The Sun. — 1849-09-28 (London, England)

POISONING AT CHELTENHAM.  CHELTENHAM, THURSDAY.—The protracted, inquiry into the cause of the cleaah of Samuel and Elizabeth Gregory has been closed this evening, and a verdict of " Wilful Murder" has been returned against Emanuel Barnett, the person who furnished the materials for making the poisoned dumplings, though the mystery of the case has by no means been cleared up. The jury re• assembled yesterday evening after our parcel was dispatched, and proceeded with the examination of other witnesses. The last witness examined, it will be remembered, was a ycung girl named Stuart, who denied that she had teen present at the funeral of the deceased on Thursday last, or that she had made use of certain expressions imputed to her by a Mrs. Stephenton as to her adMitted knowledge of the parties who had procured and administered the arsenic. _  The next witness called was the mother of the witness Stuart, an elderly woman, named Martha Sage, who deposed that she knew nothing whatever of the cause of death of the deceased. She also swore positively that she hzd never mentioned the subject of arsenic to her daughter, Harriet Stuart, and that she had never used any threat towards her in connexion with the death of the deceased, or as to the purchase of arsenic, as sworn by Mrs. Stt-phenton. George Barnett, the son of the two prisoners Emanuel Barnett and his wife, was also examined at great  length by the coroner and jury, but no new face; was established by his evidence ; indeed, he appeared to know very little of his father's movernil,nts, and less of the transactions of the day on which the deceased came by their death. The COILONER, at this stage, repeated his conviction that it was unnecessary to protract the investigation, and addressed the jury on the nature of the evidence before them, and its etThet as implicating the prisoner Emanuel Barnett. He did not think that any of the facts brought in evidence at all attached blame to Mrs. Barnett ; or, at any rate, there was not sufficient against her to justify her detention in custody. The coroner then referred to the evidence as against  her husband, Emanuel Barnett, which he considered was quite sufficient to prove that the poisoned flour had come from his hands, and that that was the moving cause of the death of the unfortunate couple. The prisoner, Emanuel 13arnett, having given no satisfactory account of the manner in which he had become possessed of the arsenic, where he had bought the flour, how he had come by it, or whether he had ever had arsenic in his possession, the jury would, no doubt, return such a verdict as would place him upon his trial. The coroner then cautioned the prisoner that he was not bound to make any statement, and at the same time told him that any statement which he might make at all criminating himself would be taken down to be made use of against him hereafter. The prisoner, Emanuel Barnett, then said he was quite ignorant of the manner in which the arsenic got into the flour. He had not placed it there himself. He had never bought or used arsenic in his life ; indeed he did not know what arsenic was, never having used any in his life; He added, that the last flour which he had purchased he had got at the shop of Mr. Hollis, in Cheltenham. _ _ _  The jury then consulted together privately for half an hour, after which, the parties being again called into the room, they returned their verdict— " Wilful murder against Emanuel Barnett," who was accordingly committed to take his trial at the next assizes for Gloucestershire. The prisoner's wife was set at liberty. To day the second inquest, on the body of Samuel Gregory was resumed, before the same coroner (Mr. Mayer) r.nd another jury. The evidence given in this case was very similar to that produced on the first inquest, and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat it. In this case also a verdict of " Wilful murder" was returned against Emanuel Barnett. The prisoner Barnett and his wife have also been examined before the local bench of magistrates, but  the proceedings before them have been—merely of a formal character, the object king to keep the prisoners in custody until the coroner jury had returned their verdict.