The Sun. — 1863-04-06 (London, England)

SPECTATOR.—A Brighton painter, named Shirt, a man of some fifty years of age, had formed a &mon with a widow named Day. Both parties were in a very humble way of life, and the woman, especially, was miserably poor. Mrs. Day was a person of very indifferent character, with a large family of children, and of intemperate habits. What the story of the connection between Sturt and the widow had been originally was no thatrl last brought out on the trial. All we know is, in Fe ruary, after the connection had lasted for months, if not for years, Sturt had engaged himself to marry Mrs. Day within a short period. He was in the habit of calling at her house constantl, and of taking her out to walk. On Sunday, anther 22d of February, they went out together as usual, the woman being ailing, but not apparently worse than usual. In the course of an hour or so Mrs. Day returned home, saying that she felt very ill. The illness increased rapidly, and before the following morning had arrived she was dead. When she was dying she attributed her illness to a mince-pie that Sturt had given her. This circumstance, and the rapidity of her death, awoke suspicion ; an investigation was made, arid Dr. Taylor, who was employed to analyze the contents of the stomach, reported that it contained arsenic enough to account for death. These were all the facts of the case, which were unquestioned by either side, and which may be taken as granted. The presumptive case against the prisoner was strong. A murder had in all human probability been committed. The murdered woman ascribed her illness to food which the prisoner had given her. The relations existing between the man and woman were such that jealousy, or the desire of escaping the performance of his promise, might have made Sturt wish to get rid ofn Mrs. rn hsi.s Day.w Arsenic was readily obtainablebhyo a ma position. There was nobody else seemed likely to have any motive for committing the poison crime.inAtnhde supposing that he did give her the mince-pie, the symptoms of the diseasehi would have w exactly corresponded with those eh did actually take place. The presumptive evidence in the prisoner's favour was not equally strong. The alleged motive of the crime was, it is true, hardly adequate. to The woman had no powerkeep him to his word. No man in his senses could ever suppose that any jury would convict him of a breach of promise under the circumstances of the case; and the poverty th of both parties was so great as to make the idea man's being afraid of the woman's him simply ludicrous. However, in a discreditable and illegitimate connection a number of causes may be conceived as existing which might have tempted the man to kill his mistress; but there wus no evidence to show that any of these causes did exist actually. On the news of Mrs. Day's death the prisoner exhibited extreme grief ; his conduct when arrested was straightforward ; and the story which he told was simple and possible enough ; while the few particulars contained in it capable of corroboration could not be disapproved by the prosecution. On the other hand, it was almost incredible that a man, living on such terms as he did with the murdered woman, should not have known who her murderer was likely to be ; and it is odd, to say the least, that when he was charged with the murder, he should not have pointed out the person on whom his suspicion rested. On the whole we should say that the balance of presumptive evidence went against the prisoner; and supposing the jury had been bound to say that some particular person was guilty of the crime, we think their judgment must have fallen on Sturt. When we come from presumption to fact the complexion of the case changes. The direct evidence against the prisoner was singularly weak. The ar