Saturday 09 Aug 1845 (p. 1, col. 7) CUMBERLAND ASSIZES. ----- These Assizes, which have been looked forward to for some time past, with extraordinary interest, on account of the magnitude of the crimes charged against some of the prisoners, commenced here on Monday last, before Mr. Baron ROLFE, and Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, and closed on Thursday. The Judges arrived by a special train from Newcastle about two o'clock, and were met at the Railway Station, London Road, by the High Sheriff, T. FEATHERSTONHAUGH, Esq., of The College, Kirkoswald, in a very handsome carriage and four. The liveries of the postillions and footmen were of the most splendid description, scarlet and silver, and the "set out" was allowed on all hands, to be one of the most tasteful ever seen in Carlisle. Their Lordships were received at the Court House by the Mayor and Corporation; and the Commissions of Assize and Gaol Delivery having been read, the Court was adjourned till Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. In about an hour afterwards, their Lordships proceeded to the Cathedral, to hear Divine Service. After prayers, an excellent and appropriate sermon was preached by the Sheriff's Chaplain, the Rev. Paley GRAHAM, of Lazonby, from Proverbs c. 5, v. 22.:-"His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins." In the afternoon their Lordships set off for Rose Castle, the seat of the Bishop of Carlisle, to dine with his Lordship. THE SHERIFF'S DINNER.-At six o'clock a party of gentlemen sat down to a most sumptuous dinner at the Bush Hotel. The High Sheriff was supported on his right by the Hon. C. HOWARD, M.P., and on his left by Sir G. MUSGRAVE, Bart., Wm. MARSHALL, Esq, M.P. Henry HOWARD, Esq. of Greystoke Castle, and amongst the company were the principal magistrates and other gentlemen of the County. The High Sheriff was extremely happy in introducing the various toasts of the evening; and the party did not separate until past ten o'clock; and a more agreeable party we have rarely if ever witnessed on any similar occasion. The hilarity of the meeting was greatly promoted by the vocal and instrumental performances of a party of professional glee singers. BUSINESS OF THE COURTS. Both Courts opened at ten o'clock on Tuesday morning, Mr. Baron ROLFE presiding at the Crown Court, and Mr. Justice CRESSWELL at Nisi Prius. The calendar contained the names of fourteen prisoners, and there were two others brought up upon their recognizances, having been admitted to bail. Of the prisoners in the calendar, two were set down as able to read and write well; nine as reading imperfectly; and two as unable to read at all. In the Nisi Prius Court, seven causes were entered for trial-four of them Special Jury cases. Two of the latter, which had excited the most local interest-"WISE v. DIXON and others," and "DIXON and anor. v. DIXON," which were to try a right of water in the "Little Caldew," went off, soon after the opening of the first case-a verdict for the plaintiffs, Messrs. P. DIXON & Sons, having, at the suggestion of the Judge, been taken, subject to a reference to Mr. BLISS, the Barrister. The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS proceeded to swear the following gentlemen on the GRAND JURY. Hon. Chas. HOWARD, M.P., of Naworth Castle, foreman. Sir G. MUSGRAVE, Bart., of Eden Hall. E. W. HASELL, Esq., of Dalemain. H. HOWARD, Esq., of Greystoke Castle. C. FETHERSTONHAUGH, Esq., of Low House. E. STANLEY, Esq., M.P., of Ponsonby Hall. W. MARSHALL, Esq., M.P., of Patterdale Hall. W. E. JAMES, Esq., of Barrock Lodge. P. WYBERGH, Esq., of Isell Hall. T. SALKELD, Esq., of Holme Hill. G. H. HARTLEY, Esq., of Rose Hill. Jos. SALKELD, Esq., of Penrith. H. D. MACLEAN, Esq., of Carlisle. F. L. B. DYKES, Esq., of Dovenby Hall. W. WILDE, Esq., of Carlisle. Thomas SCOTT, Esq., of Penrith. W. BUSHBY, Esq., of Greystoke. R. R. SAUNDERS, Esq., of Nunwick Hall. R. FERGUSON, Esq., of Harker Lodge. John DIXON, Esq., of Knells. Peter DIXON, Esq., of Holme Eden. F. B. ATKINSON, Esq., of Ramsbeck Lodge. Mr. BARON ROLFE charged the Grand Jury-He said on former occasions when he had the honour of addressing them, he had the good fortune to comment on the light character of the offences submitted to their investigation. He regretted to say that that was not the case on the present occasion. To what the difference might be attributed he could not state, but certainly the fact was so. Some offences of great enormity would have to come under their consideration. He had looked through the depositions as far as time would permit, and he was not aware that anything was likely to present difficulty to their mind. He should content himself with shortly pointing out what the cases were, and the points to which their attention must be directed. [Here Baron ROLFE spoke about some other cases.] He was not aware of any other cases on which he need make any observation, except the two cases of the greatest enormity-those two persons charged with the crime of wilful murder. [Here Baron ROLFE spoke about another murder case.] There was another case also of a most terrible nature. There was a charge against a man, or rather two distinct charges, of having at two distinct times, poisoned first his wife, and next his father. Now, owing to an accident, the depositions had come to him in an imperfect form. With regard to those in reference to the alleged murder of the wife in November, he had seen them pretty nearly in their integrity; but with regard to those relating to the murder of the father he had not seen them in extenso. It appeared that the father died on the 20th of May (he thought it was), under circumstances that led to the suspicion that he had been poisoned, and that, an investigation took place, in the course of which suspicions were raised that his wife might have been poisoned in the same manner, as she had died after an illness in which she had exhibited similar symptoms to those of his father. The first point for the consideration of the grand jury in both cases was whether they were satisfied, on the medical testimony, that the parties died from poison; and in this case the evidence would consist,-first, in showing that the death was just such as ordinarily happens to persons who have taken poison, arsenic particularly-and, secondly, that, on examination, after death, the bodies exhibited those appearances which are the result of persons having so died from arsenic, in the stomach and viscera in some form or other. That point being established, it was to be considered how they could connect the administering of the arsenic to the prisoner. On that subject he had only to say that they should weigh well all the circumstances. In this case-and, indeed, in all similar cases, it was impossible that any body could be brought forward to say he saw the prisoner put arsenic in the food taken by the deceased; though it was idle to suppose that any person was not to be convinced without certainty. When the Grand Jury had arrived at the conclusion that the parties had died from poison, they must next see whether the party charged had any opportunity of administering poison, and whether he had any motive for so doing. Ordinarily speaking, if a party has an opportunity of committing a crime, but no motive, it was hard to attach suspicion. That the prisoner in this case had the opportunity of administering poison was obvious. He was living with his wife, and was constantly visiting his father just about the time his illness attacked him under which he died. Having satisfied themselves that he had the opportunity, they must then inquire, had he any motive? With regard to this point, the motive must have been that of succeeding, in his father's case, to the estate of the old man. As regarded his wife, a great deal of evidence would be produced with the object, as he collected, of showing that an improper intercourse was taking place, during the latter part of his wife's existence, with a young woman servant in the family, and it was meant to be suggested that he wished to put his wife out of the way in order that he might carry on that intercourse with greater facilities, and without the obstacle which his wife presented. How far that motive had been made out, the Grand Jury must decide. Another matter which in this case was most important-after laying a foundation by showing that the prisoner had the opportunity and the motive of poisoning the parties with whose murder he was charged-was, had he in his possession the means of poisoning them? It appeared, hat [sic] he had had rat powder, which had been purchased many years ago, and kept in an out-house that was accessible to other parties, who knew of its being placed there. But it was suggested that he did secretly purchase poison at Newcastle, last year, in an out of the way shop; and if that was supported by the evidence it showed that he had got poison for an object which he knew it was important to conceal. This would be the spirit of the investigation: he would not attempt to point out in detail the particular sort of testimony that would be given. If the proofs which he had pointed out as important came out so strongly as to lead to the conviction that the prisoner was guilty of the crime laid to his charge, of course the Grand Jury must find a true bill, and send the case for trial: if not, however much it might have to be regretted, it would be their duty to find no bill. The Grand Jury then retired, and on returning into court, soon afterwards the criminal business was proceeded with. ----- PRISONERS. [Here follow some other criminal cases.]

