Glasgow Courier. — 1846-11-07 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

CHARGE OF MURDER. Janet Campbell or Of Lellan was indicted for the murder of her husband by means of poison, in so far as on the 34 July last, in the house or premises situated in Dunning, Perthshire, then occupied by the deceased James APLellan, her husband, the said Janet Campbell or M'Lellan b i administer to, or cause to be taben  by, the safari James 111`Lellan, in porridge and in milk, or one or other of them, or in some article or articles of food or drink to the  prosecutor unknown, a quantity of arsenic or other poison, and thereafter, on the sth of July, place above libelled, the said Janet Campbell or WLellan did administer to, or cause to be taken by, the said James M•Lellan, in tea, and scones, and butter, and jelly,  or one or more of them, or in some article or articles of food or drink to the prosecutor unknown, a quantity of arsenic or other poison, and the said James M•Lellau having accordingly taken the said quantities of arsenic or other poison, so administered, did, immediately or soon after taking the same, become seriously and did, on or about the sth of July, die in consequence. And the said Janet Campbell or M`Lellan had previously evinced malice and ill-will towards the said James At'Lellan. This case came before the Circuit Court at Perth, but obj.ec. .  tio;;;I;;Z;g-Ceen taken to the relevancy of the indictment,wllch, however, were repelled by the Court, the public prosecutor adjourned the diet against the prisoner, who was recommitted upon a new warrant. _ _  The prisoner, who was dressed in deep mourning, and appeared to be about forty years of age, pleaded not guilty. Mr. FRASER, counsel for the prisoner, objected to the relevancy of the ,indictment, principally on the ground of the vague and indefinite manner iu which the minor proposition was worded.  He contended that there was an unnecress;iry repetition of the charges, which were heaped up in a manner most unfavourable to the prisoner. Ile objected, also to the latitude which had been taken in regard to the time the crime was alleged to have been committed; and in particular, to that part of the indictment in which it is stated that the prisoner previously evinced malice and ill-will against her husband. He objected to it on the ground that there was no specification of the time when this malice was evinced, or the place, without which specification it was impossible for him to obtain evidence in exculpation. The learned Counsel then referred to the numerous cases in which malice was said to have been evinced, by parties previous to the commission of crime, and contended that, with few exceptions, there was always a specification of the mode, and time, and place, in which the malice was evinced. On the ground of authority and general principle, he thought that the clause regarding malice should be struck out. Mr. DAVIDSON, Advocate-Depute, replied at some length to the objections of the prisoner's counsel, and said that it was not a fair statement of the law to say, that in cases where no precise time of malice was libelled in the indictment, the public prosecutor was prevented going back for proof of its existence; because, if he could prove an act of malice before the murder, and trace an expression of malice back end back continuously, he could see no authority iu any case to limit him from doing so. It was a matter of consideration for the court and Jury to judge if a distant act of malice was connected with the main act charged, and had led to the commission of the crime. The learned gentleman then referred to various authorities, and concluded by submitting that the indictment was perfectly valid. Mr. Pavlov, for the prisoner, contended that the public prosecutor was bound to give such an intimation of the nature of the  thing to be proved, as to put the prisoner in the way of meeting that charge. Ile might state if the malice was evinced by outward violence, or by some mode, manner, or demeanour, for a particular period. Ile held that they had to deal with an indictment which was framed for the purpose of admitting proof of the allegation of the evincing of malice, and which, if sustained as relevant, would require the public prosecutor to lead detailed evidence as to the facts occurring in the history of the parties, not six weeks antecedent to the commission of the alleged offences, but even ten years anterior. He submitted that by the whole principles of law and justice, the public prosecutor was required to communicate further details. The