The Central Glamorgan Gazette, and General, Commercial, and Agricultural Advertiser. — 1873-03-14 (Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan, Wales)

THE WEST AUCKLAND MURDER.  The trial of Mary Ann Cotton, 31, widow, was resumed on Friday morning at Durham. The case commenced by the re-examination of a witness, named Mary Ann Dobbs, who, in answer to Mr. Foster, said that the prisoner was ill at the time one of the children died, and continued for some time after.—Mr. Russell then summed up the evidence for the prosecution.—Mr. Foster, in addressing the jury for the defence, asked what motive there was for the prisoner to cause the death of her husband, her lodger, and even her own child Could they suppose that the prisoner could administer that which would cause the little frame of her own child to writhe in agony, whilst at the same time it looked up in,the mother's countenance for comfort and sympathy. It was inhuman to suppose that a mother could do such a deed, and he, for his own part, did not believe the being to exist who would do such a deed. Mr. Foster then proceeded to view the evidence adduced for the prosecution, and stated that whilst a witness, who had been twenty-six years in the Sunderland Infirmary, had stated that she knew nothing of the nature of the poisons, yet the jury had been asked' to believe that eleven months in the same institution had made the prisoner a scientific poisoner. He then referred to the notoriously poisonous action of green wall-paper, and stated that the arsenic by that means diffused in the room, together with the amount of the same poison spread upon the joint; of the bed, would altogether amount to nearly 300 grains. This, when diffused through the room, would operate most injuriously upon the system of the boy, and would ultimately by inhalation get into the organs of the body. It had been stated, however, by Dr. Scattergood that in that case even the arsenic could nut have got into the contents of the stomach. But if the boy breathed through his mouth the poisonous particles would adhere to his palate, and he would then swallow them. That would account for the 2•6 grains of arsenic found in the stoma/Ih. The jug, too, in which the arsenic and soft soap had been placed, might not have been properly washed, for great difficulty was experienced in clearing a vessel from arsenic. Might not the little boy have used this jug to drink out of directly previous to his being taken ill, f. r he was often in the house alone,aceording to the evidence, particularly on a Sunday; and it was on a Sunday evening he was taken 111.—The learned Judge, in summing up, remarked that however ingenious the theories might be which had been put forth by the counsel for the defenc._;, it was the business of the jury to dismiss from their mind all that speculation which they would not admit in the weighty conceits of life, and if from the surrounding circumstanceesof the case, they felt convinced that the poison had not been taken by accident, and that the prisoner :done had the opportunity to administer it, theinit would be their duty to return a verdict agtfinst the prisoner.—The jury then retired, and after an absence of three-quarters of an hour returned with a verdict of guilty.—llis Lordship then put on the black cap, and passed sentence of death in the usual form, remarking that the prisoner was one of those who during life seem to believe in an utter delusion that crime • can remain undetected and unpunished.