Saturday 02 Aug 1845 (p. 2, col. 4) THE ASSIZES.-The commission of assize will be opened on Monday next before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL and Mr. Baron ROLFE. The calendar is light in point of number but, as regards quality of crime, the heaviest that has been known for many years. It is as follows:- JANE CROSBY, charged with the murder of her child. JOHN GRAHAM, charged with the murder of his wife and father. GEORGE HUNTINGTON, assault and stealing. JOHN COOPER, burglary. ANN ARMSTRONG, larceny. ELIZABETH KELLER, larceny. JOHN KNOWLAN and WILLIAM FLANAGAN, rape. JAMES SMITH, larceny. The business at Nisi Prius will also be heavy. CLAIRVOYANCE.-The following ludicrous paragraph appeared in the columns of our respectable contemporary the Liverpool Times, on Tuesday last:- "Mr. John GRAHAM, a farmer at Kirkandrews, was convicted at the Carlisle Assizes, last week, of having poisoned his father, Mr. John GRAHAM, a respectable yeoman of the village of Grinsdale, by mixing arsenic with his food. He was also tried on a charge of having poisoned his own wife, Margaret GRAHAM, by the same means, and was acquitted." We need scarcely inform our local readers that this is the pure invention of some busy and needy penny-a-liner: our assizes not having yet been held, and John GRAHAM being still untried.

Thanks from me too .....the detail is wonderful. Sent from my iPad > On 14 May 2014, at 02:49, "Barb Ontario Canada" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Petra: > > I haven’t yet read your #26 + articles on this very interesting case; but am > reminded of the old T.V. Show “Inspector Frost”; these articles are just > as exciting and interesting. > > At the moment, am remembering Inspector Frost’s oft used comment > “Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm; who is talking porkies here ?” > > Thanks for all your work on this mystery. > > Barb, Ontario, Canada. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Petra: I haven’t yet read your #26 + articles on this very interesting case; but am reminded of the old T.V. Show “Inspector Frost”; these articles are just as exciting and interesting. At the moment, am remembering Inspector Frost’s oft used comment “Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm; who is talking porkies here ?” Thanks for all your work on this mystery. Barb, Ontario, Canada.

Saturday 26 Jul 1845 (p. 2, col. 7) MORE PENNY-A-LINE-ISM.-We took occasion, a few weeks since, to correct some penny-a-line-ism, in reference to cases of suspected poisoning at Kirkandrews and Grinsdale, which had found its way into the London daily papers. We have again a similar duty to perform. The following paragraph appeared in the Times and Chronicle of Saturday last, and has been copied into some provincial newspapers:- "THE GRINSDALE MURDERS, NEAR CARLISLE.-It will be remembered, that about a month ago, two important inquests were held at Carlisle, by several adjournments, on the bodies of Mr. John GRAHAM, a respectable yeoman, of the village of Grinsdale, and Margaret GRAHAM, of Kirk Andrews, his daughter-in-law, who were suspected of having died from the effects of poison. Mr. John GRAHAM, of Kirk Andrews, farmer, the son of the former, and the husband of the latter, was the person on whom suspicion fell as being the guilty person. The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against John GRAHAM for the murder of his father by poison; but with respect to the charge laid against him as to his wife, he was acquitted. He is now a prisoner in Carlisle gaol, and since his commitment a quantity of arsenic has been found in the pockets of his clothes, and it was understood that he would also be indicted for the murder of his wife. However, on Wednesday last, he made a full confession that he was the murderer of wis [sic] father and wife, and there is no doubt now but that he will undergo the extreme penalty of the law, shortly after Carlisle assizes in August next." The latter part of the paragraph, which we have italicised, is a fiction. The facts are these:-John GRAHAM was first committed, on a coroner's warrant charging him with the murder of his wife: on Thursday last the borough magistrates, after hearing evidence, committed him on a charge of murdering his father; and he will be tried at the assizes for both offences: but he has made no confession whatever, either with respect to one or the other. Another waistcoat of John GRAHAM's has been discovered, containing arsenic in three pockets.

Saturday 19 Jul 1845 (p. 3, col. 3) CASE OF POISONING AT GRINSDALE. ----- EXAMINATION OF MR. JOHN GRAHAM BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES. It will be in the recollection of our readers that the Coroner's jury which investigated the circumstances attending the death of Mr. GRAHAM of Grinsdale, brought in, after many adjournments, an open verdict, to the effect that deceased had died of poison wilfully administered by the hand of some person or persons unknown. The suspected party, Mr. John GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews-upon-Eden was already in prison, on the charge of wilfully murdering his wife, by administering arsenic to her; and, as it was anticipated that time would bring to light facts to verify the suspicion that he was also a parricide, it was thought better for the ends of justice to return such a verdict as would allow of further investigation in the event of that discovery, than one which, if sent to a higher court and acted upon, might result in the acquittal of the party and prevent all further proceedings, however strong were the proofs afterwards obtained. We stated, a fortnight ago, that after the termination of the inquest a small quantity of arsenic had been found in the pocket of the waistcoat worn by Mr. John GRAHAM during his visit to his father's house at Grinsdale and on the day the old man was taken ill. Mr. SABBAGE, the Superintendent of Police, having apprised the borough magistrates of the fact, and they considering that it supplied, in the chain of evidence against deceased's son, an important link that was previously wanting, it was determined to bring him up for re-examination, on the charge of poisoning his father. The inquiry was reopened on Tuesday last, by G. SAUL, Esq., and J. SLATER, Esq., in a room of Mr. ORRIDGE's house, within the gaol. Mr. GRAHAM was brought from his cell, and was present during the whole of the proceedings. He appeared to be in robust health, and to have been unaffected in his personal appearance by his imprisonment. On the entrance of his mother into the room he was moved to tears, but her chair was so placed as to conceal him from her sight while she gave her evidence. Mr. James MOUNSEY, the prisoner's solicitor, was present and watched the proceedings. Mr. BENDLE appeared for the prosecution. The witnesses examined were those whose evidence has already appeared in our columns, and their testimony did not vary in any remarkable degree from that previously given. Ruth GRAHAM, wife of deceased, and mother of the prisoner, was the first witness called. The principal portion of her evidence was the same as that adduced at the inquest. What she said in reference to John GRAHAM's visit to her house was, however, more explicit. It was as follows:-"I don't recollect of any body in particular calling at our house on the Thursday. My son John came from Kirkandrews on that day, about half-past ten. He was at the back door some time before he came into the house. He then, I think, looked into the back kitchen, and sat with me for about an hour. I was with him all the time he was in the front room until he left. He went out by the front door. I never saw him in the back kitchen. I was down in the garden, at the well, different times that day. I can't see the house door from the well. Jane THOMPSON came the same day for some pot-herbs. She was living with my son Sibson at the time. She came between ten and eleven o'clock in the forenoon. She was in the kitchen. John came in just as she was going out at the back door. I got the potherbs out of the garden for her. She complained of being sick, and I think stood at the door while I got them." Joshua ANDERSON, surgeon, Elizabeth NIXON, and Sarah NIXON, were next examined, but nothing new was elicited from them. Margaret ROBSON, housekeeper of John BESWICK, with whom the prisoner lodged, in the course of her evidence said: I recollect John GRAHAM going to Kirkandrews on a Thursday about the time his father was taken ill. He came into the house a little before 12 o'clock, and changed his clothes. He left those he took off in his bed-room. (A waistcoat was here produced.) That waistcoat belongs to the prisoner; I took a button off it when I gave it to Mr. SABBAGE, and I believe it is that which he took off before he went to Newcastle. The clothes hung behind the door in his bed-room, and I pointed them out to Mr. SABBAGE. They had not been removed after he left. Mr. SABBAGE emptied the contents of the pockets of all the clothes into a piece of paper which I gave him for that purpose, and took it away. I hung the clothes on the same place I got them from, and they remained there about a fortnight, when Mr. SABBAGE came and took them away. Benjamin MITCHELL, in the course of his evidence, said-The waistcoat now produced I believe to belong to the prisoner, and also the coat and trowsers. They are the same he used to wear when he was about home, and he had them on the morning before he went to Newcastle. When I met him on the road about twelve o'clock he had changed them for a black suit, and was carrying a carpet bag on the road towards Carlisle. Jane THOMPSON, Edward BAINBRIDGE, William CANNELL, Nathaniel WEDDELL, and Joseph HAUGH, were then examined, but their evidence was the same as that given at the inquest. John SABBAGE said-On the 23rd of June, I went to John BESWICK's house, and got from Margaret ROBSON John GRAHAM's clothes, which I now produce, consisting of a coat, waistcoat, and trowsers. I asked her for the clothes he took off when he went to Newcastle. I emptied the contents of the pockets into a piece of paper, which I wrapped up and gave to Mr. TINNISWOOD. I left the clothes in the house, and brought them away on the 30th of June. I have had them ever since. When