " two' dumplings. She gave one of them to her husband, and the other she ate with witness. The one they had between them was a little one, and was made of the rubbings of the pan, of which deceased did not partake. He added that when the deceased carne home from work he and his sister had nearly finished their supper. After the deceased was taken ill and had been put to bed. his sister desired him to say that he had ate the same victuals as the deceased had. It was to please his sister that he had stated that he had ate of the same dumpling as the deceased had ; that was his reason for telling such .an untruth. Neither he nor his sister had any of the dumpling the deceased ate. The deceased asked him to have a piece, but his sister said he should not, and he had not.  The CORONER directed the boy to N.e placed under the surveillance of the police of the district, it being evident that he had been tampered with to a considerable extent. It was with much difficulty, and after great reluctance on the boy's part, that the above important facts were elicited from him.  Mary Ann Chirery, a fresh witness, was called. She said she was a single woman, and lived with her grandfather at Acton, next door to the house in which the deceased resided. She remembered that on the day after his death, while the surgeons were opening his body, Catherine Foster, the deceased's wife, came into the house and sat down. On coming in she said the doctors were going to open John's body, and she could not bear the thoughts of being within. She asked if she might sit there while they were doing it ? and on being told that she mighto sat down on a chair by the fire. After staying some time she observed to witness, "If I had gone to Bury before I married I would not have married him at all."  A sister of this witness deposed to the same facts. The inquisition was then duly signed, and the jury dismissed. As yet it is difficult to arrive at a motive that could have induced the accused to destroy her husband. As before stated, she had been married to him only three wetk exactly on the day of his death. She is not 18 years of age, her appearance is somewhat good looking, but very simple. trier countenance pourtrays not the slightest hardihood, or anything indicating her to be a person likely to commit such a crime. On being informed by the coroner of the verdict of the jury, she seemed not the least affected by it, and on leaving the room merely said, " She was sure she did not do it."