On 2014-05-23 1:36 PM, Petra Mitchinson wrote: > Saturday 21 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 7) > > > Deaths. > > In George Street, in this city, on the 9th instant, Elizabeth STORDY, relict of the late Mr. Thomas STORDY, a member of the Society > of Friends. > > I have encountered Elizabeth before as part of my Dodgson family: Elizabeth Dodgson born 1779 at Kendal, daughter of Jonathan & Elizabeth (Smith) Dodgson; she married Thomas Stordy 1813 in Carlisle. Thank you for this, Petra David L.

Saturday 21 Jun 1845 (p. 4, col. 6) OCCURRENCES. EXTRAORDINARY SCENE.-On the evening of Tuesday week, about half past nine o'clock, an extraordinary scene occurred in Church-street, in the city of Durham. At that hour, it appears, piercing screams were heard from the house of Mr. GOULEE, the head of the Durham Rural Police, which he was seen to enter a few minutes before in a hurried manner; after which the door was opened, and the report of a pistol was at the same time heard. A female, who was Mrs. GOULEE, rushed out and crossed the street, as if seeking refuge. She was followed by her husband, who fired another pistol at her, but happily without effect, the ball lodging in the door of the opposite house. At this moment Walter SCRUTON, Esq., solicitor, and Mr. JEPHSON, surgeon, were passing on the opposite side of the street. On hearing the shot they turned round to see what had happened, when the former gentleman was furiously attacked by GOULEE, who at the same time used (it is said) expressions which denoted that jealousy was at the bottom of this alarming outrage. Both gentlemen tried to escape by flight, but Mr. SCRUTON was overtaken by Mr. GOULEE, who beat him violently with the butt end of the pistol he held, until he was forced away by Mr. JEPHSON, and others, whom the alarm brought to the spot. Mr. SCRUTON, covered with blood, took refuge in a house, to the very door of which he was followed by GOULEE, threatening vengeance. In the meantime a Mr. SEWELL, and Mr. Thomas METCALFE, a butcher, succeeded in suddenly seizing and disarming GOULEE, with whom they proceeded towards the gaol. On reaching the gate, GOULEE getting one hand loose, contrived to draw a penknife from his pocket, with which he inflicted a deep, but not mortal, wound in his throat. On the wound being examined, he is found narrowly to have missed the carotid artery and windpipe, but is recovering. GOULEE was, on Thursday, before the Magistrates, but is remanded until his wife, whose arm is shattered by the pistol ball, can appear. Mr. GOULEE was well respected, and is a good officer. It seemed he borrowed the pistols of a gun-smith of his acquaintance, just beford [sic] the deed, in Sadler-street. As he was in the habit of using fire-arms, occasionally, no suspicion was excited by this, at the time. Since the above was written, we learn that the unfortunate woman died on Monday night, having been seized with locked jaw in consequence of the wound.

Saturday 14 Jun 1845 (p. 2, col. 5-6) DEATH OF JOHN MARSHALL, ESQ., OF HALLSTEADS.-We regret to record the death of John MARSHALL, Esq., of Hallsteads, the venerable and venerated father of W. MARSHALL, Esq., one of the members for our city. The melancholy event took place on Friday, the 6th instant, at Hallsteads, after an illness of seven weeks. Mr. MARSHALL's decease, to which he had looked forward with resignation, was calm and tranquil. He was born in 1765, and was therefore in his 80th year. He was of humble origin, being the son of a linen merchant at Leeds, who died in 1787. The success of ARKWRIGHT and others in the cotton manufacture turned his attention to the feasibility of succeeding in a like manner with flax; and his experiments in spinning, which were directed by great shrewdness and natural talent, and prosecuted with untiring industry, were successful. They were continued till 1701 [sic], when he built a mill for spinning flax at Leeds, and another at Shrewsbury; and the extension of the manufacture was so marked and rapid that ere many years elapsed he had amassed a large fortune-a proper reward for his skill, ingenuity, and enterprise. He took up his residence in Cumberland in 1810; and five years afterwards he built a mansion at Hallsteads, near Penrith, where he has since continued to reside. He served the office of High Sheriff in 1821. In politics he was one of the earliest and staunchest reformers, and, from his well-known opinions and character, he was elected one of the members for Yorkshire-when two representatives were added to that county. He was a staunch and practical friend of education, and promoted, by the most liberal provision, that of the children in his employment. He was one of the founders of the London University. In the social sphere in which he moved he was much beloved for his many amiable qualities: he has been gathered to his fathers full of years, and has left behind him an unspotted fame. ACCIDENT.-On Monday evening last, as Mr. YOUNG, of the King's Arms Inn, Wigton, and Mr. TWENTYMAN, Spirit Merchant, Wigton, were returning from the fair at Rosley Hill, in a gig, when near Warble Bank, Mr. BROWN, a farmer at Moss Side, Holme Cultram, came up behind them on horseback, galloping very furiously. Mr. YOUNG's horse being a very spirited animal, took fright and dashed off at full speed. After having been pulled up it immediately commenced kicking, and sent its feet through the splashboard of the gig, breaking Mr. YOUNG's leg. Mr. TWENTYMAN, in leaping out to save himself, broke his right arm, and also received a severe contusion on the chin. A gentleman passing at the time, raised Mr. T. up and placed him upon his horse. We are happy to hear that both the sufferers are going on favourably. ACCIDENT.-On Tuesday week, about five o'clock, as a little girl of the name of BURNS, who had a child in her arms, was riding behind one of the coal waggons, which was on its way from William Pit to the north harbour, the wheel by some means caught hold of her shawl, and she, along with the girl, was pulled from her seat, and the wheel of the succeeding waggon passed over one of her arms, which was severely fractured. The poor child escaped destruction in a most providential manner; it had fallen in such a position that the wheel of the waggon must have passed over its head, and have killed it on the spot, had not Mr. HOOPER, of Workington, who was passing at the moment, with great presence of mind, snatched the child from its perilous position, and thus saved it from its inevitable fate.

Saturday 14 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 7) Deaths. In the Old Grapes Lane, on the 9th instant, Mr. Thos. SLACK, aged 72 years. In the English Damside, on the 3rd inst., Miss Barbara DOBSON, aged 24 years. At Dalston, near Carlisle, on Thursday, the 12th inst., after a lingering illness, Ann, daughter of Mr. Wm. RAYSON, aged 35 years,-universally respected. At Linstock, on the 29th ult., Mr. Thomas BULMAN, aged 77. At Drumbrugh, on the 8th instant, Mr. Wm. WOOD, aged 39 years,-much respected. At High Moor, in the parish of Hayton, on the 31st ult., after a short but severe illness, John, second son of Mr. Thos. LING, farmer, aged 20 years,-much respected. At Northallerton, on the 11th instant, John RAPER HUNTON, Esq., eldest son of the late Rev. J. RAPER HUNTON, of Armathwaite Castle, in this county. At Dundum, in the East Indies, on the 14th March, Timothy, second son of the late Rev. J. RAPER HUNTON, of Armathwaite Castle, in this county. At Longtown, on the 30th ult., Mary FORSTER, widow, aged 89 years; on the 4th inst., Mr. David EDGAR, aged 69. At Walton-le-dale, near Preston, on the 1st instant, Mr. Isaac JEFFERSON, miller and grocer, son of Mr. R. JEFFERSON, of Parton, near Wigton, aged 41 years,-much respected. At Wigton, on the 9th instant, Miss Eleanor HESKET, aged 16 years. At Hallbankgate, on the 5th inst., Mary, eldest daughter of Mr. Thomas FORSTER, aged 24 years. The deceased was possessed of an amiable disposition and engaging manners, which endeared her to a large circle of friends, by whom her loss is deeply deplored. At Penrith, on the 9th inst., Mr. Isaac DIXON, hawker, aged 70 years. He was well known in most of the homesteads in Cumberland and Westmoreland; Esther, wife of Mr. Thomas TINKLER, shoemaker, aged 73. At Penrith, on the 8th inst., Jas. BIRBECK, Esq., one of the proprietors of the Old Brewery, aged 52 years. At the Old Swan, near Liverpool, on the 6th inst., Miss Ann HILL, daughter of the late Mr. Thomas HILL, Templesowerby, Westmoreland, aged 27 years,-much regretted by a wide circle of friends. At Cockermouth, on the 6th instant, Sarah, the wife of Mr. Alfred EDMONDSON, fuller, aged 26 years. The deceased died of dropsy after having been tapped, at her own request, no fewer than seventeen times! on the 4th, Hannah, relict of the late Mr. Thomas MACKERETH, many years clerk at Cockermouth church, aged 85 years; on the 5th, Miss Elizabeth SEWELL, in 47th year of her age. At Beckside, near Harrington, on the 3rd inst., Mrs. Dorothy HINDE, spinster, aged 65 years. At Workington, on the 7th inst., Sarah, daughter of Mr. Wm. MORLEY, aged four years. At Crag Farm, Dovenby, on the 2nd inst., Mr. Jos. SCOTT, late of Caldbeck, and formerly of Sebergham, aged 92 years. At Doddick, near Threlkeld, on the 4th instant, Mr. Joseph Greenhow WALKER, late an ironmonger and ship-chandler, in Whitehaven, in the prime of life. At Liverpool, on the 7th instant, after a few days illness, Mr. John ASKEW, of Whitehaven, aged 68 years; the remains of the deceased were brought to Whitehaven in the Countess of Lonsdale steamer, on Sunday last, and interred at St. James's church on Tuesday. At Whitehaven, lately, James Wilson, son of Mr. CASSON, aged two years and six months; Mr. John FULLERTON, in the 71st year of his age; Mr. John TODD, aged 63 years; on the 5th inst., Mr. John FERGUSON, tailor, in the 19th year of his age; on the 8th, Mr. Edward QUIRK, in the 71st year of his age. At Bootle, on the 6th inst., very suddenly, Isabella, youngest daughter of Mr. John PARKER, nurseryman, aged 21 years. At Appleby, on the 8th instant, Elizabeth, daughter of Mr. Robert WILSON, aged 25 years. At Keswick, on the 5th instant, after a long illness, Mr. Geo. ROOKIN, black lead pencil manufacturer, aged 49 years; and Agnes, wife of Mr. James WILKINSON, shoemaker, and daughter of Mr. Abraham CROSTHWAITE, ostler at the Royal Oak inn, aged 22 years. At Kendal, on the 3rd instant, Mrs. ROGERS, widow of the late W. ROGERS, Esq., surgeon, Settle.

Saturday 14 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 7) Marriages. At St. Cuthbert's Church, a few days ago, Mr. James HARVEYSON, blacksmith, Caldewgate, to Miss Elizabeth STRONG, Ferguson's Lane, English-street; also, Mr. John CARRUTHERS, bricklayer, to Miss Sarah THOMPSON, both of English Damside; and on the 5th inst., Mr. Thomas PALMER, commercial traveller, to Mrs. BREMNER, Henry-street. At the Abbey Church, Holme Cultram, on the 12th inst., by the Rev. Joseph SIMPSON, M.A., Mr. John WALDIE, of Harraby Green, to Mary, only daughter of the late Thos. ATKINSON, Esq., of this city. At Hesket, on the 2nd instant, Mr. Robert IRVING, hewer, of Longnewton, to Mary, second daughter of the late Mr. John LENNOX, of Wampool-Knowe, in the parish of Thursby. At Aikton, on the 29th ult., by the Rev. Jackson GILBANKS, Joseph HALL, Esq., of Biglands, to Miss Jane MORTON, of the same place. At Aikton, on the 12th inst., by the Rev. S. J. GOODENOUGH, Mr. John LAWSON, Down Hall, to Frances, second daughter of the late Mr. Thos. ADDISON, Parton. At St. Paul's Church, Wilton Place, on the 29th ult., by the Hon. and Rev. Dr. Gerald WELLESLEY, the Hon. Henry George HOWARD, youngest son of the Earl of Carlisle, to Mary Wellesley, daughter of John MACTAVISH, Esq., of Montreal, Canada. At Penrith, on the 11th inst., Mr. Jeremiah SUNTON, potter, to Miss Zillah REAY. [According to FreeBMD, they were called Jeremiah SOULDEN and Lily RAY.] At the Independent Chapel, Duke Street, Whitehaven, on the 12th inst., by the Rev. Mr. WESTON, Mr. John WHITE, traveller for Messrs. FULLARTON and Co., publishers, Edinburgh, to Fanny, daughter of the late Richard WILLIAMSON, manufacturer, of Whitehaven. At Alston, on the 7th instant, Mr. Joseph PHILIPSON, Teddam, in Allendale, to Miss Phillis RICHARDSON, of Bailes, near Alston; on the 12th, Mr. John BARKER, to Miss Elizabeth ARMSTRONG, both of Nenthead. At Marylebone New Church, London, on the 3rd instant, by the Rev. H. C. KNOX, Walter BRODIE, Esq., second surviving son of Alexander BRODIE, D.D., many years vicar of East Bourne, Sussex, to Maria Jane, third daughter of Joseph BURROW, Esq., of Lytham, Lancashire, and Carleton Hall, Cumberland. At Whitehaven, on the the [sic] 9th inst., Mr. Joseph BACKHOUSE, police-officer, to Miss Mary Ann BECK; on the 5th, Mr. Daniel WILBER, mariner, to Miss Jane THOMPSON. At Ambleside, on the 31st ult., Mr. E. W. WALKER, blacksmith, Kendal, to Miss Frances Sophia JACKSON, Ambleside. At St. George's Church, Hanover Square, London, on the 26th ult., by the Bishop of Rochester, Lord Lovaine, eldest son of the Earl and Countess of Beverley, to Louisa, eldest daughter of Mr. Henry and Lady Harriet DRUMMOND.