I brought them away Margaret ROBSON took a button off the waistcoat, and there was one off before. Thomas ELLIOT, surgeon, produced the report drawn up by himself, Dr. JAMES, Dr. CARTMELL, and Dr. TINNISWOOD, in reference to the post mortem examination of deceased, and it was read. He said-On the 30th of June last I received a small package from Dr. TINNISWOOD, consisting of some chips of sealing wax, particles of cheese, dust, small sandy-looking particles, and a woolly-looking substance. I have since analysed the contents of the package, in conjunction with Dr. JAMES, Dr. CARTMELL, and Dr. TINNISWOOD, and detected arsenic in it. Drs. JAMES, CARTMELL, and TINNISWOOD, gave corroborative evidence. Wm. CARRICK, Coroner, Brampton, deposed to having held an inquest on deceased on the 30th of May last, and produced the prisoner's voluntary statement made on that occasion. The inquiry was here adjourned till Thursday. THURSDAY, JULY 17. The inquiry was resumed to-day at twelve o'clock, before J. SAUL, Esq., and Jos. FERGUSON, Esq., (Fisher-street.) Walker SWAN was the first witness called-I think I have seen the prisoner in my shop. It was in October, either just before or just after I went to London. I went on the 3rd of October last, and returned on the 7th or 8th. I think it was before I went, but am not positive. Witness then repeated his evidence as to selling six ounces of arsenic to a man like the prisoner, who said he wanted it to poison rats in a vessel at Shields, &c. Mark CARR, the station-keeper at Haltwhistle, was then re-examined: he made no alteration in his former statement. No further evidence was brought forward. Mr. SAUL, addressing the prisoner, said-The evidence in the case is concluded, and it now becomes my duty to ask you if you have any thing to say in answer to the charge. If you have it will be taken down in writing, and may be given in evidence against you on your trial. PRISONER-Not anything. Mr. SAUL-I have carefully considered the evidence, and I feel it is my duty to send you to take your trial at the next assizes, where the case will undergo a more solemn investigation. PRISONER-I am innocent-that is all I can say. He was then taken back to his cell. Mr. SABBAGE was bound over to prosecute, and all the witnesses to appear and give evidence at the assizes.

Saturday 05 Jul 1845 (p. 2, col. 2) THE LATE GRINSDALE INQUEST.-A discovery has been made since the close of the Grinsdale inquest, which will lead to the indictment of John GRAHAM at the Assizes for the wilful murder of his father, as well as of his wife. A small portion of arsenic has been found in the pocket of the waistcoat worn by the prisoner on the day of the poisoning, previous to his departure for Newcastle. The garment was found in his bedroom, and the arsenic has been tested by the medical men.

Saturday 28 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 1-3) Part 2 SUSPECTED CASES OF POISONING. ----- ADJOURNED INQUEST ON MR. GRAHAM. ----- CLOSE OF THE INQUIRY. [continued] Mr. CARRICK-Is it necessary that I should read over the depositions in the case once more? The jury intimated that they did not require it to be done. The CORONER then addressed the Jury. He said,-Gentlemen, the evidence in this case has at length been brought to a close, and before you decide upon your verdict I may be allowed to make a few observations. It must have struck you as a somewhat remarkable coincidence that two deaths have occurred in the same family within a very short period of each other, and from the same cause-poison. This circumstance naturally excites a suspicion that the same person who perpetrated one may have been guilty of the other; but it is necessary for me to caution you that before you arrive at the conclusion that they are both the acts of the same individual you must be well satisfied of the circumstances on which you think his guilt is founded. Notwithstanding a very protracted enquiry, in the course of which much labour has been bestowed, and every exertion made, the death of Mr. GRAHAM is still involved in considerable mystery, and the evidence elicited from the various witnesses called, although it has done much to direct our suspicions against one individual, has, it must be acknowledged, failed to clear up all our doubts as to whether he is legally guilty. There are, however, two important facts which we may consider as clearly established,-first, that Mr. GRAHAM died from the effects of poison; and, secondly, that that poison was contained in the cake which he partook of on the Thursday night previous to his death. Being satisfied on these points, you will have to consider the same questions which arose in a previous enquiry. First, under what circumstances the arsenic was put into the cake,-whether it was put in wilfully or accidentally. To lead you to a proper conclusion you have, as yet, no positive evidence; and it will be necessary, therefore, to weigh carefully the statements made by the various witnesses which bear upon the point. It is beyond doubt that the cakes were made by Mrs. GRAHAM. Was she the person who put the poison into them? Saving, perhaps, her own reluctance in giving evidence, we have no proof that she put the arsenic there either wilfully or by accident; indeed a long life spent with her husband without the least unhappiness, as far as we are enabled to judge, and the fact that she was affected by the poison on both occasions, seem strongly and decidedly to negative the former presumption, and the absence of all evidence to show that there was ever arsenic in the house, equally forbids the latter. We must, therefore, see whether there be any other person who could have a motive for committing the crime, and who had likewise the opportunity of perpetrating it. I have already remarked upon the coincidence of there being two deaths by poison in the same family. There is another remarkable fact to which our attention has been directed, and it is, that Mr. GRAHAM's death recently, was preceded by another ineffectual attempt to poison him in the beginning of the year; and it is a fact worthy of note that both then and on the fatal occasion John GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews, deceased's son, was at his fathers' house. This is a circumstance which tends to cast suspicion on him. It is in evidence that he was present when his father partook of the potato pot which caused his illness, and he was also clearly connected with the meal which caused his wife's death. These then, are circumstances which tend to criminate John GRAHAM. But there is another part of the evidence which, if it be correct, must also be taken into consideration-namely, that John GRAHAM himself, deceased's son, also partook of the potato-pot, and was ill in consequence. Mr. ANDERSON, the surgeon, a gentleman entitled to the fullest credit,-says the fact was so, that John was ill and even worse than his father and mother,-which would seem to discountenance the supposition that he was privy to the arsenic being put into the potato-pot. Again, gentlemen, in reference to the cakes we have the evidence of Mrs. GRAHAM and Jane THOMPSON shewing that he had no opportunity of seeing the dough of which the cake was made, that it was in the set pot all the time he was there, and that it was never exposed to his view. How far that evidence is entitled to implicit credit is for you to say. If they be stating the truth, it is an important fact in John GRAHAM's favour. Bearing that in mind it will be for you to enquire whether he had any particular object in visiting his father's house that day; for, gentlemen, when the facts do not present themselves before us in a satisfactory light, we must scrutinise the motives of his conduct. It is stated that it was to ask his mother to go to Newcastle; but it cannot fail to strike you as extraordinary that he should have given her such short notice of his contemplated visit, for he called at a time that would not allow her to make the necessary preparations for her journey, if she went by the train which John himself travelled, for even he had difficulty in reaching it in time. It may, however, be said, that they could have gone by a later train, which certainly, if such was his intention, rather weakens the objection. But let us pursue him on his journey. He leaves Grinsdale, and after calling at Kirkandrews for his carpet bag, goes direct to Newcastle. With what object? It is for you to consider whether the statement he made to you and to other persons as to the purpose of his visit-that he wished to look out for a place to keep cows-is probable and satisfactory, and founded on fact, or whether his object was not, in truth, to get out of the way, that he might not be present whilst his father and mother were enduring the agonies resulting from the poison. Well, he goes to Newcastle. You have evidence before you that his conduct was very strange. His intention was avowedly to visit his friends: now he does not appear to have visited them at all, but it proved that he spent the greater part of his time at the White Horse. You cannot have forgotten the description of his strange conduct at Haltwhistle-his coming down after the passing of each train without any apparent object-his intense anxiety to ascertain whether any one had come from Carlisle-his fear of going to the door, as though some one were in pursuit of him; all of which facts, you will remember, were deposed to by the landlady of the inn where he was staying, and by the station keeper. Nor ought we to forget the remarkable expressions made use of to Mr. WEIR, and his dilatoriness, after his arrival in Carlisle, to proceed to Grinsdale: for these, gentlemen, though they do not prove any fact which fastens guilt upon him, all tend to awaken our suspicion of his conduct. Connected with his visit to Newcastle is an important question for consideration, and it is, whether he bought any poison there. The evidence we have had before us, on Saturday and to-day, does not refer to his last visit; it has reference to a transaction supposed to have taken place some eight or nine months ago. Comparatively remote, however, as that period is, if we can establish that he purchased poison on that occasion it becomes a very important fact in reference to this case as well as to