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

SOLICITOR-GENERAL then proceeded to address the jury for the C. own. Ile commenced by stating his firm b. lief that all that they had that day heard must lead them to return a verdict of guilty egaimit the unfortunate woman nots at thi ir bar. As to the first yuestl, on, whether the DWI had died from the effects of poison, a. 111 poison recently adminiatered, there could not be the shadow of a doubt. The in mild in portatit inquiry—important not only to the pritemMr kit to the public—was how or by whom was that poison administered; but let them look back to the eircumstatic, s—let them bear in mind that there was no one in the house except the lodger—to servant to pr pare the food, except Mrs. 3l'Lellati—let them look at the extraordinary intimacy which exist,,! between the prisoner and the man Gow—and, above all, to the extraordinary scene at the birth of the twins—when her husband exclaimed to one of the WitnesSes, "She has Conte...see—confessed that the actnitidtel Go* was the father of the childreh—ret thetb rook its these points, and they would find them all tenoing to the Criminality of the prisoner. She made this confession when she was in her labour—when, as she said herself, she could not go down to death with a lie in her mouth; apd It would require no deep study of human nature IA tonlerttand the feelings of a husband under such V.ibunistancee, and after such a diselosure—yei he EMI ticks her with uniform kindness; and what was his rewaru? No sooner was she recovered than she makes her Confession to Mrs. Winton, that she would never forgive herself for what she had told her husband; and when in his familyrayer he interceded for her sin, it gave rise on het.part tb 'nothing but angry and excited feelings; and, as if to crown the pointsiwhichinest lead to the animas of the tommittal of the crltne—iltAhem mark her answer, when, in the presence of their mutual !lends, he said, "I will forget and fiargite you all, if you will only give me your hand that you will hate nothing whatever more to say to Gow"— " No," said she, "I will not give my hand where I c,annot give my heart." Did not these eirchmatances point tb the only person who had the feeling to cenuoit such an act to the deceased, as the administering to him that breakfast which ultimately proved his last. The lbarned gentleman then went on at considerable length to point out the chain of evidence by which it was proved the poison came into the possession of the prisoner; and the devices she had used to procure it, as well nu the first as on the subsequent and fatal occasion. He trusted he had made it clear to them that this unfortunate woman had committed the crime of murder—that no evidence had been offered to disprove the position he had taken; anti he therefore confidently called upon them for a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. Mr. PATTON next addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. Be denied that demonstrative proof had been adduced of a motive of malignity on the part of prisoner towards her husband. Why did the prisoner himself seek to become possessed of poison? If they assumed that it was fur an innocent intention on his part, why should not the same assumption be made in favour oh' the prisoner? But looking to the state of his mind, as described by some of the witnesses, might he not have resolved on suicide? If he had been I dosed poison in his own name, he might have obtained it by the aid of another; he had ample opportunity of getting it otherwise. Again, was there evidence to show that the fatal catastrophe might not have been the effect of accident Let them also consider the conduct of the prisoner, when it was reported that she had poisoned her husband. She never indicated ally of that excitement or apprehension which generally accompanies a consciousness of guilt. On the contrary she gave every facility for the conducting of the medical investigation of the case. Indeed there was nothing in the whole history of this trying transaction that was not reconcileable with her innocence. Looking to the whole circumstances, and claiming the full benefit of the doubt in favour of the prisoner, he (Mr. Patton) would call upon the jury togive the case an impartial and humane consideration, the result of which he felt assured would lie to acquit her of the great crime laid to her charge. The Lotto