Saturday 07 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 7) Deaths. In Lowther Street, suddenly, on Tuesday last, Mr. William PORTER, aged 74, High Constable of Cumberland Ward. In Caldewgate, on the 29th ult., Mr. William LOSH, formerly calico printer, of this city, aged 70 years. In Union Court, Scotch Street, on the 22nd ult., Mr. John RANDLESON, currier, aged 43 years. In Botchergate on the 22nd ult., Jane, wife of Wm CHAMBERS, and daughter of the late Mr. James REED, White Lion Inn, in this city, in the 34th year of her age. At the House of Recovery, on the 30th ult., Miss Ellen CRAIG, aged 22 years. In the Ship Lane, on the 29th ult., Ann MULVENNY, aged 34 years. In Brown's Row, on the 1st inst., Henry Mc.ADAM, aged 3½ years. In Crosby Street, on the 29th ult., Nicholas, the infant son of Nicholas NIXON, grocer. At Cassondyke, in the parish of Beaumont, on the 2nd inst., suddenly, Margaret, third daughter of Mr. David LITTLE, aged 26 years. Possessed of an amiable disposition her sudden death has created a deep feeling of regret amongst a very numerous circle of friends and acquaintances. At Kirkoswald Town End Cottage, on the 17th ult., Mr. John DODD, aged 95 years; formerly an honest, faithful, and zealous servant in the family of the late Timothy FETHERSTONHAUGH, Esq. of the College, and afterwards that of his successor, the late Charles S. FETHERSTONHAUGH, Esq., whom he served as gardener till he was upwards of 80 years of age, when he retired from his labours, and spent the remainder of his days on his own little property, in peace and comfort, being feelingly assisted by the kindness and liberality of his late master,—and since his death by his son, the present Timothy FETHERSTONHAUGH, Esq. At Sebergham Brow Top, near Carlisle, where he had lived 37 years, on the 29th ult., Mr. John ARMSTRONG, aged 62 years, much respected. He was borne to his last resting place by a large circle of friends, leaving a wife and family to mourn his loss. At Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the 24th ult., Mr. David BLACK, formerly of Parkgate, near Wigton, aged 59 years. In Craven Street, Islington, Liverpool, on the 27th ult., Mr. William KIRKUP, a native of Penrith, in this county, aged 37 years,—much respected. At Penrith, on the 2nd instant, Mrs. Jane GRISDALE, widow, aged 80 years. At Annan, on the 4th instant, Mr. Benjamin NELSON. At Annan, on the 29th ult., Mary, eldest daughter of Mr. William GRAHAM, of the Coach and Horses Inn, after two days' illness. At Lowtherton, Dornock. on the 27th ult., Jane LITTLE, relict of the late Mr. Thomas WYLIE, Wylies. At Rosevale, Langholm, on the 31st ult., Charles MAXWELL, Esq., M.D., the eighth and last surviving son of the late John MAXWELL, Esq.,, of Broomholm, author of an "Essay on Time." Dr. MAXWELL was aged eighty-two years and four months, having been born on the 3d of January, 1763. The amount of good which he did in the benevolent exercise of his profession, between 30 and 40 years of his residence in Liddesdale, can never be known. At Langholm, on the 25th ult., Andrew WARWICK, weaver, aged 58 years; on the 28th, Mary BELL, dressmaker, in the prime of life; on the 29th, Thomas THORBURN, weaver, aged 74 years; on the 1st inst., Elizabeth FLETCHER, at an advanced age. At the Rectory, Kirkbride, on the 18th ult., Barbara, the wife of the Rev. Jos. HALIFAX, aged 65 years,—much respected. At Keswick, on the 1st inst., Mr. Richard DAWSON, formerly of Shatton, near Cockermouth, aged 58 years. At Harrington, on the 29th ult., Mrs. Hannah BULMAN, widow, aged 71 years; same place, on the 31st, Mr. Hugh MULHOLME, aged 50 years. At Stainburn, near Workington, lately, Mr. Thomas SALKELD, aged 71 years. At High Scow, near Harrington, on the 26th ult., Mr. Daniel RODGER, aged 69 years. At Watson Mill, near Egremont, after a protracted illness, Mr. Joseph MOSSOP, farmer, aged 54 years. At Broughton Cross, on the 2nd instant, Mr. STODDART, veterinary surgeon, and father of Mr. STODDART, of Whitehaven, aged 62 years, much and deservedly respected by an extensive circle of friends. Mr. STODDART had been in practice as veterinary surgeon for upwards of forty years. At Appleby, on the 31st ult., Mary, wife of Mr. Matthew HIND, carrier, aged 72 years; and on the 1st inst., Mrs. Hannah RATSON, widow aged 84 years. At Overend, near Hensingham, on the 30th ult., Eleanor, daughter of Mr. GILMORE, manager of the lime-works, at that place, aged 17 years. At Moresby, near Whitehaven, on the 29th ult., after a long illness, Miss Isabella WILSON, aged 71 years. Lost overboard the ship Lanercost, on her passage home from Callao to Liverpool on the 2nd ult., Mr. John Moor SMITH, for many years steward of the Cumberland, late of Whitehaven. At Egremont, on the 31st ult., after a long illness, Miss Ann BECK, dress maker, aged 30 years. At Whitehaven, on the 1st inst., William M'CREAVE, draper, late of London, in the prime of life. At the Infirmary, Whitehaven, last week, Mr. Edward LODER, aged 36 years. At Dumfries, on the 21st ult., Mr. James M'ROBERTS, grocer and provision dealer. At Rochester, on the 25th ult., Sarah Ann, the only surviving daughter of William SAWYERS, Esq., collector of the Customs at that port, aged 16 years. At Saltcoats, near Ravenglass, on the 24th ult., Mr. John JACKSON, yeoman, advanced in years. At Briery Hill, near Keswick, on the 28th ult., Ann, daughter of Mr. John COCKBAIN, formerly of Threlkeld, near Keswick, aged 22 years. At Holm, near Duddon Bridge, on the 28th ult., Dorothy, the wife of Mr. Wm. THOMPSON, aged 26 years. At Kendal, on the 25th ult., Jane, the eldest daughter of Mr. George LYON, aged 26 years. At St. Paul's Churchyard, London, on the 28th ult., in the 21st year of his age, John, son of Mr. John GASKARTH, Bridge-end, near Keswick.

Saturday 07 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 7) Births. At Gillfoot, on the 1st instant, the lady of Thomas HARTLEY, Esq., of a daughter. Marriages. At St. Mary's Church, on the 3rd inst., Mr. Robert ROBINSON, cabinet maker, to Miss Jane HETHERINGTON, Fisher Street. Same place, on the 4th, Mr. James COWAN, printer, Scotch Street, to Miss Sarah ATKINSON, Abbey Street. At the Catholic Chapel, in this city, on the 2nd inst., Edward BURNS, weaver, Water Street, to Bridget BRANNAN, machine bobbin winder, English Street. At St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, London, on the 29th ult., by the Rev Sir Henry DUCKENFIELD, Bart., William Richard, youngest son of the late John BECK, Esq., banker, to Jane, eldest daughter of John THOMPSON, Esq., Fulham. At Stanwix Church, on the 20th ult., Joseph BAINBRIDGE, Esq., of Linstock, to Margaret, daughter of John GRAHAM, Esq., of Bramteth. At Irthington, on Tuesday, the 27th ult., by the Rev. J. TOPPING, Mr. Joseph STORDY, Drawdykes Castle, to Mary, second daughter of Mr. Robert CARRUTHERS, Highfield Moor. At Gretna, lately, Thomas HIGGINS, joiner, to Ann ROBSON, both of Wigton. At the Superintendent Registrar's Office, Brampton, on the 31st ult., Mr. Robert LITTLE, to Miss Mary ARMSTRONG, both of Brampton. At Wigton, on the 1st instant, Mr. William JARMAN, druggist, to Miss Mary SCOTT. At Penrith, on the 5th inst., Mr. George BAILEY, plumber, to Miss ARCHER. At Darley, on the 31st ult., Mr. F. PEARSON, commercial traveller, Manchester, to Elizabeth, youngest daughter of Wm. MARSDEN, Esq., Oaker, near Matlock, Derbyshire. At Crosscannonby, on the 25th ult., Mr. Joseph COURTIE [McCOURTIE according to FreeBMD], to Miss Mary ARMSTRONG, both of Maryport; on the 27th, Mr. Thomas PORTER, of Manchester, merchant, to Miss HEWITSON, of Maryport; and on the 3rd inst., Mr. Benjamin PARTRIDGE, butler at Netherhall, to Miss Catherine SIMPSON, of Allonby. At St. Mary's Chapel, Maryport, on the 3rd inst., Mr. John FRENCH, to Miss Dorothy TULIP. At Harrington, on the 31st ult., Mr. William JACKSON, tailor, of Under Gate, near Workington, to Miss Sarah CLARK, of Harrington. At Cockermouth, on the 1st instant, Mr. Matthew FLEMING, thread maker, to Miss Dorothy BORROWSCALE. At Distington, on the 24th inst., Mr. Robt. SMITH, of Winder, in Lamplugh, to Miss Mary ARMSTRONG, of Fairfield, in the parish of Distington. At Allhallows, on the 31st ult., Mr. Jonathan FAWCETT, Torpenhow Low Mill, to Mary, eldest daughter of Mr. Geo. WHITE, Harby Brow Mill. At Kirkby Ireleth, on the 31st ult., Mr. John CLARK, late of Barfield, near Bootle, but now of Broughton Beck, to Mary, daughter of Mr. Matthew Jackson ALLASON, of Kilnbank, in Seathwaite. At Kendal, Mr. Henry RISHTON, to Miss Elizabeth KENDAL; Mr. William POLLETT, to Miss Caroline WHARTON; and Mr. John ABBOT, to Miss E. RIGG, all of that town. At Belfast, on the 20th ult., Mr. William M'DOWALL, of the Ulster Banner, and author of "The Man of the Woods, and other Poems," to Ann, daughter of the late Edward DAWSON, Esq., writer, Dumfries. At Cleland, Lanarkshire, on the 22nd ult., John DICK LAUDER, Esq., eldest son of Sir Thomas DICK LAUDER, of Fountain Hall, and Grange, Bart., to Anne, second daughter of North DALRYMPLE, Esq., of Fordel.

Saturday 07 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 3) INQUESTS. ----- (Before Mr. CARRICK, Coroner.) At Wigton, on the 2nd instant, on the body of William CRAGHILL, shoemaker, aged 47 years, who, on the preceding day, had hanged himself in his own house, by means of a handkerchief fastened to a bed-tester. Deceased was represented by the witnesses to have been a hard-working man, but to have taken occasional fits of drinking. He had been very intemperate during the week previous to his death, and had become unsettled and desponding. In the morning he had been to the Joiners' Arms Public House, where he had drunk two glasses of spirit, after which, at about eight o'clock, he went home and retired to his bed-room. About ten o'clock, his daughter was sent by her mother to ask him to have some food, when he was discovered quite dead. Verdict-"Insanity." On the 3rd instant, at Castledyke, in the parish of Beaumont, on the body of Miss Margaret LITTLE, aged 26, the daughter of Mr. LITTLE, who died suddenly on the preceding day. Deceased was subject to sick head-ache, and had complained much of this on the preceding Sunday afternoon. On Monday morning, she was attacked with pain in the breast, vomiting and purging, which continued at intervals until evening, when she died about six o'clock. Dr. SEWELL had been called in, but did not see deceased alive. In the absence of Mr. SEWELL, Mr. ELLIOT, surgeon, of Carlisle, was examined, and gave his opinion, from the symptoms detailed in the evidence, that the death of the deceased was occasioned by the rupture of a blood-vessel. Verdict-"Natural Death." (Before Mr. LEE, Deputy Coroner.) At Gaitsgill, on the body of John TINKLER, who died under the following circumstances. He attended Carlisle market, on Saturday last, in company with his wife. There was a young colt in the cart, three years old; it had only been yoked twice before. It went quickly to Carlisle, and all the way back again until within two hundred yards of his own house. There, his wife left him to go across the field, and when she saw the horse again it was restive, and rearing. She endeavoured to take hold of its head, but it reared with him, carrying him up; and when it came down he fell to the ground. The horse started off, and the wheel of the cart went over his body. She lifted him, and took him home, were [sic] he lingered till Tursday [sic] morning, when he died. Verdict-"Accidental death." (Before W. LUMB, jun., Esq., Coroner.) On Saturday last, an inquest was held at Sandwith, on view of the body of William Henry CROUCH, a youth of about 15 years of age, who came to his death under melancholy circumstances on the preceding evening. It appeared that the youth had taken a loaded gun from his mother's house for the purpose of shooting corncrakes. On his way to the fields, the deceased called at Mr. John BOADLE's, of Sandwith, whose servant was about to accompany him. Whilst the deceased and a young man named BROCKBANK were waiting of Mr. BOADLE's servant in an out-kitchen, the gun (the butt end of which was resting upon young CROUCH's foot) went off and shot the deceased through the head. The accident occurred about seven o'clock in the evening, and the deceased only survived about twenty minutes. Verdict-"Accidental Death, with a deodand of 1s. on the gun." (Before Mr. THOMPSON, Coroner for Westmoreland.) FATAL RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT SHAP.-On Saturday last, a melancholy and fatal accident occurred on the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway, within a short distance of the village of Shap, to a person named John Hayton SARGINSON, in his 20th year. Deceased, who was a native of that village, had only been working on the line four days previous to the accident, and his employment was that of unloading ballast from the waggons and spreading it. On the morning of the above day it appears the unfortunate man in stopping a waggon opposite the place where he was filling had done it too suddenly, and another waggon which was attached thereto, from the impetus it had acquired, ran up and jammed deceased's head between the bodies of the two with such violence as to cause instant death. This distressing event was partly occasioned by deceased putting his hands intead [sic] of his feet on the break, as an experienced person would have done, in consequence of which his body was thrown forward into that dangerous position which led to his death. Verdict-"Accidental death." We are sorry to add that he has left a widow and three young children totally unprovided for.

Saturday 07 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 2) A SERIOUS BLOW TO GRETNA GREEN.-The clause of Lord BROUGHAM's bill, "For amending and declaring the law of marriage," declares that after the 1st of January next, no marriage solemnized in Scotland shall be valid, either in Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom, or of the dominions belonging thereto, unless both the parties were born in Scotland, or had had their usual place of residence there, or had lived in Scotland for three weeks next preceding such marriage; "Any law, custom, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding." The bill also proposes to enact that all children who are legitimate by the law of Scotland, shall be deemed to be so in all parts of the United Kingdom; and, further that all marriages and divorces valid by the law of Scotland, shall be deemed to be so in all other parts of the United Kingdom. The bill finally declares that all persons forging marriage certificates are liable to transportation for life. RAILWAY ACCIDENT-On Wednesday evening week, a melancholy and fatal accident occurred upon the line of the Whitehaven Junction Railway, at a place called Walker's Brow, near Harrington. Three men were engaged in filling waggons with earth, and having cut away a considerable part of the soil, under a brow, which consisted chiefly of sand and gravel, a great quantity of earth rushed down upon them from a height of ten or twelve yards, by which the three men were completely buried. Two of them were got out alive; but the third, named William BIRKETT, was suffocated before he could be released. The deceased, who resided at Common Side, Distington, was in the 26th year of his age, and has left a wife and two children to lament their untimely loss. An inquest was held upon body of the deceased on the following day, when a verdict of "Died from Suffocation" was returned.

And this is the end of that sad tale. I wonder what became of John GRAHAM - does anybody know? Petra

Saturday 16 Aug 1845 (p. 3, col. 6) John GRAHAM remained in gaol on Friday night last, after his acquittal, and left early the following morning, by mail, for Glasgow.

Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 2, col. 1-4) Part 2 SECOND EDITION. ----- TRIAL OF JOHN GRAHAM, FOR THE ALLEDGED MURDER OF HIS FATHER. ----- JOURNAL OFFICE, Friday, August 8, Six o'Clock. [continued] Mrs. GRAHAM, re-called. By the JUDGE—In February my son vomited. He often went to Newcastle. By Mr. WILKINS—He has visited us much more frequently since he let his farm than before. Margaret ROBSON, housekeeper to John BESWICK, of Kirkandrews, with whom the prisoner lodged—I remember him going to Newcastle on the 15th of May. I never heard he was going till the morning. He came in perhaps rather better than half an hour before our dinner time, twelve o'clock, and said he wanted some clothes to go to Newcastle, and he changed them. Before he changed he had some clothes he wore about home. He put on a better suit. I have only been living at Kirkandrews since Candlemas. I can't say I would know the clothes he put off if I saw them. SABBAGE, the constable, came and I gave him some clothes which I took to be the prisoner's. By the JUDGE—I had seen the prisoner wear them at times. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS—He left the clothes about the room, and I put them by. Re-examined—I think those clothes were the same I gave to SABBAGE. John SABBAGE repeated his evidence as to the apprehension of the prisoner. On the 12th of July MITCHELL gave me a waistcoat which he said he had taken from a nail. I gave it to Dr. TINNISWOOD. I took nothing out of the pockets. There were no more clothes in the bed-room where the prisoner slept but those I took away; but there were some in a bedroom upstairs. I produce the clothes. Benjamin MITCHELL—I saw what clothes the prisoner had on before he went to Newcastle, to the best of my knowledge. I have no doubt in my mind that he had these clothes on that morning. By Mr. WILKINS—I was going to plough. I saw him go down the road about eight o'clock, towards ELLIOTT's house; they were shifting. I passed him, but did not stop. I was within three or four yards of him. I did not take particular notice. I saw him the same day afterwards, and he had changed his clothes; and that is my reason for supposing he had the other clothes on. By Mr. TEMPLE—I have no doubt I saw him have them on. Dr. TINNISWOOD, M.D.—On the 14th of July I got from SABBAGE a waistcoat. I examined the contents of the three pockets, which I examined with three other gentlemen. In all these pockets there was arsenic, but a very small quantity. Elizabeth NIXON—I live at Grinsdale, and live one hundred yards from Mrs. GRAHAM. On the Thursday previous to Mr. GRAHAM's death my daughter took Mrs. GRAHAM some yeast. Mrs. GRAHAM said she had had none. She took it about half-past six. I used the remainder of the yeast for our own family. No harm came of it. I baked half a dozen tea cakes in the afternoon. She brought them herself. I did not put anything to them when they were with me. She got them in the back yard. I was not absent from the house whilst the cakes were in the oven, and no one came near them. Sarah NIXON—I made our yeast which I took to Mrs. GRAHAM. No one had an opportunity of meddling with it. I took the baked cakes back to Mrs. GRAHAM. The portion of cake exhibited before the coroner was similar to those baked. By Mr. WILKINS—The yeast is made of water, hops, and flour. I got the flour from Mr. HAUGH, of Holmes Mill. Mary NIXON is my aunt. She lived about forty yards from Mr. GRAHAM, in July. I never heard that she was troubled with rats. By the JUDGE—There was nothing in my yeast that there was not in hers. Jane THOMPSON—I was living with Sibson GRAHAM in May. I remember going to Mrs. GRAHAM's for some potherbs on the day Mr. GRAHAM took ill. I went into the back kitchen and found Mrs. GRAHAM there. She went out to get them. She went out to get the herbs, and I remained in the back kitchen. After I had returned and got the herbs, I went away to the back door and met the prisoner. Whilst I was in the back kitchen and Mrs. GRAHAM in the garden no one came in the back kitchen at all. On the Monday following I was sent to Mrs. GRAHAM's by Sibson GRAHAM and got a cake for him. I ate a small piece of it. I was very sick half an hour afterwards. Esther HOWNAM told me where to get the cake. Esther STEWART, another servant at the house, also ate of the cake, and was sick. My sickness continued till midnight. The yeasted cake tested by the medical men was then traced into the possession of Mr. ELLIOT, surgeon, by W. CANNELL, and W. CARRICK, coroner. The voluntary statement of the prisoner, before the coroner, at the inquest, was then put in. W. CARRICK— By Mr. WILKINS—I examined the prisoner. The statement is a series of answers to questions, asked at his request, when he declined to make a statement himself, and was told he was not bound to answer any questions. By Mr. TEMPLE—No one was criminated then. The statement was put in and read. Sibson GRAHAM, brother of the prisoner—I live at Grinsdale. I remember seeing my brother on the 15th of May. I met him on the road about nine o'clock. He was coming towards Grinsdale, and I came on with him to near that place. We got there about ten o'clock. I then left him; and he came to my house about twelve o'clock, and remained about twenty minutes, and then went in the direction to Kirkandrews. I don't recollect what clothes he was wearing. John DAVIDSON—I live near Carlisle. I saw the prisoner on the 15th of May. I walked down the road with him, about noon. He told me he was going a little journey—that he was going to Newcastle first, and would probably see London before he returned. Nathaniel WEDDELL—On the Thursday before old John GRAHAM's death, the prisoner went in the train, of which I was guard, to Newcastle. I saw him again on the Saturday, coming towards the Newcastle station. He had his top-coat on, and carried a carpet bag. I asked him if he was going home: he said no, he was going to stay with Mrs. ORD over Sunday. While we were speaking, Mr. Thomas WRIGHT joined us, and we all went into a public-house. While we were there, the prisoner chatted with WRIGHT, and said he was going to London, and thought he would be residing there, but would be down again before he settled altogether—probably about the middle of June. WRIGHT looked his watch, and it wanted twenty minutes to eight, and WRIGHT said he must be off. GRAHAM and I sat chatting for three or four minutes, and then I accompanied him to near the place where I met him—in the direction of the train. When I parted with him, it would want a quarter to eight; and he might have gone round by where Mrs. ORD lives to catch the train. He would have to go round about a quarter of a mile. Bryan BURN—I am a guard on the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway, and keep an inn at Newcastle. I found the prisoner at my house on Tuesday evening, the 15th May, and he remained there till about seven o'clock on Saturday evening. I was not at Carlisle that week. On the Friday evening after his arrival, he asked me, when I came in, if there was anything new from Carlisle, and I said no—not telling him that I had not been at Carlisle. He went out, saying he was going to the circus. On the Saturday evening I saw him again a little before six o'clock, and he again asked me if there was anything new from Carlisle, and I said no. It struck me as if something was pressing heavy on his mind—he seemed very unsettled. On the Monday afternoon I brought the news of the illness of GRAHAM's father from Carlisle to the station at Haltwhistle about quarter past three. I told the station keeper there. The prisoner was there, but I did not speak to him. He was getting into the train for Haydon Bridge, and when the station keeper told him about his father he got out again. John SIBBALD—I am a druggist in Carlisle. I met the prisoner at the Carlisle Railway Station on the 15th of May last, and travelled with him to Newcastle. He told me he was going to visit some friends there. We slept in the same room that night at Bryan BURNS'. About eight o'clock in the evening I found him in bed, and he said he was unwell. Thomas PROCTOR—I live in Gateshead. On the Saturday previous to his father's death, the prisoner called at my shop in Newcastle. I had known him intimately for a long time. He remained with me less than five minutes. I asked him if he intended calling at my house in Gateshead, and he said he would if he had time before he went away. I inquired if he was going away that night: and he said he did not know. Examined by Mr. WILKINS—Mrs. PROCTOR has occasionally visited Mrs. GRAHAM, the mother of the deceased. We are slightly related. I remember John GRAHAM's marriage. He and his wife paid their marriage visit to the mother of Mrs. ORD, in Newcastle. William ORD—I am a wine merchant at Newcastle. On the 17th of May the prisoner called on me at my office. I had only seen him once before. He said he had called at my house but no one was in. I asked him to step in: but he said he could not stay, as he was going by the London train. He only remained two or three minutes with me. This was between twelve and one o'clock. Mark CARR—On Sunday, the 18th May last, the prisoner came to our station at Haltwhistle, a little fter [sic] ten o'clock. He inquired if the train was gone east; and I told him it was. He then asked the fare to Rosehill Station, which is west, and I told him. He then went away, and came next morning about nine o'clock, and again inquired if the train had gone east. The train was then coming up from the east, and going west. He came back again about eleven o'clock, and I asked him if he was going by the train, and he said he was not—that he expected to meet a person by the train. When the train came in from the west, he asked if there was any person getting off. I said no, and he went away. He returned again between two and three o'clock, bringing his carpet bag with him. Mrs. SAUL, innkeeper, at Haltwhistle—The prisoner came to my house on the 17th May, at a little past ten at night, and remained all night. He rose next morning about eight, and after breakfast he went out, and then came in again in a quarter of an hour, and then went out, saying he was going to Haydon Bridge. That is nine miles west. He returned to my house in about an hour, saying he had missed the train. He was in and out of the house during the remainder of the day. He seemed a little dull, and had no company. On the monday morning he again said he was going to Haydon Bridge, and went out between eight and nine o'clock. He returned in about half an hour, but said nothing. During the day, he was never more than half an hour absent from the house. He left in the afternoon. He did not appear to have any business. When the train from Carlisle arrived, he remained in the office, and enquired if any person was getting off the train—and a person in the office said a gentleman had got off. He looked out of the window, and then took a ticket for Haydon Bridge, and went into the carriage. I told him, at Bryan BURN's request, that his father was ill, and he was to go home immediately. He then left the train, and spoke to Bryan BURN. He then went out; and afterwards came to me and asked if Bryan BURN had told me anything more than he told him; and if I thought his father was dead. I told him I did not know. William WEIR—I was coming to Carlisle, by the railway, on Thursday, the 17th of June. I got in at Wetheral, four miles from Carlisle, and found the prisoner in the train. He inquired what time I came from Carlisle, and if there was anything particular. I said there was something very particular—that his father and mother were poisoned. He seemed very much excited. I inquired when he left home, and he said on Thursday. I then said your father and mother were poisoned the same night; he seemed more excited after that. When the train stopped close to the station, I walked to Carlisle, and John GRAHAM went to the Railway Hotel: I saw him standing upon the steps of the front door. This was about half-past five in the afternoon. Robt. WHITFIELD, druggist, Carlisle—I was at the Black Swan with the prisoner on the Monday evening of his father's illness about six o'clock. The Black Swan is a mile from the station; he had a glass of whiskey, and then left in about ten minutes, to see his sister, Mrs. CANNELL. He came in again in about a quarter of an hour, and ultimately left about seven o'clock. While he was in the conversation turned on the death of his father. I remember saying it was supposed he had been poisoned. The prisoner said he had called on Mr. ANDERSON in coming to the station, and he had very much relieved his mind. Mr. SCOTT gave the order for the gig. I did not hear Mr. GRAHAM ask for it. Walker SWAN and his son gave the same evidence as yesterday, with respect to the sale of arsenic to a person resembling the prisoner. The son said the prisoner strongly resembled the person who purchased the poison. Joseph HAUGH repeated the evidence given yesterday respecting the apprehension of the prisoner, and his enquiries as to whether any of the Police Officers had been to Newcastle. Peter MURPHY repeated the expressions made use of by the prisoner in his cell, that "it is three weeks since this happened, I might have been in America." John SAUL—I am a solicitor in Carlisle. In the autumn of last year I applied to the prisoner on behalf of Mr. HEAD, banker, for a sum of money—about £150. I applied several times between September and the following January; three or four times at least. There was a balance also upon another account of £15; the £150 was his being surety for another party, who had been a defaulter. In the beginning of May he paid me £150; £15 remains due. Silas SAUL—I produce a writ of fi. fa. dated 6th December, 1844. The bailiff took possession of his house, and I was paid on the 10th. Richard JAMES, M. D.—The flour and butter given to us by HAUGH were analysed; neither of those articles contained arsenic. Joseph HAUGH—I gave Dr. JAMES the flour and butter given to me by Mrs. GRAHAM on the 22d May. Ruth GRAHAM—I gave some flour and butter to HAUGH; it was the flour and butter of which the cakes were made. By Mr. WILKIN—Whenever my son applied to his father he got it. His father gave him £200 to pay Mr. HIND with after his wife's death. He kept seven or eight cows after he gave up farming to commence business again. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. WILKINS then addressed the Jury for the prisoner, in a long and powerful speech. Evidence was called to show the respectability of the prisoner's character. His Lordship then proceeded to sum up the case, which he did with great care and minuteness. The Jury then retired, for about 15 minutes, and on their return into Court returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 2, col. 1-4) Part 1 SECOND EDITION. ----- TRIAL OF JOHN GRAHAM, FOR THE ALLEDGED MURDER OF HIS FATHER. ----- JOURNAL OFFICE, Friday, August 8, Six o'Clock. The Court opened at nine o'clock, when Mr. TEMPLE, the counsel for the prosecution in the case of John GRAHAM, charged with the wilful murder of his father, by administering poison to him, addressing his Lordship, said that the parties connected with the prosecution considered it their duty to proceed with the case. The jury in the case was composed as follows:— Thomas MOSES, farmer, Bascodyke. George RAYSON, yeoman, Highgate Head, Ivegill. John LAMB, yeoman, Great Salkeld. Samuel RELPH, farmer, Kirkoswald. Henry SMITH, yeoman, Ainstable. William GOULDING, farmer, Great Salkeld. Joseph WATSON, yeoman, Gamblesby. Isaac YOUNG, farmer, Castle Sowerby. Thomas ARMSTRONG, farmer, Grahams Onset, Bewcastle. Lionel ROBSON, miller, Kirkoswald. Nesfield ROBISON, ironmonger, Penrith. Richard PATTINSON, farmer, Kirkoswald. Mr. TEMPLE stated the case to the Jury. The prisoner was charged with causing the death of his father at Grinsdale, by mixing arsenic with dough, which was afterwards partaken of by the deceased. He proceeded to describe the family, of which the prisoner was the eldest of four children, and after detailing the circumstances under which the cakes had been made and eaten, described the symptoms produced in those who had partaken of them, and in the deceased especially. There was no doubt, from medical testimony, which would be produced that deceased had died of poison. Mrs. CANNELL and the wife of the deceased had some of the cakes to supper, and were ill in consequence of eating it; whilst Mr. CANNELL, who ate another description of cake, was unaffected with any of the symptoms exhibited by those who ate the girdle cakes. Those cakes had been analysed and found by the medical men to contain poison. He believed the fact would be made out that the arsenic had been mixed, by some means, with the dough, and not in either the yeast, the flour, or butter, used in its composition; for other bread made of the same yeast had been eaten with impunity, and the butter and flour, being analysed, were found not to contain arsenic, and to be unquestionably harmless. The dough was made about eight or nine o'clock on the Thursday morning, by Mrs. GRAHAM, the prisoner's mother, who put it into a covered pot, and set it near the fire, in the back kitchen, to make it rise. Between nine and ten o'clock that morning, Sibson GRAHAM, brother of the prisoner, sent his servant, Jane THOMPSON, to Mrs. GRAHAM's, to procure some pot-herbs. Mrs. GRAHAM went into the garden and got them, and Jane THOMPSON remained alone in the kitchen till she returned. When the girl had been supplied with the herbs, after talking a few minutes with Mrs. GRAHAM, she went away, and in going out met the prisoner coming into the door of the back kitchen. He went in after talking a short while with his mother: they went into the front parlour. If he mixed the arsenic with the dough, opportunities presented themselves for so doing while he was in the house that morning. He asked his mother if she would go to Newcastle, but she declined, and he went away, saying he was going himself to see his friends, Mr. PROCTOR and Mr. ORD. He remained, however, in the house long enough to have enabled him to put the arsenic into the dough; and then went to his house at Kirkandrews. He there changed his clothes, which he had on when he was at Grinsdale, and, amongst other things, a waistcoat which he had on; he put on another suit, leaving behind him the clothes which he had taken off. He went to Newcastle. The clothes he left behind were afterwards searched and the pockets found to contain particles which, on chemical analysis, proved to be arsenic. The waistcoat containing some of these particles would be produced and identified. No doubt various parties had opportunities of mixing arsenic with the dough, it was necessary to enquire into the subsequent conduct of those parties; and it would be found that John GRAHAM's conduct afterwards was such as to lead to the belief that he was the guilty party. After stating the proofs he should advance in support of this belief, the learned counsel called the following witnesses:— Ruth GRAHAM (examined by Mr. RAMSHAY)—I am the widow of John GRAHAM, of Grinsdale, about three miles from Carlisle. My family consists of the prisoner, Sibson, and two daughters. Mary is married to John HIND, and Ruth to William CANNELL. I and my husband had lived at Grinsdale, on my own property, many years—ever since our marriage. My eldest son, John (the prisoner), was a farmer at Kirkandrews, upon a farm belonging to my husband. He paid us rent for it. He was upon it 13 or 14 years, and ceased to occupy it at Candlemas last. John BESWICK then became the tenant, and John continued to lodge with him in the house. The farm was let to BESWICK at £100 a-year. My husband had a small piece of freehold land, called Cobble Hall, worth about £20 a-year. My property at Grinsdale contains about 25 acres, and is worth £60 or £70 a-year. Down to the period of his last illness, my husband's health was pretty good, but declining of late. He died on Tuesday, the 20th May, aged 76. He became ill on the previous Thursday—in the course of the night—between 10 and 11 o'clock. He was attacked with sickness—vomiting. He went to bed about 10 o'clock. He had taken bread and milk to his supper, between eight and nine o'clock. He was affected in about a quarter of an hour after he went to bed. He was very poorly next day: and took very little food. I was ill at the same time, and in the same way. I am not aware that he had any of the bread, of which he had eaten on Thursday evening. He had no vomiting after the Thursday night. I took a little of the same bread and milk as my husband, on Thursday, a little after him: I was very sick, but felt no particular pain. I was very poorly on the Friday. The bread we took for supper on the Thursday was some yeasted cake, which was made that day. It was made of flour, yeast, milk, and butter. I got the yeast from Elizabeth NIXON, a neighbour, who gave it to me. The flour of which the cakes were made was kept in a tub upstairs. I set the bread about nine o'clock in the morning. I think I had the flour down stairs before I set the bread, in a pot in the dairy. All the flour in that pot was used for the bread I speak of. I put the dough into a set-pot on one side of the back kitchen fire place, and to which there is a close lid. It is a pot we used occasionally for boiling water. The dough was in a small dish. The lid was not fastened, and was easily lifted—it was an iron lid, and would weigh above a pound. Between one and two o'clock, I worked the bread with more flour, and then set it before the fire. It remained before the fire till about three o'clock, when I made up the cakes. They were put upon a tin and then sent to Mrs. NIXON's to be baked; and I got them back in the evening. There were six cakes—two of them very small. My son John frequently came to see me. I saw him there on the Thursday. He had been there on the Tuesday before. He came about ten o'clock on the Thursday: a young woman, the servant of my other son, Sibson, was there; she had come for some pot-herbs, which I went to get for her from the garden. My son came to the back door when she was there; she was standing at the door complaining of being ill, and John stood a bit with her at the back door when he came in. He stood at the door a little while, and then both went in. I went into the back kitchen for a few minutes, perhaps fire minutes or better. When he came in he came forward just within the back kitchen and went forward to the other kitchen. Perhaps he was within the door of the back kitcken [sic]: I can't say; I was further in than he. I went into the front kitchen to him perhaps about ten minutes after he went, and sat down beside him. We sat a good while, near an hour I dare say. I never was out till I opened the door and let him out, nor was he. He went away before twelve o'clock, and went out at the front door. I had no servant; nobody lived in the house besides myself and my husband. A good piece after he went out, I went into the back kitchen. When we are at the well in the garden it is impossible to see any one standing at the back door. I was at the well after he went away, and left nobody in the house. The front door was shut, the back door, which is nearest the well, open. I had some clothes at the bottom of the hedge, in the garden, and was a good deal with them. I could not see the house door when I was at the clothes: it was a washing of clothes. I was twice at the well, and several times at the hedge. By Mr. WILKINS—About one o'clock. Witness—I was once at the well before, and once after 12; and once or twice at the clothes. It was perhaps about 12 o'clock when I was first at the well. When the cakes came back from the baker's they were put in the dairy: there were no others like them in the house. I recollect, in February last, being taken ill, about two o'clock; we were sick and very poorly, not so bad as we were the second time, but much of the same kind; we vomited, and the sickness continued during that night. We had a medical man, Mr. ANDERSON, and he gave me and my husband an emetic, which we took about eight or nine in the evening. My son John was there that day; it was on a Thursday. The JUDGE—If this is given to show that the prisoner had been guilty of an attempted felony, I can't receive this incidental evidence. It is irregular. Mr. WILKINS—I shall certainly sift it, now it is begun. Examination continued—In working up the bread, after getting it from the set pot I put some flour in it, and a little butter. The water was got from the well and brought in the night before. I always put my bread into the set pot, when I made it, except in very hot weather. There was a pot standing at the door with some yeast, which was not used in making the cakes; it was put there at ten o'clock and stood about half an hour till it cooled. I don't know whether it was there when my son came, but I took it in betwixt ten and eleven: it was set upon a kind of a seat close to the door, there was nothing on the top of the vessel, it was open, and the yeast was just making. Friday was our regular baking day. I did not see my son John after that day till the Monday evening following. My husband died about 12 o'clock on the Tuesday. He was at the house all night, but I don't know what time he went to bed. On the Monday night when John came from Newcastle he made no mention of poison. When he called on the Thursday morning he talked about going to Newcastle, and asked me to go with him. I thought I could not think of it, and he said he would wait another week if it would suit better. I said I told him it would not suit me, he need not wait. He said he was going to look after a place to keep four or five cows, if he saw anything likely. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS—The prisoner was taken ill also in February: the doctor said he was worse than any of the rest; he was dreadfully sick and purged. John and his father lived upon friendly terms—very much so: they never had an angry word that I heard. His father wished him above everything to keep on the farm at Kirkandrews; and so did I. When my son John looked in at the door the set pot was on the opposite side of the kitchen. I was between it and the door. The iron lid sits very close to the set pot, and it was not possible for my son to go near it without my seeing him. The well is close by Eden side—there may be rats about. After the potato-pot affair my husband was always displeased when any one said anything about poison. Joshua ANDERSON—I am a surgeon practising in Carlisle. I went to see the deceased on the 18th of May. I found him labouring under great debility, but not in immediate danger. Mr. WILKINS—I have ascertained from my learned friend that this is the only evidence he has to offer as to the opportunity the prisoner might have of mixing the poison. The JUDGE—If there are any other circumstances to fix the guilt of the prisoner, I can't stop the case. It is in evidence that his mother left the house, and it might be that he had come back again and had an opportunity during her absence. I shall not stop the case; these investigations are not made for nothing. Witness—I called again on the Tuesday, and found him sinking rapidly—in fact, he was dying. There was nothing in the symptoms inconsistent with the idea of his having taken arsenic. I saw the prisoner on the 19th, and again on the morning of the 20th. He called to inquire if I had seen his father, as he heard he was very ill. I dont recollect that poisoning was mentioned between us. I saw the prisoner in his father's house on the Tuesday morning, the day the father died. He was very much intoxicated: it was between eight and nine o'clock in the morning. By Mr. WILKINS—I have known the prisoner long, and always considered him a respectable man. I attended the family in February last. The prisoner was sick: and his symptoms were quite compatible with his having taken arsenic. Re-examined—I saw the prisoner vomit after he took the emetic. I did not see him sick before he took it; he said he was. By the JUDGE—He appeared in precisely the same state as his father and mother. They did not vomit till they took the emetic. By Mr. WILKINS—There was nothing to induce me to think John's sickness was feigned. By Mr. TEMPLE—I know nothing about it of my own knowledge. Richard JAMES, M.D.—In conjunction with Mr. ELLIOT I made a post mortem examination of the prisoner's father. I am of opinion that Mr. GRAHAM died from the effects of inflammation, produced by some irritant poison, and that poison we ascertained to be arsenic. The post mortem examination took place 50 hours after death. We also analysed a cake given by Mr. CARRICK, the coroner, to Mr. ELLIOT, and detected arsenic in it. In three ounces and a half we detected 16 grains of arsenic. By the JUDGE—It was about a third of a cake; and a man with a good appetite would eat a whole cake. Examination continued—A packet was given to us by Dr. TINNISWOOD, containing small woollen particles, sealing wax, gritty particles, and seedy particles—the scrapings of corners of pockets. The contents of that pocket were submitted to analysis, and we detected arsenic: this was perhaps three weeks ago. It was only upon one occasion we examined it. It was the ordinary arsenic. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS—The prisoner was in the house while the post mortem examination was going on. I should think arsenic is used as a wash for maggots in sheep. I have known Mr. GRAHAM for some time, and he has always borne the character of a very respectable man. [to be continued]

Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 2, col. 4 – p. 3, col. 2) Part 7 CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. ----- CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) KIRKANDREWS POISONING CASE. [continued] The learned JUDGE then summed up, He said—Before the learned counsel addressed them application had been made to him on what was called a point of law. He did not think fit to stop the case, for he did not think there was anything in the point of law at all; but the learned counsel had properly remarked that such an application ought not to prejudice his address to the facts of the case, for, undoubtedly, in a matter of doubt affecting the life of a client, it was the duty of the counsel to make the application, if he thought it likely to be advantageous. It was necessary to tell the jury what the charge against the prisoner was. It was that, knowing that his late wife, Margaret GRAHAM, was about to take some bread and milk, or that she was going to take some panado, or some medicine, (any of these would be sufficient,) he, contriving wickedly to poison her, mixed up with that bread, or that panado, or that medicine, or with all of them, a certain quantity of deadly poison called arsenic; and afterwards, she not knowing that there was any poison mixed up with the bread and milk, or the panado, or the medicine, or with all of them, swallowed it, and thereby, in consequence of that, died, either from taking first one and then the other, or all of them being mixed with poison, or from taking any one of them so mixed. It was for the jury to be satisfied as to whether that charge had been proved. Such being the charge, then, what was the nature of the evidence by which it was supported? In any charge of death occasioned by poison it was, from the nature of things, scarcely ever possible to have any direct testimony. It was said always to be the most odious kind of murder; perhaps amongst other reasons, that stamp was affixed on it because it was necessarily perpetrated in the dark, or, what was the same thing, in obscurity, with no eye to detect it, with no possibility of detecting it but by circumstantial evidence. Here the first question was, whether the circumstances detailed led to the conclusion that poison had been administered, and by the party charged with administering it. The first step was always, to be satisfied that the party had died of poison. In this case the Jury were relieved from any difficulty. Humanly speaking, there was no doubt that Mrs. GRAHAM died from poison. [The learned Judge here read the evidence of Miss HIND, describing the symptoms of the deceased.] Many of these symptoms might be produced by natural causes, and it was not, therefore, surprising that the medical attendants did not suspect any thing, happily so unusual as the administering of poison, but treated them as though they might have arisen from some natural disturbance of the stomach, as from acrid bile, or something of that sort. All the symytoms [sic], however, were those of arsenic, which was detected by the medical men, who were able to reproduce forty-one grains of it from the body of the deceased; ten times as much as was sufficient to destroy life; and knowing the symptoms exhibited, they had come to the irresistible conclusion that she had died from that cause. Therefore they might take that link in the chain of evidence as beyond all controversy. That being established, there was the important and more difficult enquiry, who administered the poison? It was more difficult because, in the first case, they had to deal with physical, natural facts, and in the other with moral reasonings, attaching to individuals, on circumstances bearing more or less on the guilt of the parties accused. Had the prisoner the opportunity? That was one thing. Had he any motive? That was another question. If he had an opportunity of administering the poison, had he poison to administer? If he had the opportunity, had he more opportunities than others? These were the sort of questions they would have to deal with; and it was on the strength or weakness with which these propositions were established that they would be mainly obliged to rely on coming to a conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the party. To suppose that they should detect the party putting the poison into the cup—though he could not say that such proof had never, yet it had rarely been found. Well, supposing the prisoner to have the poison, had he the opportunity of administering it? He was living in the house with the deceased, and it was perfectly obvious that he must have innumerable opportunities, some of which had been pointed out and suggested, whilst it must be clear there must have been others on which there was no evidence, and which could perhaps never be known. But, on the other hand, they must not lose sight of the fact that other people who were in the house had exactly the same opportunities. He had, then, the opportunity. Had he the motive? This was an important question, but by no means so important as whether he had the opportunity: and for this reason, that whilst it was possible to satisfy the mind whether or not he had the opportunity, they could not dive into the human heart and say what motive had been operating. Though it was important if they could show there was a motive, yet he was bound to say, that being unable to discover any motive was by no means so important as being unable to show that there was the opportunity. Motives were for Omnipotence to fathom: we could not always see them: therefore if it turned out that he had motive it would go some way to inculpate him, but not far to exculpate him if they could not find one. He (the learned judge) must say he discovered extremely little indeed of motive in the case. The parties had lived as man and wife for fourteen or fifteen years. Any thing weaker than the evidence to show they had been living on bad terms he had never heard; for they had lived and cohabited together, without any unpleasantness except, as was alleged, since the harvest of last year, when it was supposed by some of the parties called as witnesses, that they had become less friendly by reason of some jealousy of the wife of misconduct on the part of the husband with Mary RICKERBY. Or, if not jealousy, it was suggested that some improper intimacy took place between him and that woman, which alienated and estranged him from his wife, which made them live not so happily together. The suggested motive in this case was that, to carry on that intercourse with facility—(he hardly supposed it was to enable him to marry her, but in order that he might carry on his intercourse with less probability of interruption)—he had administered poison to his wife, who was supposed to stand in his way. But the evidence on that point was in the very last degree unsatisfactory. The evidence of MITCHELL had been produced to show that the prisoner was implicated with RICKERBY, and dared not, or did not choose to interfere when she was rude and insolent to his wife. They must take into account, however, that RICKERBY was discharged at Martinmas, in the November following her misconduct, so that that evidence could scarcely be said to lead to the conclusion that the motive alleged with regard to her was operating on his (the prisoner's) mind: it would be unsafe, he thought, to rely upon it. But in order to carry it out other evidence was given to show an intimacy between RICKERBY and the prisoner after his wife's death, and Sarah SAUL was called to prove that they had breakfasted at her inn in Haltwhistle. But this took place in the morning; they stayed three hours in the house, which was a respectable one, and it was not insinuated that any impropriety had taken place. The same observation applied to the evidence of Janet KENNEDY and Jane IRVING, who proved extremely little, merely that there was intimacy between the prisoner and a girl whom they could not positively identify as RICKERBY. The prisoner's conduct in the Grapes, too, might be perfectly consistent with the absence of illicit intercourse with her, for many circumstances might arise during the night at a strange inn—such as the discovery of vermin in a bed—to induce a man to change it for one more comfortable. The attempt to prove an illicit intercourse at Mrs. ELLIOTT's house had utterly failed, and as she had not been called they must attach no importance to that part of the case. Now, on the other hand it was urged that there was decidedly a motive, independent of motives of humanity, for GRAHAM to keep his wife alive, as on her death, failing issue, her father might demand £200 which he had lent to the prisoner, who was aware of the coolness existing towards him amongst his wife's relations. It was suggested, therefore, that there was as strong a motive in that respect for him to prolong his wife's existence, as there was in the other, for him to put her out of the way. He must say that he himself thought as much could be said on one side as on the other. As he had suggested before, there might have been a motive that no human being knew of or ever can know but the perpetrator himself. It had been proved then that the prisoner had the opportunity. With regard to the motive though it was not proved, that ought not to satisfy the jury. There was another question which was most important: it was whether the party who had the opportunity of administering had poison to administer. If he had not poison, the having the opportunity became unimportant. If he had, another question arose—did he get it under circumstances to show that it was for a guilty or improper object. What was the evidence? The first was that of the witnesses from Newcastle, the other the evidence presented by the clothes. If they believed the first it was very cogent against the prisoner, because it showed that he purchased it at a distance, and under false representation; and it showed also that he not only had poison, but had got it with a guilty object, so that, it having been proved that he had the opportunity, it was a most important circumstance to guide them to a conclusion. But in matters of this kind, where they arrived at the verdict after a long chain of reasoning, he must guard them not to be led away by the desire of solving a nice problem, or the pleasure of unravelling a mystery uniting two links which do not fairly fit. The question was—were they, or were they not satisfied that the prisoner was the man who bought the poison? Unless they were so satisfied, all the evidence on that point might be struck out from their consideration: if they were, it had most bearing on the case. All that the SWANs really said was that the man was somewhat like the prisoner, and they were both quite incompetent to speak positively on the subject. Now, when everything was to depend upon, aye or no, was that the man, their evidence that he was like the man certainly seemed insecure ground to go upon. If they believed, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he was the man, then, putting the motive out of the question, there certainly was the opportunity, and the individual who had it perhaps had motives; he certainly had poison, which he got for an unlawful purpose. The evidence of the SWANs was backed by that of two other persons. To the false statement alleged to have been given by the prisoner to Mr. WRIGHT—to the effect that he had come from Darlington, whereas, in fact, he had travelled from Carlisle with Mr. DALTON, he did not attach much importance, because, after a lapse of eight months, it was scarcely to be expected that a conversation, not impressed upon the mind by an particular circumstance, was likely to be repeated with strict accuracy; and, even if the exact words were remembered, they were too unsafe a foundation on which to base the supposition that he had gone to Newcastle for the purpose of purchasing poison to murder his wife. The other evidence by which it was attempted to trace poison to the possession of the prisoner, was that, on a certain occasion, after the death of the wife, after he himself was apprehended, the contents of the coat, waistcoat, and trowsers, on being tested by the medical gentlemen, were found to contain arsenic; and that, a week afterwards, another waistcoat which came into the possession of the policeman, on being examined, was found to contain arsenic. Did that bring home to the prisoner the fact that he had arsenic in his possession in November? It was not conclusive that, because he had it in June, he had it in November. He (the learned Judge) inferred from what had been stated by the medical men that the quantity of arsenic found in the pockets of the clothes was very small. Now, if he had it in a larger quantity in November, and it had been used for some purpose, being a mineral substance, such particles were likely to remain in the pockets, and finding it there in June, was certainly evidence that it might have been there in a larger quantity in November; but obviously, by no means conclusive, as it might have been put in afterwards. But connected with the arsenic being found in the clothes there were other considerations which he thought were worthy to be attended to. The prisoner was apprehended on the 9th June, and he knew, long before that time, that an enquiry was going on. He was taken up, not in the clothes in which arsenic was found: and a fortnight afterwards a batch of clothes was given up in which arsenic was detected. Now if arsenic had been found in the clothes he was wearing it would be perfectly certain, in the ordinary sense, that he had arsenic in his possession. But it was a step farther to say that because arsenic was discovered in clothes of his, accessible to so many people, between the time of his apprehension and their being given up, it was there when he was apprehended. In all probability he thought it was, but that was by no means the necessary consequence. That observation was entitled to still more weight with regard to the waistcoat last given up to the police, because it was not given up till three weeks after the prisoner was apprehended, and had been hanging in the kitchen, accessible to a variety of persons. The jury might have read, or it might not have fallen in their way, a celebrated poison case which occurred in France, that of LAFFRAGE [should be LAFFARGE]; in which one of the things always pointed out as a great oversight made by the parties who conducted the investigation of the body of the murdered person, was, that they left it exposed, so that persons passing it might have dropped a grain or two of arsenic into the stomach. In this case if any one had a diabolical motive or wish to excite prejudice against the prisoner, and to create a piece of evidence against him, which did not in truth exist, he had the opportunity; and the learned counsel for the defence had pointed to the fact of three pockets containing arsenic as one which tended to show that the poison must have been placed there by some one who had overdone the thing in trying to bring into court too much evidence. These were matters which the jury must weigh very carefully. It was urged also, that arsenic was used for cattle. It might be so; and it might be that the prisoner might innocently have had arsenic. The circumstance of there being arsenic in so many pockets ought not to be lost sight of, for it could scarcely be conceived that a guilty person should be so utterly reckless as to put the poison he used into every pocket he had. One would have thought that he would have kept it concealed, or put it only in some safe place for the immediate purpose of being used; and it was worthy of observation that it did not appear to have been put into the clothes in such a way as it would have been put had the prisoner been desirous to conceal it. There was another sort of evidence that had been submitted to them: the conversations after the matter was bruited about that the prisoner was suspected. There were two different statements alleged against him. One related to his anxiety that his wife's body should not be taken up in order to be analyzed. Now, he thought Mr. DODGSON had made a very sensible observation to the prisoner, that if suspicion existed he ought to wish it cleared up if he was innocent. The prisoner made no answer to it, and seemed to be very reluctant on the occasion. The question was, from what motive that reluctance arose. On the one hand it was suggested it was because he did not wish the cause of his wife's death to be investigated, being afraid it would be discovered that she had died from arsenic. On the other hand it was alleged that his reluctance arose from his horror of the notion of his wife's dead body being taken up and exposed to the investigation of the surgeons, and all that at which the feelings were apt to revolt. Many persons, no doubt, felt very great horror at the notion of such things being done to themselves or those connected with them, whilst others again were indifferent on the subject, leaving their bodies to be dissected. But few persons liked to have their wives or their daughters so exposed; the prisoner might be one of them, and his feelings on that subject might have prompted the remark alleged against him; and surely he must have known that any reluctance expressed by him for an inquiry, or wish to stop it, would only tend to make those who were about to make it persevere. With regard to the second conversation, his enquiring whether the policeman had been at Newcastle, it was for the Jury to attach to it whatever importance it seemed to merit. The learned Judge was proceeding to comment upon the probability of the powder dispensed by the druggist from Mr. SEWELL's prescription, being arsenic made up in the hurry of business, and administered to Mrs. GRAHAM, when Mr. TEMPLE reminded his lordship that the illness had commenced upon the Sunday before the powder had been prescribed; whereupon the Judge said he had overlooked that fact, and had no doubt that the arsenic was administered before the powder was got, therefore the hypothesis must be dismissed from their consideration. What the prisoner meant by "If she was poisoned, I know how," he could not divine. It might be that he was conscious that he had arsenic always about him, and that some had got into her food accidentally; or it might be that he was conscious that he had administered it with a guilty motive. The matter was now entirely in the hands of the jury. Yesterday an application had been made to postpone the trial with which they had been engaged, till some future assizes in order that some prejudice which it was alleged existed in the minds of persons in this town and neighbourhood against the prisoner with reference to the charge might be allowed to subside. To that application he had not thought fit to accede; first, because no adequate grounds were stated in support of it, that might not be applicable to every case where a dreadful catastrophe had happened, and that was supposed to be the result of a horrible crime, and because in every such case it was impossible to prevent people from talking about, or the press from printing, matters connected with it. But he had refused the application chiefly because he thought to hold out that it was possible for men sitting there in the discharge of so important a duty as that of trying an individual, to send him to his long account in justice to the public on the one hand, or to protect him, in justice to himself on the other, would be influenced by prejudice by anything they might have heard before entering the court, or by any inference that could be drawn from any but the facts proved before them, and that they would not return a verdict according to the evidence laid before them; and that alone, was a most dangerous doctrine to the community. If they were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the prisoner did administer poison and cause the death of his wife, their oath by which they swore to do their duty to their country, imperatively called upon them to return a verdict of guilty. But if the circumstances detailed in the evidence, and the inferences fairly deduced from them, did not lead to that conclusion; he for one thought it would be an insult to them to suppose that anything they might have heard out of court could induce them to commit the gross injustice of letting a man suffer, not for evidence on which he was tried and which he had the opportunity of answering and commenting on, but on what might have been said by irresponsible persons whom he had no opportunity of contradicting. They must now proceed to the discharge of their duty, and return a verdict according to what they consider to be the real nature of the case. The Jury then retired, and after an absence of about an hour returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The prisoner did not appear to hear the announcement, for he turned round to the persons standing behind the dock, and enquired what the verdict was. There was no manifestation of feeling in court. Mr. TEMPLE inquired whether, after the verdict that had been returned, his Lordship would think it within his province to advise whether the charge of murdering the father should be proceeded with? The JUDGE said the depositions had not been submitted to him, and in case of such extreme importance he should not feel it his duty to say it ought not to go on. Mr. TEMPLE said he should like to have an opportunity of considering whether the circumstances of the second case came within the principles laid down by his lordship. His LORDSHIP then arranged that it should be called at nine o'clock next morning. The trial of John GRAHAM was commenced at nine o'clock on Thursday morning, for the murder of his wife, and terminated at a quarter before nine at night. At the conclusion the area between the coort-houses [sic] was crowded with spectators who were unable to gain admittance into court, and who had been anxiously awaiting the verdict. ----- The following plan of the premises in which Mrs. GRAHAM died, will enable the reader to understand more readily the allusions of the different witnesses:— [Here follows the drawn plan of the ground floor of the house.] A shows the position of the bed in which Mrs. GRAHAM died. B—The position of the peg on which the clothes of John GRAHAM, in the pockets of which poison was found, were hanging when taken possession of by the policeman.

Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 2, col. 4 – p. 3, col. 2) Part 6 CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. ----- CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) KIRKANDREWS POISONING CASE. [continued] George TINNISWOOD, M.D.—I am a physician practising in Carlisle. I remember receiving from SABBAGE, on the 28th of last June, a parcel purporting to contain the contents of some pockets. They consisted of some crumbs of bread and cheese, some pieces of sealing wax, and a little woolly matter such as is found in the corner of a pocket. There was mixed amongst it a crystalline substance like fine sand. I kept the parcel till Monday, the 30th, when it was analysed by me in conjunction with Mr. ELLIOT, Dr. JAMES, and Dr. CARTMELL. We found that it contained arsenic, by the same experiments as were described by Mr. ELLIOT. It was the oxide of arsenic, the arsenic of commerce. I received, on the 14th of last month, a waistcoat from SABBAGE. Arsenic was found in each pocket. I heard Dr. OLIVER's evidence. Judging from the symptoms described by him, and the morbid appearances found on dissection, I am of opinion that the arsenic had been taken in repeated doses. By Mr. WILKINS— Do you know that arsenic is used by cattle graziers for diseases of cattle?—I have heard so. And for purifying wheat before sowing it?—Yes. Is it not used almost invariably in case of ringworm in sheep?—I don't know. Joseph HAUGH—I went with SABBAGE to apprehend GRAHAM. He asked me if I had been to Newcastle; he said he had heard I had been there. I said no, I had not. After he was taken to the police station, he said he hoped I would tell him the truth whether I had been to Newcastle, or whether any one had been there. By Mr. WILKINS— Don't you know he has some relatives living at Newcastle?—I don't know. You know he is a cattle breeder?—Yes, I have known him for twenty-eight years. One of the best breeders in the district?—Yes. Don't yon know Newcastle is a market for the cattle in this district?—Yes. Peter MURPHY—I go under that name. I was in gaol for a while, in confinement. Had you done any crime?—I can't tell you, yon must ask my wife. What was it for?—It was for a difference with my wife. I was in nearly nine weeks. I could have found sureties, but I wouldn't. John GRAHAM was brought to gaol when I was there. The prisoner, myself, and a man named FLINN, were in the same cell for two or three days. On Wednesday, the 11th June, he was walking across the cell. I was sitting on the bed, and FLINN was lying on his face. The prisoner made short stop and said, "it is three weeks to day since this job happened—I could have been in America." Neither FLINN nor I had been talking to him before. On the next day he wrote a letter, which he read to us. There was something in it consarning [sic] drugs that a doctor had given his wife; but whether the doctor was dead or out of the country he could not tell. I advised him to burn the letter, or put it down the water closet, and he said he would let his attorney see it. On the Friday, when forenenst the turnkey, he said he knew what was the cause of her death, but would not tell. He also said he was an innocent man—he never had a heart to kill a rat in a trap. James BARRET, turnkey of the gaol.—On Friday, the 13th of June, the prisoner said if his wife had been poisoned he knew how it had been done, but that he would keep to himself. "I musn't tell you, must I?" he said. I said no, he must tell us nothing, for what he told us might come against him on the trial. By Mr. WILKINS—That was when Peter MURPHY was by. Mr. T. ELLIOT, surgeon, re-called—Judging from the symptoms described, and the appearances of the body on dissection, I think that arsenic had been taken on the Sunday night and in the sago on Tuesday morning. From the quantity of arsenic found and the effects produced by what must have been rejected by vomiting and purging, from the great extent of surface over which it was spread, and from the weak state of the patient beforehand, which was calculated to increase the rapidity of its absorption, I am decidedly of opinion that if the whole of the arsenic had been taken on the Sunday night, death would have taken place sooner. I think arsenic must have been taken in the sago on Tuesday morning—for if the vomiting had been the result of the inflammation of the stomach previously existing, the sago would probably have been rejected immediately, and not retained as it was for an hour—the time when the vomiting again commenced and the time also when arsenic usually begins to act. I cannot give an opinion as to whether or not arsenic had been taken between the Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, from the description of the symptoms I have heard. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for the prisoner, in a powerful speech which extended over an hour and three quarters. If ever there was a case in which the facts were disproportioned to the rumours, it was the case that had been detailed that day. There was hardly a shadow of evidence to justify the charge against the prisoner. There had been no proof of improper intimacy between him and RICKERBY; and if it had been substantiated, it only showed that he had nothing to gain from her, by the death of his wife, he having her already at his bidding. Out of the whole history of John GRAHAM, only one instance had been found of reproach from the lips of his wife. All the circumstances alleged with regard to his treatment of her were more in his favour than against him. With regard to the testimony of Mr. ELLIOT, he remarked that a gentleman more honourable in his profession he never saw in a witness-box, and he must say that the report drawn up by the medical gentlemen was most creditable to them; it bore about it all the marks of science, without any of those miserable attempts which quacks resorted to to conceal their ignorance; it was given in plain intelligible language, and must convince every one that they fully understood the matter that had been committed to their investigation. With regard to Mary HIND's testimony, he remarked that it was rather strange that she, who was so very deaf, should be able to report conversations in her deceased sister's house, and, in opposition to the conclusions she had drawn, he contended that the conduct exhibited by GRAHAM during his wife's illness was that of a kind husband, and altogether inconsistent with his having administered poison to her. They next found him sending for the doctor, and requesting his sister, Mrs. CANNELL, to stop and sit up with his wife. No wonder he did not wish any of his wife's family to remain, for there was a coldness between him and them; and had he been compassing his wife's death it was monstrous to suppose that he would have selected that very spot on which she was surrounded by all her friends, and where, calling so frequently as they did to enquire after her, detection was certain. Nor was it likely, if he had given her poison, that he would have sent for a doctor, for being a shrewd man, with more than ordinary perceptive and reasoning powers, as had been stated to them, he must have known he would discover the fact. They had it in evidence that a powder had been administered to deceased by direction of Mr. SEWELL. This had been got from a druggist's shop in the lowest part of the town, and it was very probable that in the throng of the shop arsenic might have been substituted for rhubarb and magnesia: quite innocently and accidentally by the owner of the shop, who strange to say, though he (Mr. WILKINS) had hinted at the line of defence he intended to take, had never been called before them. There was no reason whatever to suppose that the prisoner entertained any ill-feeling towards his wife: as to his suffering RICKERBY to insult her, he took the only means he could with an insolent servant, by dismissing her at the end of the half-year. There was a strong motive why he should wish his wife to live, and that was that he knew he would be called on for £200 on her death, if she had no children. The learned counsel proceeded to comment on the evidence with great ingenuity and force, and called upon the jury to return a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner. The learned counsel then called the followiag [sic] witnesses to character:— James STEEL—I am Mayor of Carlisle. I have known prisoner eight or ten years. So far as I have known him he has borne a respectable character, and I have always looked upon him as a kind and considerate man. The Rev. Mr LOWRY—I am the clergyman at Watermillock. I have known the prisoner twenty years. He has always been a humane and peaceable man. Robert BENDLE—I am attorney for the prosecution. I have known him for ten or twelve years, and his character during that time has been the very best. [to be continued]

Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 2, col. 4 - p. 3, col. 2) Part 5 CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. ----- CROWN COURT.-(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) KIRKANDREWS POISONING CASE. [continued] Thos. WRIGHT-I live at High Crosby. I went to Newcastle in October last. I saw John GRAHAM there on the 22nd of that month. I met him on the street. He told me he had been at Darlington. I saw John DALTON, of Cummersdale, afterwards on the same day. I met the prisoner between ten and eleven o'clock. This witness was not cross examined. John DALTON-I live at Cummersdale Mill, near Carlisle. I was in Newcastle in October last, and saw Mr. WRIGHT there. I was there before and after that time but did not see the prisoner on either occasions. I saw him there on the 22nd of October. I first saw him at the Carlisle station. We both went in the same train to Newcastle, but not in the same carriage. By Mr. WILKINS- How long have you known Mr. GRAHAM?-A good many years. Hasn't he always stood very high in the county?-Always, previous to this. Have you not been engaged with him in transactions?-Yes, several times. He has been an arbitrator between landlord and tenant, has he not?-Yes. Walker SWAN, recalled by Mr. WILKINS.- Did you not go to London in October?-No. I did say so: but I found out that I made a mistake. When did you go?-I went on the 18th, and returned on the 22nd September. Have you not said that it was just before you went to London that the person purchased the arsenic?-I have. It was your impression?-Yes. By Mr. TEMPLE-I am not stating positively, I can only speak of my impression. JUDGE-What is your impression now? Witness-It still is that it was before I went to London. [At a quarter to three o'clock the Jury retired for a few minutes.] Jane HETHERINGTON, Kirkandrews-I am wife of Edward HETHERINGTON, Kirkandrews. I saw John GRAHAM on Sunday, the 8th of last June. I had seen him on the previous Thursday. He said he never could stand his wife being lifted, he would rather be shot than have her lifted and dissected. The Rev. T. DODGSON-I am curate of the parish of Beaumont, and know the prisoner. One Sunday evening, in the beginning of June, before his wife was taken up he sent for me, and I went to him. He said he had heard they were going to take up his wife and was very much distressed, he could never bear it. I said if he was innocent he need not be alarmed. He said it was more than he could bear, he should sink under it. I told him his wife's death ought to be enquired into. He did not make any reply. That was all that passed with reference to his wife's death. I saw him a week afterwards, on the following Sunday. I did not speak to him; he was insensible and very ill. He said he wished he was with those that were gone. By Mr. WILKINS- Was not the expression first made use of, that they were going to take up his poor Peggy?-Yes. That was on the first occasion?-Yes. Did he not say all his friends had forsaken him, and that he had never done harm to any one in his life?-Yes. Didn't he appear to be in great distress of mind?-Very great. Richard JAMES-I am a physician in Carlisle. John GRAHAM came to me a little after four o'clock on the morning of the 3rd of June. I was in bed, and he called me up. He asked me if his wife was going to be taken up that day, and I said I did not know anything about it. I said if it had been the case it was most likely I should have known. He said if it was the case that she was taken up he would be obliged to leave the place. He also said he had never done injury to any person in his life. I replied I was very sorry for him. He requested not to mention to any one that he had called me up. I said it was quite impossible to keep it secret: it was broad day light, and there were several persons on the street. By Mr. WILKINS- I believe he is a man who has stood very high in the county?-So far as I know, very high. John SABBAGE (examined by Mr. RAMSHAY)-I am superintendent of Carlisle police. I saw the prisoner on Thursday, the 5th of June, about two hundred yards on this side of his own house, at Kirkandrews. He asked me if it was true that they were going to lift his wife. I told him it was; that I was just going over to arrange about it the next day. He said, could they not see Mr. CARRICK, and get the opinion of the doctors without lifting her, for if they did he could not stand it. I told him I thought that would be no use now. He said, "if they do find poison, I did not do it." I saw him in returning, and the same conversation was repeated. On the 9th, the Wednesday, about half-past three in the morning, I went to apprehend him. He said, "you are come to take me?" I told him I had a warrant for him, and assisted to dress him. I read the warrant to him in the yard. HAUGH was with me. The prisoner asked him if he had been to Newcastle. This was in the house. HAUGH said he had not been there. GRAHAM then asked if any one belonging to me had been there to make inquiries, and I said no. I went to BESWICK's, at Kirkandrews, on the 23d June. I do not know when he ceased to occupy it as a farmer; it is not now his house, but he lodges there. On the 23rd of July, I brought away the contents of the pockets of a coat, waistcoat, and trowsers given to me by Margaret ROBSON, and which I emptied into a piece of paper. I gave the contents to Dr. TINNISWOOD, and left the clothes in the house. On the 30th of June I brought the clothes away. Margaret ROBSON gave the clothes to me. I have them here. I put the contents of all the pockets in one paper. By Mr. WILKINS- It was pretty well known in the neighbourhood what the poor woman was to be taken up for?-Yes. Where did you get the clothes from?-They were hanging in John GRAHAM's bed-room. The door was open?-Yes. The suspicions as to the woman's death had been talked about for some weeks?-Yes. Did you mix the contents of all the pockets together?-Yes. Was there some wool amongst it?-No. And crumbs of bread?-Yes. Did you particularly noticed [sic] the contents of these pockets?-No. Was MITCHELL present when they were given to you?-No. By Mr. TEMPLE: On the 30th of June I took a first waistcoat, on the 12th of July a second waistcoat. I gave the second waistcoat to Dr. TINNISWOOD. I got it from MITCHELL, and had not searched the pockets before. By Mr. WILKINS- Had you asked for any more clothes, or did MITCHELL give it you of his own accord?-He gave it me. Did you see where he took it from?-It was hanging up in the front of the door as you go into the kitchen. If it had been there at first you would have seen it?-I might have overlooked it. Did you not search?-Not in the kitchen. Were there any clothes you did not take away?-Yes, there were three or four coats up stairs. There were other trowsers and waistcoats. You had had a good many interviews with MITCHELL?-Perhaps I have seen him five or six times. He has assisted you as much as he could in getting up the case, hasn't he.-No. Were there any other clothes in the kitchen?-Yes, there were old clothes, like working things. I did not examine them. By the JUDGE-The substance collected in the pocket was like wool. I can't swear it was not sheep's wool. It might be. Margaret ROBSON (by Mr. RAMSHAY)-I am servant of John BESWICK, who now occupies the farm of John GRAHAM. I remember the day the prisoner went to Newcastle, shortly before Mr. GRAHAM died-perhaps three months since. I gave a suit of clothes to Mr. SABBAGE. I think they would be John GRAHAM's: I am not very certain. I took them from the bed-room; they were hanging behind the door. He went to Newcastle the second time in a second mourning suit. Perhaps I might have seen him wear the waistcoat given to Mr. SABBAGE-I don't know. Mr. SABBAGE emptied the pockets, and put the clothes back where they were taken from. Mr. SABBAGE here produced the clothes. Benjamin MITCHELL re-called, identified the coat, waistcoat, and trowsers, as those of John GRAHAM. He said-I think he would have them more than a year. I did not give the officer the second waistcoat produced, but I saw him take it. It is John GRAHAM's, and is the older waistcoat. Witness pointed out a patch by which he knew it. By Mr. WILKINS- Where did you get the waistcoat?-SABBAGE or Mr. BENDLE took it from a door in the kitchen. I think there was a coat hanging in the kitchen also. Anything else? No. No other clothes? No. Pray were you ever in the service of T. H. GRAHAM, Esq., of Edmond Castle? Yes. What did you leave it for? We had a little difference. Your master said you were a rogue in grain? He never told me so. Were you discharged for stealing grain? No, I paid for it. I mentioned it to the husbandman when I took it to the mill. I was charged with stealing geese. I never said I traced the feathers to the house of another person. I never took a goose. I was discharged from Mr. GRAHAM's for taking a peck of barley, only for three days. I was taken on again. The grain was thrown over the hedge. There was no truth in the goose story. My son, who was living with Mr. GRAHAM, is at Bleatarn. He was sleeping with me when I heard Mrs. GRAHAM speak on the night I saw her slice the bread. He was in bed when she was slicing it. He lived there three quarters of a year. He was not there at the time Margaret RICKERBY behaved so improperly. William RICHARDSON was. He is here to-day. By Mr. TEMPLE-When I took the barley I told the miller, and after I was taken back again I staid the greater part of the winter. By Mr. WILKINS-I was the thresher before I was turned off. When they took me back I made carriage roads. I was never forbidden to go about the house. I had no work about the house afterwards. [to be continued]

Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 2, col. 4 - p. 3, col. 2) Part 4 CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. ----- CROWN COURT.-(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) KIRKANDREWS POISONING CASE. [continued] Benjamin MITCHELL-(By Mr. TEMPLE)-I was the servant of John GRAHAM, at the time of Mrs. GRAHAM's death. I had lived with him about two years and a quarter. On the Sunday before Mrs. GRAHAM died I was at home in the evening, betwixt seven and eight o'clock. Mrs. GRAHAM had been rather off health, but on that evening when I came home she was as usual. My master was out. I went to bed before he came home. I and Betsey ROBINSON went to bed within a few minutes of each other-she went first. I saw my mistress, before I went to bed, put some milk into a pan and then some bread. Just as she was doing that I went to bed. I sleep above the kitchen. I heard the prisoner come in a very few minutes after I went to bed. After he came in I heard her say "John you've never any time to spare for my company, but all will work over." When I first went to Mr. GRAHAM he and his wife were on very good terms. Margaret RICKERBY was living there when I went. At first her conduct and demeanour towards her mistress was very good, proper, and respectful. She left her service before my mistress died, at Martinmas, last year, and Betsey ROBINSON came in her place. Before she left, her conduct had changed. She frequently absented herself from the house in the evening; and upon occasions when she was absent John GRAHAM has been absent also. Upon those occasions I have heard his voice in Mary ELLIOT's house, which is about fifty yards from our fold gate. I have heard his voice more than once in that house. I have not seen her go into the house on those occasions when I heard his voice. I told John GRAHAM that people were talking about his going there. The house was blamed for clash:-sometimes people call it backbiting. I have seen alterations in the conduct of RICKERBY to Mrs. GRAHAM in the prisoner's presence; she has used language that did not become a servant. Sometimes he did and sometimes he did not reprove her for the language she used. When he reproved her he said "hold your tongue;" nothing more. I remember one Sunday when we had a goose to dinner. Mrs. GRAHAM had been at church that morning, and Margaret RICKERBY remained at home. We all sat down to dinner, John GRAHAM with the rest. Mrs. GRAHAM said to RICKERBY, "Margaret, I think you have pinched us of gravy-is there no more?" RICKERBY went and provided some more, and when she brought it back John GRAHAM was still sitting at the table: she set it down and said "damn her that'll grease her guts," and she told her mistress on the same day that she had no more religion than an old sow. After this language Mrs. GRAHAM removed her plate from the table, and went into another room and had her dinner. She was very nervous at the time, all of a shake; the words had put her out of the way. John GRAHAM remained and finished his dinner with me, Margaret RICKERBY, and another servant, William RICHARDSON, who left at Martinmas. Whilst we were at table, RICKERBY said to Mrs. GRAHAM that she was a laughing-stock to the whole village. Mrs. GRAHAM was in the other room then, but John GRAHAM heard it. During the dinner John GRAHAM said "hold your tongue," and she said "no I'll not hold my tongue, she is a laughing stock to the whole village." I told him she behaved very badly to her mistress and he said she had a very bad tongue. I remember Carlisle races. When John came home to supper RICKERBY came in, and John told her to get herself some supper. She said she would never break her fast in the house again, because the mistress, had removed the things from the table. The prisoner asked her what she meant by taking the things off the table. Mrs. GRAHAM said she had removed nothing-there was nothing to remove but a pot. I went to bed, and did not hear any more. I first observed this sort of conduct on the part of RICKERBY towards her mistress sometime before midsummer. During the Autumn, and up to the time of my mistress's death the prisoner was absent sometimes in the evenings, and Margaret RICKERBY was absent also. Nine o'clock was bed time. Sometimes they came home before and sometimes after nine. I have sometimes gone to bed and left both out, but my mistress up. I saw RICKERBY, after she left my mistress, at Candlemas hiring; I saw John GRAHAM go across the street where she was standing and crack his fingers [witness cracked his finger and thumb.] She crossed over to him, and they went together into Lowther street. Up to the Autumn RICKERBY's conduct had always been very good to her mistress. By Mr. WILKINS-How are you hired?-For one half year. Is'nt that the unversal [sic] way of hiring servants?-Yes. Don't you know Mr. GRAHAM is rather deaf?-Yes. Wasn't he a very quiet man?-Yes. Expressed a great dislike to noise or disturbance?-Yes. John BARNFATHER, (by Mr. LAURIE)-I know Margaret RICKERBY. I pointed her out to Janet KENNEDY and Jane IRVING, at the inquest. By Mr. WILKINS. Did'nt they say they did not believe she was the woman? IRVING did. Did'nt the other say all she could say was that the clothes were like?-Yes. Jane IRVING (by Mr. LAURIE)-I am a servant of Mrs. MARTIN's, of the Angel Inn, and have been there three months. I know the prisoner. I remember him coming to our house four times, I think. Ha came alone first and then a female came after him. He generally got some refreshment. He went into a private room upstairs sometimes. The female came about three times, and enquired for him. She was shown up to him. I remember a person being pointed out to me by BARNFATHER. She was very like the person, but when RICKERBY came to our house, I did not see her well, she always held her head down. When RICKERBY was pointed out, she was very much altered for the worse; she was not so fresh coloured as when she came to see the prisoner, and she was thinner. I noticed the dress; it was the same colour. By Mr. WILKINS- That is she was the same but different?-She was stout and fresh-coloured. The person you saw afterwards was thin and pale?-Yes. You are at the Angel?-Yes. Have they your portrait over the door?-Yes. (Witness laughed.) But she was different?-She was faded. Well I suppose female beauty must fade as well as male. Is the Angel well accustomed?-Yes. And respectable?-Yes. Mr. WILKIN-That'll do. Janet KENNEDY, waiter the Grapes-I saw John GRAHAM come to our house in April last, and a woman was with him. They went into a public room and had tea together. They staid all night. John GRAHAM asked if they could have a double-bedded room. It was refused. I showed them both to bed. I showed the woman to bed first. I showed John GRAHAM his bedroom, No. 3. In the morning nobody had slept there; he had slept in No. 6. I had not shown him into it, and it was not the woman's room. I am sure I showed him into No. 3. BARNFATHER pointed out RICKERBY to me; she is the same height, and had the same gown on. By Mr. WILKINS- Yours' is very respectable and well-accustomed house?-Yes. A great many people come to it?-Yes. Sarah SAUL-I keep the Crown Inn, at Haltwhistle, and know the prisoner. I know Margaret RICKERBY by sight. I remember the prisoner coming to our house with her on the 8th of May. They came at half-past nine in the morning, and remained three hours. They had breakfast, and went away at the same time. By Mr. WILKINS- My inn is very respectable-the second in Haltwhistle. Walker SWAN-I am a chemist and druggist at Newcastle. I remember in the course of last year a person coming to purchase arsenic at my shop. JUDGE-When?-I can't speak as to time; I think it was between August and October. Witness-He enquired for the article. Have you seen any person in the gaol of Carlisle?-Yes, I have seen a person. There is a powerful resemblance between the person who came and the prisoner at the bar. JUDGE-You think he is the person. Witness-To the best of my belief. He said he wanted to poison rats on board a vessel at Shields. He was not dressed like a sea-faring man. He got the arsenic. I made hesitation in giving it him, and he said he was not tired of his life; he was going to make no improper use of it. He got either six or eight ounces;-I am not positive about the quantity. It was the common white arsenic; the oxide of arsenic. He went away with it. It was labelled. We have two labels, and it would be either "Poison," or "Arsenic-Poison." I remember Mr. SABBAGE coming to me. I described the person who had bought it, in the first instance. When GRAHAM was first shown to me on the 20th of June in the Carlisle gaol, there were three or four persons with him at the time; they were shown that I might select any person who was like the man who bought the arsenic. I selected the prisoner as being the person most like. By Mr. WILKINS- Most like the description the constable had given you, you mean?-No. Did he describe him to you before he came to Carlisle?-Yes. When you saw the prisoner did you not state he was taller and stouter than the man who called?- Yes, that was my impression. Did you understand from what the man said that he was a sea-faring man?-No, I thought he might be connected with shipping. Had you any recollection of that transaction before your son reminded you of it?-No, I had not. Was the arsenic which you sold very finely powdered?-It had the appearance of being fine, but it feels gritty. So would cream of tartar, I take it?-It was a finer powder. Does it not feel gritty under the knife?-Yes. Still it is a fine powder?-Yes. You can't even describe the dress of the man who came to you at Newcastle?-No. By Mr. TEMPLE-My impression was that the prisoner was taller and stouter. My shop is low, and objects appear larger on that account. William Wilkinson SWAN-I am son of the last witness. I remember, in the course of last year, a person coming to purchase arsenic from my father. I can't remember at what time of the year it was. It was between July and October. He got the arsenic. The prisoner at the bar resembles the person who purchased it more than any other person. I believe him to be the same person. By Mr. WILKINS- You believe him to be the same person?-Yes, or a person very much like him. How old are you?-Sixteen. Were you not asked by SABBAGE if the man had red whiskers?-Yes, and I said I din'nt know. When you saw Mr. GRAHAM, didn't you say you believed Mr. GRAHAM was a taller and stouter man than the man in the shop?-No, I said I though [sic] the man in the shop was taller and stouter than Mr. GRAHAM. When you went into the gaol yard there were two or three other persons with the prisoner, were there?-Yes. But it so happened that he was the only man who had red whiskers?-Yes. In point of fact do you not think the resemblance very doubtful?-He resembles him more than any other man; I know by his general appearance. The arsenic was in fine powder?-Yes. By Mr. TEMPLE-It was the commercial arsenic. Walker SWAN, re-called- By Mr. TEMPLE-Did you give to Dr. TINNISWOOD a portion of arsenic similar to that you had sold the man?-It was a sample of the same kind. Mr. WILKIN-Then I must request Dr. TINNISWOOD to leave the court. (He retired.) W. SWAN, re-called-I delivered it to Mr. ELLIOT. Thomas ELLIOT-I got a sample of arsenic from Mr. SWAN. It was similar to that found in the body. In the bottle it appears a white powder, and was gritty when taken between the fingers. Mr. WILKINS-What was the crystal you found about the size of a raisin stone?-It was arsenic. Were there any as large in the stomach, or bowels?-No. Surely you would not say that the commercial arsenic would be likely to contain crystal so large as that?-I am just taking the fact. Is not arsenic as fine as cream of tartar?-It may be made so, I have no doubt. That we use in our surgery is large. [to be continued]

Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 2, col. 4 – p. 3, col. 2) Part 3 CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. ----- CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) KIRKANDREWS POISONING CASE. [continued] Joseph HIND (examined by Mr. LAWRIE)—I am the brother of the deceased, Mrs. GRAHAM. I remember going to see her in her last illness, on Monday, the 25th November, betwixt twelve and one o'clock in the afternoon. She was in bed, and complained of pain in her breast. I remained near ten minutes. I proposed that Dr. OLIVER should be sent for. The prisoner said SEWELL had been sent for. I thought Dr. OLIVER had better be sent for, as he had done her good before. Upon that he left the room, and said something to himself, but I did not get hold of what it was. I saw my sister again on Monday evening: she was still in bed, and said she was no better. I next saw her on Tuesday morning, near six o'clock in the morning. She was in bed. I was there on Tuesday evening when Dr. OLIVER arrived, between ten and eleven o'clock. He ordered a good fire to be kept on in the kitchen, and to have every thing in readiness. The prisoner was present at the time. The doctor said some person ought to sit up with Mrs. GRAHAM. I proposed that our servant girl and his own should sit up, and he refused to have any one to sit up. I said some one should, and he said he could wait on her himself as well as any woman he could get. We were like to differ about it, and my sister desired me to go home and let John have his own way. The prisoner's mother and sister both proposed to sit up with Mrs. GRAHAM, and he objected to that also. I next saw her on the Wednesday morning. By Mr. Wilkins— You well remember the time when John GRAHAM married your sister?—Yes. Did not your father lend him £200?—Yes, a good few years after. When were they married?—It will be fourteen years since in October. Supposing your sister died without children, was it not agreed he should pay back the £200 upon demand?—No, it was not. Has not the £200 been paid back since your sister's death?—Yes. Mr. WILKINS—That is all I ask him. JUDGE—When was this?—In April. John SEWELL (examined by Mr. TEMPLE)—I am a surgeon at Burgh, which is a mile and a half from Kirkandrews. I was sent for to attend Mrs. GRAHAM in her last illness, on Monday, the 25th of November, about noon. I found that she had great irritability of her stomach, with vomiting and purging. I prescribed a cordial and a stimulating mixture for her. I did not give it her, or see it given. The mixture was a liquid. I did not see her again till Tuesday morning, about nine or ten o'clock. She was worse and weaker—more exhausted. Her symptoms were vomiting and purging, and she complained of a slight pain in her stomach. She took an anodyne on Monday, but I did not see her after that till Tuesday morning. I staid two or three hours on Tuesday; nothing was given by my orders that I recollect of, unless it was sago. I had ordered her, on Monday, a compound of rhubarb powder: I wrote the prescription for it, and it was got from Carlisle. Dr. OLIVER was sent for on the Tuesday. I was there with him, and saw her take some tincture of opium in brandy. I saw her again on Wednesday about ten o'clock; I did not see her on the Tuesday evening, but Dr. OLIVER did. On the Wednesday she was weaker, more exhausted, and labouring under great debility. The appearances were such as would present themselves in any person who had taken arsenic, but at that time I had no suspicions of her having taken any. I have heard of the quantity of arsenic found in her stomach. Knowing that fact, and the symptoms, I have no doubt arsenic was the cause of her death. By Mr. WILKINS— You don't dispense your own medicines, do you?—Yes I do; but in this instance I did not. To whom did you send the prescription?—Mr. PATTINSON, Caldewgate. Is not that a very low part of the town?—It is. Does he carry on the business of a grocer as well as of a druggist?— Yes, I believe he does. Pray how long has he combined chemicals with treacle?—Many years, ten or twelve. Didn't he for some years carry on the trade of grocer alone?—-I am not aware. Would you not consider three drachms of magnesia, one drachm of powdered rhubard [sic], and one drachm of powdered ginger, a large dose?—Yes, if taken all at once; but I left directions that it should be taken a tea spoonful at a time. When did you prescribe that? On the Monday. When you went upon the Monday to attend Mrs. GRAHAM, did John not say he wanted to send for you sooner, but that his wife would not allow him?—I saw him on the Tuesday at Longburgh, and he expressed that to me. By Mr. TEMPLE—The wife was not present when he stated that, and he did not state it in her presence afterwards, that I am aware of. I did not order any of the rhubarb to be taken on the Tuesday; it was to be taken a tea spoonful twice a day. By Mr. WILKINS—There would be a great number of tea spoonfuls in that quantity. The prisoner fetched me himself on the Tuesday. Richard OLIVER, M.D. (examined by Mr. LAWRIE)—I am a physician now residing near Shrewsbury, and formerly practised in Carlisle. I knew the late Mrs. GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews. I remember being called to her on the 20th of November last. I met Mr. SEWELL on that occasion. I found Mrs. GRAHAM exceedingly exhausted, apparently from the previous irritation of the stomach and bowels. I saw the necessity for having recourse to stimulants, and prescribed brandy and opium. There was no prescription, but the brandy and opium were immediately given in my presence; there was urgent necessity for them. Mr. SEWELL was called away, and had to go to a great distance that evening; and I left with the understanding that if Mrs. GRAHAM became seriously worse I was to be sent for, and I arranged to let my visit be late unless sooner sent for. I received a message from the prisoner about ten o'clock to the effect that Mrs. GRAHAM was much easier, and I need not go that night. I did, however, go between ten and eleven o'clock. I found her certainly easier, but very low: not much different in that respect. I gave directions as to how she was to be attended and nursed; the arrangements were made before I left, in the presence of the prisoner, as to food and medicine. By Mr. WILKINS—She was to be kept very quiet. Witness—I ordered brandy, opium, and sago to be given. I was led to expect that there was a possibility of her recovery, although the chance was a very bad one. I next saw her on the Wednesday forenoon, on the following day, about ten o'clock, or between that and eleven. I found her very much worse. The symptoms were aggravated by depression and exhaustion; in fact she was dying then; she did die at seven o'clock. Knowing that a quantity of arsenic has been found in her body, the symptoms are such as would result from that case. Knowing the state of the body after examination, I am inclined to the opinion that the arsenic was taken in repeated dozes. I should be inclined to think, from the reaccession of the symptoms of irritation under which I found her labouring on Wednesday morning, that there had been a fresh dose given in the interval between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. I saw her vomiting. By Mr. WILKINS— Was deceased's sister there on the Wednesday morning?—I think she was there both mornings. Is it not true she was considerably easier on the Wednesday morning?—There was no complaint of pain, but she was suffering. Supposing a fresh doze of arsenic had been administered between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, would there not have been some complaint of pain?—I apprehend that would have been likely. May not the vomiting be accounted for by the previously irritated state of the stomach?—It was materially less on Tuesday night. Is it not extremely doubtful indeed whether any fresh doze was administered?—I consider it very doubtful, certainly. The prisoner fetched you himself, didn't he?—Yes. When?—On the Tuesday. Elizabeth GRAHAM (by Mr. TEMPLE)—I am the wife of Joseph GRAHAM, of Scaleby. I was in November last in the service of John GRAHAM. I have been separated from my husband, and went by my maiden name. There was no other female servant in the house, but two men servants, Benjamin MITCHELL and his son. I never saw John GRAHAM mixing bread and milk for his wife. On the Sunday before Mrs. GRAHAM died I remember her taking her dinner and tea that day. John was at home at dinner, and went away in the afternoon. I went to bed at nearly nine o'clock. My master had not returned. Benjamin MITCHELL went to bed about the same time. We left our mistress up. I did not see her prepare any milk and bread before we went, or see any preparations for any. When I was going to bed I heard the prisoner return. When I went to bed I saw no plates, or dishes, or basins, or spoons on the table. There was no pan left on the hob when I went. When I got up in the morning I found a small pan on the hob, and a basin with a spoon in it. My mistress was in the habit of taking bread and milk, and there had been an opportunity for her to prepare it herself after I went to bed before her husband returned. I heard her moving about before he came home. Next morning GRAHAM came out of his sleeping room and said Mrs. GRAHAM was very ill, and had had the worst night she had. A doctor was sent for,—I think it was at his request. By Mr. WILKINS— Do you remember what time it was when you went to bed?—Nearly nine o'clock. Did MITCHELL follow you?—I think we both went about one time, but am not positive. Your mistress generally prepared the bread and milk herself, didn't she?—Yes. Where did she get the milk?—In the dairy. Did you hear her go into the dairy?—I think I heard her go to the door of the dairy. Did your master come to you before you were up?—No. Where did he come to you on the Monday morning?—I was in the kitchen. At what time?— About six o'clock. Was there any portion of bread and milk left in the pan?—Yes, I could see some crumbs of bread, and the spoon was in the basin. Had your mistress been ill when you were in the house before?—She was poorly before, but I was away. When he came to you in the morning did you hear him give directions for a doctor to be sent for?—He told the men, but I did not hear him. On the Tuesday evening did you hear Mrs. GRAHAM say she would require no one to sit up with her, for her husband would lie beside her?—Yes, I heard her say so. Was Mrs. CANNELL there that evening?—Yes, that's John GRAHAM's sister, Ruth. Did you hear Mr. GRAHAM beg her to stop and attend to his wife?—Yes. You, MITCHELL, and his boy did sit up till midnight, did you not?—Yes, we sat up till twelve o'clock. Mary BECKTON—(by Mr. LAWRIE)—I am the servant of Mrs. HIND, of Kirkandrews. I was sent to sit up with Mrs. GRAHAM on Tuesday night, the 26th of November. I saw Mr. GRAHAM, Betsy ROBINSON, and Benjamin MITCHELL. I offered to sit up, but he said I need not stay. Mr. WILKINS put no question to this witness. [to be continued]

Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 2, col. 4 - p. 3, col. 2) Part 2 CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. ----- CROWN COURT.-(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) KIRKANDREWS POISONING CASE. [continued] Thomas ELLIOT-I am a surgeon residing in Carlisle. I remember making a post mortem examination of a body said to be that of Margaret GRAHAM, in Thomas NORMAN's barn. I was not acquainted with her, but it was pointed out by HIND. Describe the appearances on dissection- Witness-On examining the brain and its membranes, we found them perfectly healthy. Mr. WILKINS-I may state, my lord, that I do not dispute the cause of death. Witness-Contents of the chest healthy. We found the soft palate in a great measure wanting; the marks of inflammation extending along the whole of the gullet; a number of small shining transparent particles were lying in the mucus of the gullet, and one small crystal about the size of a raisin stone at the lower part of the gullet, indented into the lining membrane of the gullet, and adhering firmly to it, near to where it joins the stomach. Externally und internally, the end of the stomach adjoining the gullet was found of a deep red colour: the other extremity of the stomach presented the same appearance. The stomach contained a few spoonfuls of brownish liquid, which was preserved. Its lining membrane was covered with a tenacious, brownish mucus. At a short distance from the further extremity of the stomach we observed a small yellow spot about the size of a split pea; we also found a great number of small gritty particles in the mucus of the stomach; some yellow, others transparent. We found marks of inflammation here and there, along the whole course of the bowels, and a very great number of small gritty particles; some yellow, some translucent. We found them in the greatest quantities near the termination of the small intestines, and there we found the most decided marks of inflammation. There was nothing particular in any of the other organs of the abdomen. I may remark that the body was in a wonderful state of preservation, the brain alone presenting marks of putrefaction. I think that is all with respect to the appearances. By the JUDGE-The other medical men with me were Dr. JAMES, Dr. CARTMELL, and Dr. TINNISWOOD. We jointly conducted the post mortem examination and the subsequent chemical analysis. Witness-The first thing we analysed was the brownish liquid taken from the stomach. We found no traces of poison. We next examined the mucus of the stomach; we separated the gritty particles from it by washing it in distilled water; the particles sank to the bottom. The liquid was removed, and the deposit was then dried. A portion of it was heated with black flux in a small glass test tube, on heating which to a low red heat a metallic ring sublimed or rose in the tube, bright and shining externally, dull and granular internally. The next experiments were conducted upon the stomach itself, which was cut into pieces, and boiled with distilled water, and hydro-chloric or muriatic acid. Small bundles of fine clean copper wire were successively introduced and boiled in the liquid. On removing these they were found coated with a metallic coating of an iron grey colour. The bundles of wire were then carefully dried, and one of them, cut into pieces, was introduced into a small glass tube, which was slowly heated, when a white cloud rose in the tube, and settled down in the form of a ring of small transparent crystals. Examined under a microscope these crystals were observed to be octohedral, with equilateral triangular facets. The next experiments were conducted upon the bowels, a portion of which, cut into pieces, was washed in distilled water, and the sediment formed, when dried, was submitted to the same process described as that of the mucus of the stomach, and with the same result, namely, the formation of a metallic ring. The portion containing this ring was filed off, put into another glass tube, and heated in it. A number of crystals sublimed in the tube. A little distilled water was then introduced into the tube, and boiled until the crystals were dissolved. This liquid was then divided into three parts. To the first of these a solution of nitrate of silver was added, and a beautiful yellow precipitate was the immediate result. To the second, a solution of ammoniaco-sulphate of copper was added, and a grass green precipitate was the result. Through the third portion a few bubbles of sulphuretted hydrogen gas were passed, when a beautiful yellow precipitate was formed. We removed the small yellow spot which we found on the stomach, and applied a few drops of strong ammonia to it. This had the effect of immediately dissolving it. On adding a little muriatic acid to this a yellow precipitate took place. Those were the whole of the experiments conducted on the body. The JUDGE-I have taken down every thing you have said. I would ask you whether, before the analysis was made, the appearance of the intestines was such as would occur in a person who died from arsenic?-It was, my Lord. By the JUDGE-The experiments were such as to leave no doubt that the substance found in the stomach was arsenic?-Not any. By Mr. LAWRIE-I have formed the opinion that the form in which the poison was taken was that of white arsenic or arsenious acid, because a portion only of it was found converted into orpiment by the action of sulphuretted hydrogen which exists in the bowels. Had yellow arsenic been taken that would not have been the result. A yellow stain is a general characteristic of arsenic. With regard to the quantity, the arsenic in the mucus of the stomach, in the stomach itself, and that from the intestines was nearly 42 grains. It was precipitated by passing a stream of sulphuretted hydrogen through it. The liquid was then filtered, and the precipitate, together with the filtre were then dissolved in ammonia, and this liquid was again filtered. The precipitate left upon this filter was carefully dried and weighed. It weighed fifty-two grains and was the sesqui-sulphuret of arsenic, or orpiment, which is equal to 41 grains and three-tenths of white arsenic, or arsenious acid. I am of opinion that that quantity was much more than sufficient to cause death. Four grains and a half have been known to cause death. By Mr. WILKINS- Arsenic is not very soluble?-No, not very. Would it not be possible to put a quantity of arsenic in tea or water, and the water or tea be drunk with impunity?-It might be possible, provided the crystals put in were of sufficient size. Supposing a parcel about the size of a quarter of a pound of coffee, containing a large quantity of arsenic, were burnt, would you expect there would be a strong smell from that?-I would. A smell of garlic?-Yes, a garlic odour, provided it was converted into metal which it might be by being thrown upon red hot coals. Mr. WILKINS-That is all I ask you. Mr. LAWRIE-Shall I call the other medical men to corroborate? The JUDGE-It is not necessary. Mr. WILKINS-I never heard a more creditable medical witness in my life. Mary HIND, who was examined by Mr. TEMPLE, through her brother, said-I am the sister of Margaret GRAHAM, and remember her death. She died on Wednesday, the 27th of November, at seven o'clock in the evening. She had been in good health before that, for a few months, but not very well for a few weeks before. I saw her on the Sunday morning before her death, and she said she was much better. I saw her that day in John GRAHAM's, her own house. She came up to our house that morning and staid about an hour. I live with my father in the same village, Kirkandrews-upon Eden. I saw her next after that on Monday morning, about nine o'clock, I think. She was then very ill, in bed, and said she had been very ill all night. She complained of a very great heat and pain in her breast. She was purged, and vomited. I remained with her that morning till past eleven o'clock. John GRAHAM was at home during that time, sometimes in her bed room, and sometimes walking about. Mrs. GRAHAM was very thirsty and asked me to make her some whey. I got both the milk and ale for it, and she drank it, and vomited it up again. She asked for some gin and water, and John GRAHAM gave her it. I went home and returned afterwards. He sent for the doctor at eight o'clock. When I returned at two o'clock, Mr. SEWELL, surgeon, had come. Mrs. GRAHAM was rather easier, and he gave her something amongst brandy. I left about three o'clock, and returned between five and six. I left her for the night about eight o'clock; she was easier then. The purging had abated, and the vomiting had ceased. I saw her next at eight o'clock morning, on the Tuesday; she was in bed. Nobody was in the room with her when I first went in. She had been easier through the night, and said she had had some sleep. Her thirst still continued. I went home, and told my father and mother how she was, and came back again-I returned about nine o'clock. About ten o'clock John GRAHAM made her some sago; it is what is called panada. John prepared it; he boiled it. I was in the kitchen when it was on the fire, and remarked to him that it was too thick. I was near him while it was on the fire. When he took it off he asked Betsy ROBINSON, his servant, if it would do. I had my back to him then. His servant, ROBINSON, is also called Elizabeth GRAHAM. I was in the kitchen. I was in the kitchen all the time it was boiling, and do not know what he put into it after he took it off the fire. I do not know what he might have put in before: I was in the kitchen. We gave it to Mrs. GRAHAM. I did not see her partake of it. I did not see her take anything else that morning. About an hour after she took it she was taken very ill; she was held the same as the day before, but much severer; both vomiting and purging worse. Her thirst was very great, she said no one could tell what she suffered that day from pain and burning heat in her stomach and chest. Cold sweat was upon her brow, and her hands were very cold. She did not see well that day, but made no complaint of her sight. She complained much of pain in her head. Dr. SEWELL and John GRAHAM's mother came after eleven o'clock. John GRAHAM was present. Dr. SEWELL proposed to send for Dr. OLIVER, and John GRAHAM went himself for him about an hour after. Dr. OLIVER came about two o'clock, and he had a consultation with Mr. SEWELL, who then left. Dr. OLIVER gave her something amongst brandy, and she vomited it up again. He ordered her a mustard plaster for her breast and bowels. John's mother and I applied it. In the evening we had her up a little: she seemed very weak, and trembled all over. After I got her put to bed again,-about six o'clock,-the prisoner said I and John's mother had to go and he would lie down beside her. We then went to a neighbour's house for a little while. When we returned we saw her again; she was easier, John still lying on the bed beside her. Benjamin MITCHELL, the elder, had gone to Carlisle to tell Dr. OLIVER not to come. He was one of John's servants, and was sent by the prisoner. He had sent him before we came. Dr. OLIVER came about ten in the evening, and John seemed very much displeased. Dr. OLIVER gave her something more amongst brandy and she vomited it up again. He ordered a little panada for her: Betsey ROBINSON made it and my sister took it. It remained on her stomach while I was there, and I was there for half an hour after she took it. Mrs. CANNELL is a sister of John GRAHAM's. She called that night; Joseph told me so. Dr. OLIVER said Mrs. GRAHAM was to be strictly watched and was to have nourishment during the night. By Mr. WILKINS-John GRAHAM was present. Witness-It was proposed in his presence that John GRAHAM's servant, Elizabeth, and his father's servant, Mary BECKTON, should sit up with Mrs. GRAHAM. John did not say anything about this while Dr. OLIVER was there; but as soon as he went away he refused; and my brother Joseph and he got to high words about it. My brother Joseph wanted them to sit up and John would not let them. When John refused he said he would wait on her himself as well as any woman they could get. I went home about eleven o'clock and returned next morning (Wednesday,) at eight. She was easier, but much weaker. I did make some beef tea that morning and gave her it. She was very low that day, and took no notice of anything. She saw less and did not hear so well. She died about seven o'clock that evening. By Mr. WILKINS.- How long have you been so dull of hearing as you are now?-About twenty years. Is the prisoner also deaf?-A little. Was your sister not frequently retching at the stomach previous to this illness?- Sometimes, but not frequently. Did not several members of your family visit her during her illness?-Yes they were in sometimes: John did not look pleased when any one was there. Was there not some coolness between the familes [sic] for some time previous?-Yes. When you made the whey, did not John request you to take the curd off?- Yes, in a very angry way. When you offered to do anything for your sister did she not say John would do it?-She always said John would do it, and seemed to have a great fear of him. During her illness did John frequently lie down beside her on the bed?-Very often. Did the illness not begin about three weeks before, with a cold?-Yes, she was twice disappointed in coming to the market with butter. Did not the illness begin with a cold three weeks before?-She did not complain of it, but she thought she had got some cold. The JUDGE-Did she get pretty well of that cold?-She was never so well after. How was she on the Sunday morning before she died?-She was much better, was going about, and was doing part of the household work. [to be continued]

Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 2, col. 4 - p. 3, col. 2) Part 1 CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. ----- CROWN COURT.-(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) [CONTINUED FROM OUR FIRST PAGE.] KIRKANDREWS POISONING CASE. Soon after eight o'clock on Wednesday morning the area between the Court Houses was crowded with persons of both sexes; and at half-past, when they were opened, there was a general rush into the Criminal Court, which was soon crowded to inconvenience. BARON ROLFE entered the Court precisely at nine o'clock. APPLICATION FOR THE POSTPONEMENT OF JOHN GRAHAM'S TRIAL. Mr. WILKINS, counsel for John GRAHAM, charged with the murder of his wife and father, said he would invite his lordship's attention to the case of John GRAHAM, against whom a true bill had been returned by the grand jury. His object was humbly to apply to have the case postponed till next assizes; and he grounded his application on the extreme prejudice created in the public mind, either designedly or undesignedly. He did not attribute this to an improper conduct on the part of the attorney for the prosecution; but he found that in three of the principal London papers, the Times, the Chronicle, and the Post, there had appeared a paragraph setting out in detail that GRAHAM had made an ample confession of the offence charged against him; and the belief universally entertained was that such was the fact. Moreover he found that two of the most important provincial papers, the Leeds Mercury and the Liverpool Mercury, stated not only that he had confessed, but that he had been tried and convicted. Under these circumstances trial at the present moment could not be entered upon in the calm and deliberate spirit necessary for the ends of justice; and he apprehended his application to postpone it till public feeling had subsided would not be considered an unreasonable one. It was not unprecedented, for an application to Chief Baron POLLOCK, similar to the present, at the Liverpool Assizes, had been granted, and the trial of BOLAM, at Newcastle, was postponed by Baron ALDERSON on similar grounds-namely the excited state of the public mind. Here the affidavit of Mr. J. MOUNSEY was handed to his lordship, setting forth that the paragraphs above alluded to had appeared in some of the London and provincial newspapers, that they were believed by many persons in the county, and that from the first commencement of proceedings against GRAHAM up to the present time, statements had appeared in the Carlisle newspapers in reference to the matter with which the prisoner was charged, and placards had been issued on several occasions, announcing that the newspapers would contain such statements, therely [sic] tending to keep up the excitement in the public mind and preventing the same from subsiding; and that the said paragraphs had been inserted in the London newspapers. The affidavit was read by the Clerk of Arraigns, and Mr. James MOUNSEY was sworn upon it in court. The newspapers referred to, except the Carlisle Journal, were submitted to his Lordship. Mr. TEMPLE, as counsel for the prosecution, could not feel justified in acquiescing in the request made by his learned friend; and he submitted that there were not sufficient facts stated on affidavit to induce his lordship to accede to it. With regard to the newspapers of the county, the particular paragraphs were not brought under the attention of the Court. It must be well known that when an offence of this kind was charged against an individual, the particulars must necessarily find their way into the newspapers, being vehicles of news, and consequently organs through which information was conveyed to the public. And unless it were shown that it was commented in strong, unfair, and partial terms, calculated to excite prejudice, the fact of there having been information in the newspapers did not, he submitted, afford sufficient ground for the postponement of the trial: for the same ground might be alleged in every case of serious accusation brought into Court. Mr. RAMSHAY, who was also retained for the prosecution, would just add one word. The affidavit stated that there had been weekly paragraphs in the Carlisle newspapers: it was curious that not one of them was produced before his Lordship. He rather apprehended that if they were produced, they would be found not to justify the ground taken in the affidavit, but that their object was to explain away the errors which had appeared in the other newspapers of which complaint had been made. I believe if the fact were brought out, it would appear that the two Carlisle newspapers had behaved with the greatest possible forbearance, and the greatest possible propriety, with regard to the matter. As to the excitement, it was impossible that in any case of trial for murder there could be the absence of excitement, and if they were to wait till it died away, the prisoner would never be tried at all. Mr. WILKINS said he confessed this resistance was as surprising as it was unusual. His learned friend, not content with his fair reasoning, had tortured his ingenuity to resist the application; and Mr. RAMSHAY had volunteered an opinion as to the facts. Notwithstanding the ability with which the objections had been urged, he did not think the precedent had charms enough to be imitated by any other member of the bar. Far from agreeing with Mr. RAMSHAY that the newspapers had conducted themselves with the greatest moderation; he thought the editors, like those of most papers, had pandered to a vitiated taste, a stimulated and depraved appetite, by week after week supplying statements in reference to the case. He attached more importance to the London papers than to ten thousand papers such as the Journal and Patriot. They had inserted a statement emanating from this district, which was false, and calculated to mislead the public, containing assertions which, if believed, would justify the jury in coming to the conclusion that the party accused is guilty, without hearing the evidence; and these assertions had been repeated in the Leeds Mercury and the Liverpool Mercury, papers of far more importance than those existing in Carlisle; and when he found it added that he had been tried and convicted, it looked, he must say, as though some enemy had been doing the mischief. But, whether or not, it was quite clear that the statements were likely to be baneful to the prisoner. His object was not to defeat justice, but to ensure for his client a dispassionate trial, by postponing it till the excitement in the public mind had subsided. The JUDGE said he confessed he saw no grounds for complying with the application at present. BOLAM's was the first case in which the course applied for had been taken, and its propriety had since been extremely doubted. What were the grounds on which the application was rested? First, that in the Journal and Patriot papers published in Carlisle, and having extensive circulation, from week to week, had placards issued, tending to keep up public excitement. Now, all that it meant, was that the subject had been alluded to in the newspapers, and that it was stated in placards that the newspapers would publish intelligence on the subject. He did not see there was anything in that to keep up excitement. If dreadful crimes were perpetrated and suspicions existed, excitement was necessarily kept up. He had not seen what the paragraphs were. His lordship then referring to the paragraphs in the London papers, said nobody could be influenced by them, as they were manifestly untrue and absurd. Mr. WILKINS-But they may show to a certain extent the state of the public mind. The JUDGE-Only that the public mind is ill-informed. Mr. WILKINS-Not only ill-informed, but ill-inclined, I should submit. By the JUDGE-It does not appear but that the paragraph may have been put in by some one connected with the prisoner. As at present advised, I don't think there is sufficient ground for granting the application, but I shall consider the matter. Mr. WILKINS-It may not be fair to volunteer one's own knowledge; but, from what he knew, he trembled for the trial. The state of public feeling was quite shocking. Even bets had been made on the result of the trial. The JUDGE said he would allow every facility for stating any other facts upon affidavit, and in the mean time should consider the application. His LORDSHIP eventually refused the application. JOHN GRAHAM, (aged 44-reads and writes well,) was charged with the wilful murder of Margaret GRAHAM, his wife, at the parish of Kirkandrews. Mr. TEMPLE, with whom were Mr. RAMSHAY and Mr. LAWRIE, appeared for the prosecution; Mr. WILKINS, with whom was Mr. ATHERTON, defended the prisoner. The following is a list of the jury:- Thomas ARMSTRONG, Graham's Onset, farmer. William GOLDING, Great Salkeld, farmer. William HODGSON, Edenhall, yeoman. Henry HOODLESS, High Street, Wigton, bookseller. John LAMB, Great Salkeld, yeoman. Thomas MOSES, Bascodyke, farmer. George RAYSON, Highgate Head, Ivegill, yeoman. Samuel RELPH, Fog Close, Kirkoswald, farmer. Nesfield ROBINSON, Burrowgate, Penrith, ironmonger. William STAGG, Raughtonhead, Castle Sowerby, farmer. William THRELKELD, Staffield, farmer. Isaac YOUNG, Southernby, Castle Sowerby, farmer. Several objections were made to other names called previous to the above being sworn. The prisoner, whilst they were being called into the box, leaned over the dock, covering his face with his handkerchief. The Judge, at the request of Mr. WILKINS, allowed him to be accommodated with a chair. Mr. BIRD of Catterlen, begged to be permitted to retire from the jury, as he and the prisoner were particularly acquainted. Mr. W. HODGSON, of Endenhall, was substituted for him. At the request of Mr. WILKINS, all the witnesses were ordered out of court. Mr. TEMPLE, stated with great moderation and fairness, the facts he intended to submit to the Jury, and which are detailed in the following evidence. Mr. WILKINS here rose and took a legal objection to the form of the indictment. His LORDSHIP said he should not stop the trial, as the objection, if it was one, was one to be moved in arrest of judgment. Richard HIND (examined by Mr. LAWRIE)-I am an iron founder in Carlisle. The deceased, Mrs. Margaret GRAHAM, was my sister, and the prisoner's late wife. I remember her death on the 27th of November last, and her being interred in Kirkandrews church yard. I attended the funeral. The JUDGE-Whereabouts is that? Mr. LAWRIE-About three miles from Carlisle. Witness-I saw the body of my sister in Thomas NORMAN's barn in the beginning of June; and recognized the coffin as that in which she was buried, and also the corpse. Mr. WILKINS did not cross-examine this witness. [to be continued]