the other which we have already disposed of-involving, among other considerations, as we shall see, a material contradiction in his depositions. It is for you, gentlemen, to say whether it has been made out to your satisfaction that he is the person who bought the arsenic at Mr. SWAN's shop. [The Coroner here read the evidence of Mr. SWAN and son.] If you think his identity has been fully established, you bring home to him a lie, for, first, in his voluntary statement he declared most positively that he never bought or never had in his possession any arsenic, except five or six years since, when he bought a packet to dip sheep with, and used it all for that purpose; and, next, he told the druggist he wanted it to poison rats on board a ship. Now if he bought six ounces from Mr. SWAN eight or nine months ago, it is impossible that such a circumstance could have escaped his recollection. Then, gentlemen, as to the motive for committing the crime, presuming that he is the guilty party. We can only presume one motive-a desire to become possessed of the property of his parents. It is proved by Mrs. GRAHAM that her husband had made his will, but that the fact was unknown to any member of the family except herself. It is for you to consider whether the motive I have alluded to be reasonable or probable. Such, then, gentlemen, are some of the principal portions of the evidence which bear against John GRAHAM. It is only right that we should also inquire whether there is any other member of the family, or any individual whatsoever, against whom suspicion may fairly attach, and in what degree. The only members of deceased's household were himself and his wife. The question whether Mrs. GRAHAM was likely to have committed the crime I have already disposed of. There seems to be no ground whatever for supposing that deceased himself was cognizant of the presence of poison in the cake. I pass on, therefore, to Mr. Sibson GRAHAM, his younger son, who lives in the same village. I am not aware that he has been pointed at as the guilty party. There is, however, something connected with the potato-pot and the manner in which it was disposed of which is much to be regretted. There seems little doubt that it contained poison; and, looking to the effects experienced by those who partook of it, it does certainly seem strange that no steps were taken to have it analysed-to see whether it did or did not contain poison. If active measures had been adopted to solve that suspicion, important evidence might have been the result, and the life of John GRAHAM would, in all probability, have been spared. We have it proved that Sibson GRAHAM destroyed the potato pot, and that a cake also was destroyed by his wife's orders. Without intending for one moment to cast the least suspicion on him, I cannot but regret that he should have done so, for here is an act which has destroyed very important evidence. What his motive was, I cannot truly conjecture. The reason alleged with regard to the cake-that she was afraid the children might get them-is a very probable one: but with respect to the potato pot the same reason could not apply. There were no children about deceased's house, and the effect of the potato pot on those who partook of it ought to have induced an analysis. What seems also to call for remark is the fact that the dung hill which had only been partly led away before, was entirely removed by Mr. Sibson GRAHAM on the day before the inquest. I allude to these circumstances not because they establish any suspicion against him, for they do not, but rather because they have tended to throw difficulty in the way of our inquiry. I have now, gentlemen, glanced at the evidence as it affects all the parties who may be supposed to have had the opportunity of committing the crime. I must confess that, numerous as are the circumstances which have been elicited, we have as yet failed to throw any satisfactory light on the mystery we have been endeavouring to unravel: and when we consider the serious consequences which follow conviction in this and in a higher court, it behoves you not to found a verdict upon evidence that is not thoroughly conclusive. Undoubtedly, gentlemen, it is your duty to send for trial any party whom you may consider to have been clearly and satisfactorily proved to have been guilty of an offence; but recollect that if you find a verdict against a man in this court, he must necessarily take his trial in a superior court, and will, in due course, be either acquitted or convicted. If convicted, the ends of justice have of course been obtained, but if acquitted, he is acquitted for ever so far as the law is concerned, and no evidence, however conclusive, that might hereafter be discovered, could be made available against him. Therefore it is always a safe course for juries, when there is doubt in the matter, to return such a verdict as shall have the effect of keeping open the case until evidence shall have been procured which will more satisfactorily establish the case. Thus, in the case before us, should the party in custody be acquitted by the higher court of the crime of which you have found him guilty, and evidence by that time be obtained to establish against him the crime now under investigation, the enquiry can be resumed at any future time. If, therefore, you do not find sufficient evidence to bring home guilt to any party, it becomes your duty to return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. I have only to remark, in conclusion, that I have discharged my duty in this case to the best of my ability, and I have to thank you for the unwearied attention you have bestowed upon the enquiry. I do not doubt but your verdict will be one which is warranted by the evidence. The jury then consulted for a few moments, and The FOREMAN (Mr. MOSS) said the jury had agreed to the following verdict:- "That the deceased, John GRAHAM, died from the effect of poison wilfully administered to him; and the jury record their verdict of Wilful Murder against some person or persons unknown." The inquisition was then duly signed, and the proceedings terminated. The case continues to be the engrossing subject of interest in Carlisle and throughout the county.

Saturday 28 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 1-3) Part 1 SUSPECTED CASES OF POISONING. ----- ADJOURNED INQUEST ON MR. GRAHAM. [The first part of this article was already published in the second edition of the previous week’s paper.] ----- CLOSE OF THE INQUIRY. The Coroner and Jury met at half-past two o'clock, on Tuesday last, at the Coffee House. The room was inconveniently crowded, and it was resolved to adjourn to the Town Hall, which soon became filled with anxious spectators. The Jury having been resworn, the examination of witnesses was resumed. Joseph HAUGH—I was at Grinsdale on the first day of the inquest on the body of John GRAHAM; it was on the 22nd of May. I received a pot of butter and a small bag of flour, from Mrs. GRAHAM. I got them out of her own hands. She gave me them in consequence of my asking for some of the flour and butter from which the cakes had been made, and I gave them to Mr. ELLIOT and Dr. JAMES. I was with Mr. SABBAGE when John GRAHAM was apprehended. When I went into the room he asked if I had come for him. I said yes, I had. He said he had been very ill, and if we would let him remain he would come himself next day. Mr. SABBAGE told him he had got a warrant for him, and he had better go now. He seemed a good deal put out of the way, and we assisted in dressing him. He then asked me if I had been at Newcastle. I said no, and he then asked if any other of our men had been there. I said no, not any. Very little more was said. After we came to the police office he said, "now tell me the truth; tell me if you have been to Newcastle." I said no one had been there. William Wilkinson SWAN was then called. You live at Newcastle?—Yes. Are you a medical student?—Yes, sir. And son of Mr. SWAN, of the Close, druggist.—Yes, sir. You have been at the gaol, I believe?—Yes, sir. Were you shown into one of the wards?—Yes. Not into one of the private rooms?— No. Were there any persons in when you went?—Yes, the prisoners. How many?—Six. All men?—Yes. Did you see any one there whom you believe you have seen before?—[After a little hesitation]—I can't swear to the man, sir. Did you point out among the six men any one particular individual?—Yes, sir. To the best of your recollection and belief did you ever see him before?—I can't swear that I did. Have you seen any man answering the description of that man?—Yes, something like the description. Where did you see that man?—In our shop, sir. Do you remember how long ago?—No, sir. To the best of your recollection how long is it?—Somewhere about nine months, but within the twelve months. Do you remember what that person came for to your shop?—He came for arsenic. Was he served with any?—Yes, sir. How much did he get?—I can't swear: six or eight—I think it was eight—ounces. For what purpose did he state he wanted it?—To kill rats. Did he say where?—On board some ship at Shields. And he was supplied with it?—Yes, my father supplied him. Have you had any conversation with your father since his return about this affair?—None whatever. And are you not acquainted with the evidence he has given?—I am not. He returned on Saturday morning did he?—Yes. In what respect does the man in the gaol resemble the man you saw in your shop?—He resembles him in complexion. The man in the shop appeared taller and stouter. I can't swear he was. CORONER—You are only speaking to the best of your belief. Did you hear the man in the gaol speak?—Yes. Does his voice, as far as you are able to judge, resemble the voice of the man who was in your shop?—I can't recognize it at all. Is your father's shop rather low in the ceiling?—Yes. When Mr. SABBAGE called on you, did he appear to be a taller man than he now seems to be?—He did; he looked taller. How came you to recollect this man from the others in the gaol?—He resembled the man in our shop more than the others. Had you been told previously that the suspected man had red whiskers?—Yes I had. By whom?—By the policeman. He asked whether he had sandy whiskers or not, and I said I could not recollect. Peter MURPHY.