{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 8444, "word_count": 1536, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9865999817848206], "ccnet_perplexity": [1337.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
In the evidence except the


inconsistent with his innocence; and they should remsm
Der that the existence crime alleged wa not
,s1s with The other fact. Whilst on h. part
tne queson ne should observe that the counsel
prisoner had admitted ali those facts had asserted that


ns aw required not only those facts should be proved
tna should also be shown directly that the
had died oy poison, AMI that sufficient quantity of poi
son to produce death had been found in her stomach
That was not true OF the law II was not NECESSARY 10
give direct and positive evidence in every sten Of the
case There was difference between direct and cir.
cu@stsnal evidence il the evidence sufficient
usy tneir mnd5 that death had ensued from poison II
necessary to produce death BY testimony Of any per
nor was nscessary to prove that such quantity as
would destroy life had actually been found in the body


Consider all the facts Of the case and il they
were sashod that the prisoner had administered the pei
to the deceased and that had died OF IT, il was
prove what quantity had been administered
70 her. The only positive fact the law requires TO
be proved was the fading of The body where such was
possible He said possible F" bee auss in such case as
person being cast overheard at sea for instance the
body could not be produced and the Jury should be
tented with positive evidence OF the wfal casting over
PROVED nu where possible The body should be
because formerly parties had been found guilty
o. o. the -. murder Of persons who afterwards


It waste be considered whether the prisoner had admins
tered poison tc her rhe quany not necessary to
counsel for the prisoner that it was necessary to prove
that poison had been administered and that if had


Deen nat the question would be-wheher it had been
TO the deceased by the prisoner by her
self The only allegation that she had done so was that
OF the prisoner hmsel and if the Jury thought the
would agree with the latter msde Of accounting for her
death But they did not believe it, they had no other
conclusion lett than that he had committed the crime i'm
puted to him. The learned Judge then proceeded to com
ment upon the evidence of Mrs Ashley and Others who
depesed to the perfect health and good spirits of the de-
of her slesa body and to The medical evidence Of ner
ssts o. Per,ect internal bodily vigor leaving doubt
that she had not died from natural causes He then


70 the evidence OF Messrs Champneys and Pickering the
surgeons who, on opening the body Of the deceased on
the day following her death, at smelt the odor Of
the presence Of prussc acid in the stomach on the day
following sudden death, accompanied by appearances


ass
the contents of the stomach subsequently, and found
quansy q pure pIIssc acid in it and before he
should observe that the jury should never lore sight
OF the conduct Of the prisoner throughout the entire
particularly REFER but he should beg jury to bear ali


the facts at once in mind His lordship then proceeded


found in the stomach Immediately after dsa.h and TO OBJ


serve upon the allegation OF the prisoners that


produced natural causes of the stomac6 which CON


ianea quantity OF applepup He pointed out that,


from all the medical evidence proved that the acid


was contained not In the apple but in the pip and the


pips were not found in the pulp in the deceaseds so


He also observed that prussc acid had been oh


lation and not producible by the mere natural pro-
cess of sstion in the stomach OF human being No
Ss Ss bS eating apple p although
chemical dstation Besides action OF the acid was sud
den and Immediate and the deceased had died in the mar
Having drawn attention to the evidence regarding
me smell having been perceptible not under different
ferred from that although the perception of the
odor OF the acid was positive proof of its presence
perception was no proof Of ii: not being present A.
20 deceased having died from the water being poured
down her throat his lordship said quite idle at
tribute her death to such cause. At that moment she


was not i-ing. Death had already done it's work =


With regard to the quantity Of prussic acid requi-
ste to kill human being, il had been proved that
nsarsS sSsh hv S grain would Kill some cases


ierred to Of the epilepiic patients in Paris
and MT Cooper had proved that more than a grain
existed in the stomach of the deceased. Ho having
first found that other poison existed in the body con
cluded that prussc acid the Of death and hav


ally there to destroy life had been suggested that the


experiments had not been properly conducted


His to Of
OF the prisoner and observed that would


Tor the jury to couple that conduct with all the other ev
ed the inferences which might be derived from it. ap


that on the day in question: the prisoner had gone
hadtaken his place for Slough It was proved that hc
LETT his coat at the Jerusalem Coffee house before going
and the waiter that he was going to dine
AZ the west end Of the town. That Untrue and he
must have made that false statement purpose
another He went down to Slough ct five o'clock and
ueCe6Re1Ys
house in consequence Of tho noise she heard Of
screaming She met the prisoner in the garden in a
OF agitation great that he could undo the latch
tne gate She opened for him. As to the observation she
had made about fearing that her neighbor i'll he
not say that the prisoner must have heard it, and
tnereiorer went for nothing. Let 1t pass. However,
after she had got in at the door the decessed house.
she turned roundiand saw the prisoner looking at her
and closed and fastened ihe door AT seven o'clock the
prisoner was seen by postb and he then
ming towards the station At ten minutes after he
fho rluvou


into an omnibus and desiring to be set down Hersche
House What bis intention was in going 10 Herschel
,tatiou and an alarm having been given signal was
made BY the electric teiegraphhat he was seen to
algAt from the railway carriage at Paddinston. and
morning. and told what he for his answer


hat he knew no one at Slough It had been suggested
the learned counsel that that literally true because


he deceased did not live exactly at Slough but little
iistance from It, had also been suggested that he wish
. to prevent his vile lie from hearing Of his improper con
weight should be given to those explanations He had
old several fasehoods respecting this transaction and
having been the house of the deceased It appeared


hat when the nature of the transaction and the
nm, that II would have been the part Of any reasonabie
il innocent. at to have disclosed the entire that
10 knew about it, and what hsd taken place. There


bundant evidence to show that the prisoner the


at the very moment the deceased had died. When
informed Of the nature of the charge against him. he told
hose fasehoods already mentioned His lordship read


the conversations OF the prisoner with the coRstabes
vhen taken inte custody and then went on :-On the


friday about o'clock the prisoner had interview
With his legal adviser Mr.. Williams-and after that in
ervew. and not until after did he make any attempt at
rPanaton or give any account Of what had taken place,


nd the account ho then gave that extraordinary
taement which he Baron Parke) should read full
cngth fer them. Hills iordshp read the statement made


Tawel to the two constabes In which he said the


woman had lived In his service and gave
be account OF her putting something out phia about
he size Of thimble into her glass and then drinking of
Iere then, the prisoner had represented himself pre-
cnt when the pcsonwas administered and was found
her stomach was for the jury to say whether the


neon did not amount to the simple OF whether she
ad destroyed herself the prisoner had administered it,


he thought that she had been threatening poison her.
s he certainly should at least have stayed to what
he effect would really he upon her. The jury shenld
ext observe keeping that story Of tho prisoners in mind
nat such vial that dcscrbed by him found in
,e house. His lcrdship here explained that the bit Of
paper which had evidently been used to
small bottle had not been produced by the counsel
'r the prosecution, but by his Baron Parkes)
ers, he having found ii mentioned in the dispositions and
sving thought It matter that should he inquired into.


e then returned again to the prisoners conduct, and
- sk~C Calt II 4 L