His Lordship—And at one o'clock went upstairs to the sick room Witness—Yes.
His Lordship—Where was your sister at half-past twelve?—In the dining-room.
Mr. Wilkinson—Then you were wrong when you said a¢ the inquest that Mr. Carew had some beef-tea and corn-flour for his tifin?—He had had his tiffin before I came home, He had tiffin at 12. Rachael Greer said in her evidence that he had his tiffin at twelve—at mid-day.
Did Mr. Dickinson call as usual every day from the beginning of October?—So far as Lkmow, I should say so. I did not notice any difference in his calls.
Mr. Dickinson dined with you and Mrs. Carew on the evening of October 13th He might have done; I do not kno The evidence of Mrs. Carew, as given at the inquest, is that her husband dined at the Club that night?—Ves. I, think he did dine out that night; but I won't be sure.
You dined at home?—Yes.
And Mr. Dickinson Yes, I suppose so, so far as I recollect.
The Court then adjourned. of white arsenic having been given to or taken by the deceased within four or five days of his death. Five hundred and seventy-two grains of lead, if taken by the deceased, would have more than sufficed to cause death; and lead was found post-mortem. Of the presence of these two poisons in the body there can be no doubt. There is evidence that a portion of one of them was procured by the deceased in the absence of his wife; there evidence whatever to connect the prisoner with the purchase or possession of white arsenic. That a considerable quantity of Fowler's Solution of Arsenic came into the house is certain. It is alleged by the prosecution that it was recured by the prisoner to poison her husband with, and that it was used for that purpose. The defence is that she was innocent of any intent to murder ker husband; and that she procured the arsenic at his request, thinking nothing of it. The medical evidence is to the effect that cases of death by Fowler's solution are of rare occurrence. The case for the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence; care ce that fo, crime nape Tf, for instance, a wit-it is m to find a motive for the
ness sees A shoot at and kill B, and the jury believe the statement of the witness, it is superfluous to seek for motive; the fact is proved; and to that extent the Crown Advocate was justified in opening to you that the law requires no motive to be shown. But in cases of suspicion only, in cases of mere supposition as this is, common sense requires to know what reason the person accused could have had for committing the crime charged, in other words what motive was there, what moved her to do the deed; because, the greater the degree of guilt suspected, the greater is the presumption of her innocence, that she was incapable of doing the act charged. And if you find that there is an entire absence of motive, or an insufficient motive, and also that the deceased was sending for poison, not through his wife, and he was doctoring himself, and that he had been accustomed: to take arsenic for the last sixteen years of his life, and that he took, or was given, white arsenic, which, and which alone, would have produced all the symptoms noticed by his medical attendant, and which cannot by any means be traced to the prisoner how is the conclusion arrived at that prisoner must have murdered her husband? Before you can bring her in guilty, you must be convinced—mere suspicion will not do—that she must have done the deed; that she might have, or possibly, or probably did, is beside the question; itis a mere suspicion. The inference that she killed her husband must be so strong as to be irresistible, before you can find her guilty; and in order to arrive at that conclusion you will of course have to negative all other theories as to how the deceased may have come to his death. The prosecution will probably contend that a person may be deemed to have committed homicide, although his act is not the sole cause of death; and that, therefore, if the administration of Fowler's solution, combined with other forces at work, such as white arsenic and Ieed, contributed to the death, the prisoner may be found guilty. That you may have the strongest. moral suspicion is not enough; for you are to try this case on evidence that must be satisfactory, complete, and distinct. Whatever may be the strength of your suspicion, "however, perplexing may fo the probability against her, and however you may have to struggle to get rid of it, you perform your best and bounden duty as a Jury to Separate suspicion from truth, and to proceed upon nothing that you' do not find established: in evidence against her." These last words, I would remind your Lordship, I take from the closing sentence of the summing-up of the Lord Justice Clerk ut the trial of Madeline Smith. I just now made use of the words " thinking nothing of it,' and I am justified in doing so by the evidence, From 1880 to the 9th of October 1896, it is proved that the deceased spoke openly of taking arsenic, and in large quantities. His wife had been accustomed all her married life to see him take it, to hear him talk of it. There is nothing surprising, therefore, in her obtaining it for him. I repeat, it is not for me to account for the death; that is a secret. which may never be known; it is for the prosecution to prove the charge affirmatively. What the prisoner did she did openly. She showed more anxiety, more concern about the symptoms of her husband's illness than the medical attendant did; and, so far from attempting any concealment, it may be said that every day, and all day, during his illness, in all that it is proved she said or did, if she were murdering him, she never ceased to call attention to the fact, or invite detection by the manner in which she set about it, and by the evidence which she made and accumulated ayainst herself. The evidence of Dr. Hatton, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Robison, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Kenyon, and Dr. Wheeler, of the letters addressed by her to her husband from Miyanoshita, and of the entries in her diary, are still fresh in your recollection and having said all I wished to say to you in iny opening address, I now confidently leave st to you to say that the prosecution have failed to satisfy you that the prisoner at the baris the incarnate fiend they have tried to make her out to be.
Mr. Wilkinson in addressing the Jury on behalf of the prosecution associated himself with the Counsel for the defence in the expression of grateful appreciation for the consideration which the jury had given to the case. He recalled the questions stated in his opening address upon the answers to which the verdict must depend. Lead had been found post mortem, but there was no reason to believe it caused death symptoms of arsenical poisoning. Medioel although it might have delayed the purging
witnesses for the prosecution assigned death to the latter cause; those for the defence agreed that arsenic probably conduced thereto, but said it was impossible to determine how far death was due to arsenic and how far to sugar of lead. It was agreed that the finding of arsenic in the solid form was not inconsistent with arsenic in solution having been administered. He contested the statement of law that if death was due to the combined effects of poison administered by accused and of ison not administered by her she must e acquitted. If the former was found to have conduced to the death they were bound to return a verdict of guilty. All the medical witnesses agreed that death was conduced to by the arsenic, and if the Jury agreed in that, and he submitted that no other conclusion was possible, that the arsenic was administered by the prisoner,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.