—I live at Penrith, and am a labourer. I was discharged from Carlisle gaol a week since, yesterday. I I [sic] was very near nine weeks there, for want of sureties to keep the peace. I could have got them, but I was in a passion at the time. I was vexed at my wife, and that's the way to swear it. John GRAHAM was brought to prison while I was there. I was put in the same ward with him, along with another man. Was it to take charge of him?—I don't know; I didn't know what business we were on. What was the name of the other prisoner?—Matthew FINN, who is still in gaol—his time will be up on Friday. Tell the jury all you heard John GRAHAM say in reference to the death of his father?—I heard him say nothing about it. State generally what he said about himself in connection with the death of any party?—I did not hear him say anything particular except that as to his father's death he was innocent of it. Do you remember anything taking place on Wednesday, 11th June?—FINN was lying on the bed, and GRAHAM was walking in the ward backward and forward, and he made a dead stop and said "it is three weeks this day since the job happened, and I might have been in America." Had you been talking to him before?—No he was talking to himself. We had not been speaking to him, nor he to us. Do you remember him reading over to you something that he had written?—Yes, it was on the Thursday. Was it to you or FINN?—To both of us. After he had read it did you give him any advice?—Yes, I told him to tear it in bits and put it into the water closet. Did he do that?—I did not see him do it: but he said he would let his attorney, Mr. MOUNSEY, see it. Did you see what Mr. MOUNSEY did with it?—No, sir. Do you know whether it was destroyed or not?—I don't know. Mr. MOUNSEY was in for half an hour. When the turn-key let us in again I asked GRAHAM what Mr. MOUNSEY had advised him to do, and he said he advised him to do just what I did. Was there anything in it relating to the death of his father?—I don't recollect. I think you can remember what it was about?—It was concerning his wife. Was there anything in it about the death of his father?—I don't recollect. He said if the wife lived longer than his father he would receive £200, and he said it was not likely he would poison her if that was the case. Did he talk much?—Yes, sir. On your oath, has he said nothing at all as to how his father came by his death?—I don't recollect. We must have no evasion here?—I will tell the truth. What he said related to his wife. If you have a mind I will let you hear it. CORONER—We don't want to hear it. Witness—He said he was innocent of his father's death. He said, too, that he knew what caused his wife's death, but but [sic] he would keep that to himself. He said that he had got £300 with his wife, and he had that to pay back if she died before his father. John DAVIDSON—I am a pensioner, and live at Paden Beck, near the Infirmary. I have known John GRAHAM for many years. The last time but one when I saw him he was going to Newcastle with his carpet bag. That would be the Thursday before his father died. I was leaving the door of my house when he was nearly opposite. I bade him good morning, and asked if he was for a journey, says he "a little." Says I "pray sir, how far?" He said he was going to Newcastle first and very possibly would see London before he got back. Says I "its very easy seeing Newcastle and Gateshead, but in London you must have a guide. Do you recollect Mr. WRIGHT, of Knockupworth, once saying in the Green Dragon that if he ever went to London he would engage me to show him all the sights, from the Thames Tunnel to Kensington Gardens?" We had a few more words, and I bade Mr. GRAHAM good morning, and he passed on. Thomas ELLIOT recalled—We have analysed the first portion of the cake to ascertain what kind of poison was in it; the other to discover its weight. For the latter purpose we had three ounces and a half of cake. We obtained ultimately from that twenty grains of the sesqui sulphuret of arsenic, commonly called orpiment or paint, which is equal to sixteen grains of white arsenic, or arseneous acid. It existed in the cake in the form of white arsenic. By passing a stream of sulphuretted hydrogen gas through a decoction of it we obtained a substance, which is commonly known as orpiment. The baking of the cake would not alter it. In the portion of the cake analysed there was considerably more arsenic than was sufficient to occasion death. We had not more than half a cake altogether. It is impossible to say whether the arsenic was distributed equally or unequally through it. The three ounces and a half were contained in one-third of the cake. Mr. CARRICK—Are there any more witnesses? Mr. SABBAGE—Only Jane THOMPSON. Mr. CARRICK—If the jury think it necessary that she should again be sworn she shall be called. The jury declined to press her for further evidence. [to be continued]

Saturday 21 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 3) SECOND EDITION. ----- Journal Office, Friday Afternoon, 5 o'Clock. The Jury re-assembled at twelve o'clock, according to appointment, and about an hour afterwards, when it was found that no evidence of importance could be adduced until the witness expected from Newcastle had arrived, the enquiry was adjourned till half-past one. At that hour the jury re-assembled. The Coroner commenced the proceedings by reading the depositions hitherto taken. Whilst they were being read, Mr. SABBAGE arrived, by the afternoon train, from Newcastle, and at half-past two entered the room where the inquiry was going on, and announced the arrival of Mr. SWAN. Mr. CARRICK, (addressing Mr. SWAN-Will you go up to the gaol with Mr. SABBAGE, and see if you can recognise any one them. And (turning to Mr. SABBAGE) let Mr. GRAHAM be put amongst several other prisoners: it is right that he should not be pointed out to the witness. Mr. SABBAGE then accompanied the witness to the gaol, and the Coroner proceeded to read the remainder of the evidence. After an absence of about ten minutes they returned, and the coroner laid down his notes. Mr. SABBAGE said-We have been up to the Gaol, sir, and have seen John GRAHAM. The witness wished to hear his voice, and I thought it better not to permit any conversation till I had consulted you. The CORONER-He is quite right; it is a very important means of identification. You can return and give him an opportunity of hearing him speak. They then returned to the gaol. The Coroner had completed the reading of the evidence before they returned, which was just at three o'clock. Walker SWAN was then sworn- CORONER-Your address, sir?-Close, Newcastle. What business are you?-Chemist and druggist. Have you been to the gaol?-I have, sir. Assuming that he is the man, do you remember what he said?-After having my attention directed to him by my son, I remember him wishing to have some arsenic to poison rats on board a vessel down at Shields. Is that what he said?-That was what he said. What answer did you make?-After a good deal of hesitation on my part, he said, "I didn't suppose that he was tired of his life, or that he was going to make an improper use of it," and I told him that it was necessary in selling those articles to use every precaution. He ultimately got it, it was properly labelled. I can't speak exactly to the quantity; it was either six or eight ounces. It was labelled poison, I presume?-We have three or four different kinds of labels; it would most likely be "Arsenic: Poison." Did you ask him for any reference?-No, I did not; he said he was frequently in the habit of using it for those purposes. Had you ever seen him before to your knowledge?-I think not,-I don't recollect that I did. Witness here handed some specimens of the labels which he said it was most probable was put on the package. Was your son present?-He was, sir. What is his name?-William Wilkinson SWAN. He is at home now, is he?-Yes. What age is he?-Sixteen. Have you any other shopman, now?-We have now, but he was not in the shop at that time. John SABBAGE- Did you accompany the last witness to the gaol?-I did. Who is the person to whom Mr. SWAN refers?-John GRAHAM. You gave Mr. SWAN some description of him before, did you?-Yes, last Tuesday. I first asked whether he had sold any poison lately, and said it would be eight months since. I said he would be a tall man. He said he remembered a tall man, about that time, buying poison to take on board a ship. I asked him if he would know the man, and he said he thought he would, as he had rather a soft toned way of speaking. Mr. SWAN recalled- What kind of arsenic was sold to him?-The common arsenic used for the purpose, the sublimated arsenic or arseneous acid, as it is technically called. It is finely powdered. Was it the kind generally used for dipping sheep, and other similar purposes?-It was the only kind we have, and is a finely powdered preparation. The CORONER here consulted with the Foreman of the Jury as to the propriety of adjournment. He then said-Gentlemen, the evidence heard this afternoon leads me to believe that there will be propriety in again adjourning this inquiry, inconvenient as it may be, as there is a likelihood of additional light being thrown on it. It is desirable that Mr. SWAN's son should be called, but it is impossible that he could be summoned to night. He may speak to important facts or he may not; until we have heard them it is impossible to know what weight ought to be attached to them. He may either confirm or shake the evidence of his father, and under these circumstances I think it proper to adjourn. I should like Mr. SWAN, in the meantime, to see the prisoner again. Mr. SWAN-Yes, I should like to see him. Is there any register kept of the sale of poison?-No, but there ought to be. CORONER-I think there ought. Do you sell much arsenic in the pulverised state?-Very seldom. I should have felt more hesitation in selling him a small quantity, than the large quantity he got. Had the man who bought it the appearance of a seafaring man?-No, I think not. The inquiry was then adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past two o'clock, when Mr. SWAN's son is to be called. At the request of the Coroner and Jury we postpone the publication of those questions and answers which refer to the identification of the prisoner.

Saturday 21 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 2-3) Part 2 ADJOURNED INQUEST ON MR. GRAHAM, OF GRINSDALE. ----- [continued] Mrs. GRAHAM (widow of deceased)-I remember that I baked either five or six cakes,-I can't say which. I did not give any of them to Mrs. HOWNAM to make away with. There was very little of the potato pot left, and what was left was thrown out. I do not know who threw it out, I was ill. Nothing was said about leading the dung-hill after my husband became ill. I never ordered it to be led away; it was always led away when turnips were sown, and when it was wanted. I got the yeast with which the cakes were made from Mrs. NIXON. I made some yeast myself, too, that morning: I had it at the door once, and had it in the house afterwards. I made it about ten o'clock. I had it in the milkhouse, and afterwards it was set to the fire to work. It stood there till I set the bread at night, and the remainder was put into a bottle, as it always was. I made a loaf of mixed bread of it-wheat and rye. I got the yeast from Mrs. NIXON on the Thursday morning; I don't know at what time-perhaps eight o'clock. I got a small jug full. Mrs. NIXON's daughter brought me it, and gave it into my own hands. I set it with meal as soon as possible-betwixt eight and nine o'clock. I used the whole of it in the baking of the cakes. Are you quite sure now you disposed of the dough after you made it up?-I did not make it up, I only set it, I did not make it up till the afternoon. I had it in the set-pot, when the yeast was put in, as I told you before. Is it not usual to set the dough before the fire?-Yes, but that pot is just of the proper warmness. Have you any niggarts to the fire?-Yes. How much space is there between them and the set pot?-Just a little piece-perhaps as much as six inches. Had you ever set the dough in the set-pot before?-All winter, constantly. The loaf was worked up on the following day. I worked it up, and the woman who baked it made it into a loaf. How long did the dough for the cakes stand on the setpot?-Till 11 or 12 o'clock. Did you take it out before or after Jane THOMPSON called that morning?-I don't remember. You remember her coming in for the potherbs?-Yes. I rather think it was before I took the dough out of the pot. Do you remember leaving the house when she came?-No, she only came on an errand. Where were you when she was there?-Just in the kitchen-where she was. Were you in or out of the house?-I was not out. Do you remember any one else being there?-No. Are you sure you did not leave the house when she was there?-I am sure I did not. Not even to go into the garden?-I don't know but she went herself into the garden. Do you remember what you did between the time of Jane THOMPSON being in and some one else calling?-I was down the garden a little piece after she left-I had same clothes there-and I did something about the yeast. Did you not do something about the bread?-No immediately. How long was it after Jane THOMPSON's visit that John came?-He came when she was there. Were you down the garden during the time he was in your house?-No I was not-I am sure of it. What reason had you for making yeast, when you had borrowed some from your neighbour?-I did not borrow it. NIXON's people came and said they had some yeast to spare, and they gave me a sup to make cakes with. I wanted a loaf made for the following day, and I made it with my own yeast. It was good bread. I always baked my bread on the Friday. Were not those cakes made expressly for your husband on account of his bad teeth?-No, we were out of bread,-they were not made particularly for him. Has your late husband been called upon to make some heavy payments for your son lately?-Nothing particular. None at all?-He did advance a little money, but it was neither at John's request nor any body else's. Nobody axed him to do it. When was that?-A little bit back. He was not under any obligations for John-he had not been bound for him, had he?-Not a shilling. When was the money advanced?-I don't know; one does not mind these things. Within what time?-Some weeks before my husband's death,-I really don't know how many. It was to John HIND, of Kirkandrews, and that is all he advanced for him. Esther HOWNAM-I only saw the two cakes that Nanny LITTLE fetched in-no others. Mrs. GRAHAM gave me none to put out of the way, and nobody else did. Did you not put one into the fire?-I put one into the fire myself. CORONER-Oh! you did, did you? Witness-Yes, I did, but Mrs. GRAHAM did not tell me. How came you to tell us before that you received the two cakes, put one in the back kitchen and did not know what became of the other?-Yes, I did, and I am ashamed of myself. CORONER-And you ought to be ashamed of yourself. What did you make of the other? Witness-Sibson GRAHAM's girl got it. When did you put it in the fire?-On Wednesday morning. Why?-I didn't know what to make of it. I was afeared some one else would get it, there were so many about. Will you swear that neither Mrs. GRAHAM nor any one else told you to put it in the fire?-Yes, I will. Had Jane THOMPSON got one before you did so?-Yes, and they were all ill with it. Have you not said to Mrs. NIXON that you put more than one into the fire? -I am sure I didn't. Did you see any one else put any cakes into the fire?-No, I didn't see any cakes but those two. Did your husband visit Mr. GRAHAM?-Yes, he was two or three times seein' on him when he was ill. Jane THOMPSON-I ate a piece of cake, but I did not destroy any. I had more in my possession besides that which I took to my master. I am sure Mrs. GRAHAM went to get me pot-herbs, and I waited in the house till she came back. Just as I was going out of the door John GRAHAM was coming in. Jane WISEMAN-I am a dressmaker at Monkhill. Jane THOMPSON told me she was down for some pot-herbs at nine o'clock on the Thursday, and, as she had a bad head-ache, Mrs. GRAHAM made her some punch, and went into the garden. She said John GRAHAM came in, and there was some flour on the table and some yeast at the door; that she (Jane THOMPSON) went to the door for a short time, and that John then came to her and said she looked ill, and then went in again. Jane THOMPSON was recalled, and the Coroner repeated to her what last witness said. In reply to the Coroner, she said-On my oath I did not see flour on the table, or John any place else but at the door; and I never said I did; I'll take my oath I never did. Jane WISEMAN-Oh! dear me, you did. Well, if ever- Jane THOMPSON-I'll take my oath I never said anything about the flour on the table. I couldn't, for it wasn't there. When Mrs. GRAHAM came in she made me punch, and I was sick. That is true enough. I then went away, and I met him at the door. He was never in the house when I was there. Jane WISEMAN-I am very sorry you have made me a story-teller. Jane THOMPSON-I am not making you a story-teller. You might be mistaken, but I never said- CORONER-Now don't let us have any altercation; I am only testing the credibility of a witness. Jane WISEMAN-She said that John GRAHAM came in when she was sitting; that the flour was on the table; that she set the punch down and went and leaned her head against the door; that John GRAHAM came to her and said she was ill and then returned into the house. The witness then retired. Margaret ROBSON was re-called, but said she had nothing more to add to her former evidence. The CORONER then intimated to the Jury that it would be desirable to adjourn. There was a witness who would be called to-morrow whose evidence, it was possible, might be important. He was a druggist in Newcastle, who recollected selling poison to a man answering the description given to him of John GRAHAM. Should he be able to identify John GRAHAM as the man it would supply an important fact. The enquiry was then adjourned till 12 o'clock this day (Friday.) The witness above alluded to is expected to arrive at two o'clock in the afternoon. Should his evidence prove of importance we shall publish it in a second edition.

Saturday 21 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 2-3) Part 1 ADJOURNED INQUEST ON MR. GRAHAM, OF GRINSDALE. ----- At the conclusion of the inquest on Mrs. GRAHAM, the Court adjourned for a quarter of an hour. On the return of the Jury, the Coroner proceeded with the adjourned inquest on the body of John GRAHAM, of Grinsdale. The first witness called was- Sarah SAUL-I am a widow, and keep the Crown Inn at Haltwhistle. I remember John GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews, coming to my house on the 8th of May, the last hiring. He was accompanied by a female. They had breakfast, and staid at our house about three hours and a half. She left first, and he followed three or four paces behind. I saw him again on Saturday night, the 17th May, after ten o'clock. He did not say where he had been. He asked for a glass of brandy, saying he was much fatigued, and after sitting about ten minutes he went to bed. I next saw him in the morning. He rose about eight o'clock. He had breakfast, and walked about in the garden a little. He said he was going to Haydon Bridge. He left the house, and returned some time afterwards; he said he had missed the train. He staid till the Monday afternoon. He was at my house all the time, and was only out at intervals of ten minutes and a quarter of an hour. Sometimes he went down street, and sometimes towards the station. He seemed very dull, and rather restless. He did not attempt to go by the evening train to Haydon Bridge; he never named it. He mentioned no other place than Haydon Bridge. On the Monday morning he said he was going. He went towards the train, and returned without giving any reason why he did not go. He left our house a little before three in the afternoon. He made no allusion to keeping cows. As far as I can judge he had no business whatever in Haltwhistle. He made no allusion to his family. I saw Margaret RICKERBY in this room to day. She is the woman who was with him. John GRAHAM said he knew my father as well as he knew his own father. I said probably he might, as my father was well known in Carlisle. He said probably you think I come from Carlisle? I said I think you do. I was then called away, and left the room. He never said anything to me about taking land. Nathaniel WEDDLE-I am a guard upon the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway. On the 15th of May John GRAHAM went from Carlisle with me, by the two o'clock train. I was in and out of the carriage two or three times as he went; but it was full before we got to Newcastle, and I did not see him afterwards. On the following Saturday about half past seven o'clock, I met him going towards the station at Newcastle, with his top coat on and his carpet bag in his hand. We stopped and talked. I asked him if he was going home, and he said no, he was going to stop with his friend Mrs. ORD over the Sunday. I said I thought he did not know the way, and I offered to show it to him, but he said he knew it perfectly well. While we were speaking Mr. WRIGHT, spirit merchant, came up, and they shook hands. We all went to a public house and had a glass together. In the course of conversation John GRAHAM said he was going to London, and he thought he would be residing there altogether, but before he stopped altogether he would be down at home again in June. Mr. WRIGHT told him that would just be the time he would be off his journey, and he would be glad to see him. Mr. WRIGHT looked at his watch, and, as it was just twenty minutes to eight, he left, as he had just time to catch the last train. John and I sat five minutes longer, and we then left. I then set him into the Forth, where I left him, perhaps three hundrd [sic] yards from the place where he had to go to. I went into the town. I was not returning to Carlisle that night. The last train leaves for Carlisle at eight o'clock. I did not see him afterwards. I met him in Westgate Street, about half a mile from the station. He might have time to call on his friends and then go to the station, but scarcely. He did not call. I asked Mrs. ORD and she said he did not. We had no conversation about his friends at home. I have known John GRAHAM ever since I came to Carlisle-for six years I should think. I thought lately that he was much quieter than he had been formerly. Mark CARR-I am clerk at Haltwhistle Station. I did not see John GRAHAM on Saturday, the 17th of May. I saw him on the Sunday. He came to the station about 25 minutes past ten in the morning-about ten minutes after the train had passed. He asked me if the train had gone. I said it was. He then asked the fare to Rose Hill, and I told him. Rose Hill is five miles and a quarter west of Haltwhistle. He said no more, but went away. I told him the time of starting. He came down again about nine o'clock on Monday morning. The train going east had just passed, and he asked if it was gone. He asked if any body had got out. He waited for the train from the East: when it stopped he went out and spoke to Bryan BURN. He then left the station house, but returned before eleven. I asked him if he was going by the train to Carlisle at half-past eleven. He said he expected to meet a person from the West. This conversation took place in the office. He sometimes went out and walked in the yard, and at other times was in the room before the train came up. He might wait three quarters of an hour, and then, before the train came up, he came into the station house. He was in when it arrived. When it stopped he asked me if I saw any one get off. I told him I didn't see any one particular; I was busy while the train was there, and did not take particular notice. He left the office, and came again in the afternoon, bringing his carpet bag-it might be soon after two o'clock. He was about the station till the train came from the West. It is due at a quarter-past three. He sometimes sat, and sometimes walked about till the train was within sight. He then came into the office, and asked if I saw any one getting off. A person who was sitting in the office, and who was looking more than I was, said a gentleman had got off. Mr. GRAHAM looked out of the window and saw him leaving the station yard. John GRAHAM did not say anything, but came to me and asked for a ticket for Haydon Bridge, which I gave him. He then went and got into the carriage. When the guard came in-Bryan BURN-I asked him who the man was, and he said it was John GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews. He said his father was very ill, and he had to go home immediately. I went at his request and told John GRAHAM, who got off and came and spoke to Bryan BURN, who told him he was to go home immediately, as his father was dying. He then went and took his carpet bag out of the train, and got his ticket changed for one for Carlisle. When the train was gone he asked if the guard had said any thing more than what I told him. I said no; I had told him all Bryan BURN had said. He then asked if I thought his father was dead. He said, "what an uncertain thing life is! you see my father was quite well before I left." I thought from his manner that he was insolvent, and was afraid of some person following him. Only four trains had gone East that morning. John BESWICK was next called. After he was sworn, The CORONER said-If you prefer making a statement without being questioned, we shall be glad to hear what you have to say: if not, I will examine you. State all that you know; that is all we require. Did you serve your apprenticeship as a farmer with Mr. GRAHAM?-Yes. When did you leave him?-A year-and-a-half ago. Tell us all you know about the packet of poison.-MITCHELL said there was a parcel in the turnip house, and he went and brought it, he then tore the paper off and burned it. He tore it?-The housekeeper did, and put it in the fire. CORONER-Now do be careful; there is a wide difference between him and the housekeeper. Did she take it from him?-I can't say whether she took it from him, or he gave it to her. Had you ever it in your hand?-No, not the parcel. Did you examine it?-I had hold of a bit of the paper that was about it. Did you read it?-Yes. What had it upon it?-I think it had "Flower of" something on it,-I can't recollect what, and also "Poison for rats," with directions for using it. Can you remember any of the conversation that passed at the time of Mr. GRAHAM's death, about the finding of the parcel?-On the Thursday John GRAHAM came and told me my man had told about the parcel in different lights, and we went down the road together and called on BAINBRIDGE. (Witness then repeated the fact of their interviews with MITCHELL and BAINBRIDGE, described in his former evidence. Nothing new or important was elicited.) [to be continued]

Saturday 21 Jun 1845 (p. 2, col. 8 - p. 3, col. 1) Part 2 SUSPECTED CASES OF POISONING. ----- ADJOURNED INQUEST ON MRS. GRAHAM.- VERDICT OF WILFUL MURDER. [continued] The CORONER then, addressing the jury, said-We have arrived at that stage of our inquiry where it becomes my duty to submit to you the whole of the evidence which has been taken during this inquest, with such remarks as I feel able to make for your assistance and guidance. When we consider the voluminous nature of that evidence, and the variety of circumstances which it embraces, and more especially when we contemplate the very serious object of this investigation, I need not say how much I feel the difficulty of my task and my inability to discharge it efficiently. Before I proceed to the facts, I cannot refrain from making some allusion to the bearing and conduct of some of the witnesses who have been called before us. In several instances it is clear and manifest that their oaths have been grossly violated, the truth perverted, and suppressed to an extent seldom witnessed in any Court of Justice. It is painful to witness such scenes of moral depravity, but the more so when the effect is to conceal and hide one of the most horrid crimes under heaven. The full development of the truth cannot prejudice innocent parties. Guilty ones may be affected-but that any member of the community can lend himself to screen guilt of such hideousness as this, and for such a purpose commit the offence of perjury, is an accumulation of wickedness shocking to contemplate. There are parties who are far from blameless in having stood aloof and omitted to give that information which I am satisfied might have been given in this case, and which would have cast much valuable light upon it. I still hope that those to whom these remarks refer will see the impropriety of their conduct, and make just amends to the injured laws of their country. I feel that the reluctance and want of truth on the part of witnesses has materially increased our labour and retarded and obstructed the course of justice, a result deeply to be lamented under the circumstances of this case. Gentlemen, in applying the evidence which has been read to you,-it is your province to ascertain, First-What has caused the death of Mrs. GRAHAM; Secondly-Whether that cause is the result of accident or criminal intent; and Thirdly-by whose hand committed. You are not required to find that any one is guilty of the offence. This court is one of inquiry, and not to try whether any particular individual is guilty or not guilty, but under what circumstances a fellow being has come by her death. If, however, in the course of the investigation, the evidence points out the criminal, then it is your duty to find a verdict accordingly. To enable us to reach that conclusion we must watch and scrutinize strictly the conduct of all against whom suspicion can exist, and while we are sifting for the truth we cannot help entering into matters which may appear irrelevant and immaterial, but which may ultimately prove most important, and until all the circumstances are before us we cannot judge what is useful and what is not. There is, however, one ingredient which is important, and that is, what motive influenced the guilty party-that opens a wide field, and the bearings of it are not all at once evident. The first question presenting itself for your consideration is, what has caused the death of Mrs. GRAHAM? The chief evidence on that point is that of the medical gentlemen, and it is for you to say whether you feel any doubt upon their report, coupled with the symptoms under which she is proved to have laboured. Should you be of opinion that poison has been taken by her, then it is for you to say whether it has been administered by accident or with a criminal intent, and if the latter, by whom it was administered. We have no direct evidence on this part of the case. You must therefore examine and compare the whole of the evidence and see whether it raises a fair and reasonable presumption against any one. The first witness is Miss HIND, the sister of the unfortunate deceased, and taking into account the feelings which must have been awakened, I think she has given her statement in a clear, straightforward, and dispassionate manner, and is entitled to the fullest credit. She proves her sister to have been in her usual health up to the Sunday forenoon-that on Monday morning when she went down in consequence of what she was told, she found deceased labouring under all the symptoms likely to be present in a patient suffering from an irritant poison-that no material change took place until the Tuesday forenoon, when the symptoms returned with more than former violence, an hour or so after she had partaken of a basin of sago prepared and given to her by her husband-that her illness continued until the evening, notwithstanding the medical assistance required; she then seemed easier. That on Wednesday evening the symptoms were again aggravated-she was worse, and died that evening without any material change-the symptoms remaining distinct. The evidence of MITCHELL shows that she was quite well up to bed time on Sunday night, and that her husband came home shortly afterwards. Betsy ROBINSON and MITCHELL prove that bread and milk had been prepared, as was usually the case for deceased's supper, and that it had been eaten from a basin standing on the table. We may fairly presume that this was the last meal she partook of that night, and that something which it contained caused her illness in the first instance. You recollect that her sufferings, which had greatly subsided until Tuesday forenoon, returned with two-fold aggravation shortly after the administering of sago by her husband, from which it is for you you [sic] to say whether another dose had then been administered. We next proceed to examine by whom is it to be supposed that this poison was administered. There were only four inmates-deceased, her husband, Betty ROBINSON, and MITCHELL and his son. There certainly does not appear any suspicious evidence against MITCHELL, and we are totally at a loss to conceive any motive which could induce him to take his mistress's life. As to Betty ROBINSON, there is no evidence to show that she had opportunity of mixing any thing in deceased's food, and so far as we know she had no interest in the death of Mrs. GRAHAM. We next come to John GRAHAM. It is doubtful whether he was present when Mrs. GRAHAM took her supper; but he must have been there about that time-and we have her becoming much worse after eating of the sago prepared and given by him to her. We next have him giving her his close attention, and indeed refusing to permit any one to attend her throughout the Tuesday night; and on the following Wednesday morning we find the suspicious symptoms aggravated, and the paroxysms present. If the medical evidence is to be relied on, the several changes for the worse were the result of the administration of fresh and additional doses. Had any person the same opportunity presented of administering this poison? It is difficult to conceive by whom else it could be administered (for I may here premise that there is nothing to lead us to conclude that deceased administered it herself.) This, however, would not alone justify us in imputing so fearful a crime to any one without some circumstances showing a motive or inducement-as well as others of a suspicious character. We shall now proceed to examine whether any such exist in this case. It is evident that she had been a fond, a doating, and affectionate wife, and that if those affections were misplaced and abused, she had acted with a forbearance and resignation which woman alone can feel and practise; but sad experience teaches us that woman's love is too often misplaced, and bestowed on the most undeserving. We shall first refer to his conduct. He appears to have been on the spot during the whole time of her illness, and to have been constant in his attendance upon her. This may be said to prove either that he was anxious to render his wife all the attentions and assistance she was entitled to in her affliction; or it might be to mislead the officers of justice, to prevent the detection of his guilt, and ensure more certainly the death of his victim. Miss HIND says that he did not look pleased at her when she was preparing the whey-that whenever any thing was said about giving her anything to eat or drink he said he would do it himself. You next have him boiling the sago and giving it to her, a piece of attention one would have thought rather unusual when there was her sister in readiness to do such an office. He appears also to have remained almost constantly with her, and on the Tuesday evening, when the medical gentlemen had given strict orders that a good fire should be kept on, and hot water in readiness to use in case Mrs. G. wanted it, he pointedly refused to allow any one to sit up, and sent Mrs. HIND's servant home, and so peremptory was he that it nearly led to a quarrel, and the poor distressed patient had to interpose between her brother and her husband and beg that her husband might be allowed to have his own way. Even his own mother and sister he would not allow to sit up. Again, when Mr. Hind proposed to have Dr. OLIVER sent for, he having previously cured her from a severe pain and lengthened illness, John was opposed to it, and again his wife submitted, saying,-"don't mention him again, John is not pleased." This extreme attention was likely to be bestowed by a fond and very sincerely kind husband. Was John GRAHAM that husband to her? Could such sentiments and feelings exist at a time when he was keeping under the same roof a woman of the conduct and character of Margaret RICKERBY, with whom he was carrying on an improper intercourse, and whom he allowed to heap upon his patient and nervous wife the grossest insults, in his presence, and even with his sanction? If, gentlemen, such was the state of things in that house, is it an unfair inference that his attention was to forward his diabolical design and avoid detection rather than otherwise: and was not his motive for the crime a desire to carry on his amours with this wicked woman; and is not that inference strengthened by the subsequent behaviour of these parties, and still more by the wilful and flagrant perjury which we had committed in this court? Again, gentlemen, you have to examine his conduct since the rumour got abroad that an inquest was to be taken on her body. Would it not have been more likely, more consistent with innocence for a husband on hearing of such suspicions to have stood foremost, and to have sought an investigation in to a report of so serious a nature, rather than to have shrunk from it and evinced so strong an anxiety to avoid it? For you have him betraying the most intense anxiety and fear on hearing the report; even leaving home at a late hour of the night, and going to Dr. JAMES to ascertain the report was true;-and to the officer, asking if he thought it possible that the disinterment could be dispensed with, and the investigation be limited to the examination of the medical men. Mark, too, his unaccountable expression in gaol that he knew who did administer the poison, but that he would not tell. It is for you to take all these circumstances into consideration, and say whether they do not raise a strong suspicion of John GRAHAM's guilt. I have endeavoured to lay the facts before you, and to explain the questions upon which you have to decide; and in conclusion I have only to add that the offender who commits the crime of murder, and more especially in the dastardly and fiendish form of poison, does not seek the life of his victim in haste and without deliberation, but premeditatedly, and after due calculation, so as, if possible, to effect his purpose beyond the reach of human eyes; and that it is by a multitude of circumstances, each perhaps trifling in itself, that guilt can be and is brought home. The attention you have bestowed gives me confidence in leaving the case to your disposal; and what you do, I pray it may be dictated by a conscience which will leave no remorse behind, but will, on the contrary, make you feel the proud and ennobling reflection that you have done your duty to your country, and that you are conscious of returning your verdict to the best of your judgment, without fear, favour, affection, or revenge. Before you retire, I may remark that this court is in the character of a Grand Jury. Whatever verdict you may return in this case, it does not necessarily impose upon the party accused or suspected any punishment beyond that of awaiting his trial. Before your verdict, whatever it may be, can affect any individual, the case will undergo inquiry before a higher and more competent tribunal. With these remarks I leave the case in your hands. Margaret RICKERBY was then brought before the Jury. CORONER-Now, will you answer the question I put to you before? Witness-What was it? CORONER-On what day was it that you called for the last time at the Angel?-I can't recollect whether it was on the Wednesday or the Tuesday. CORONER-Was it not the day before you went to Haltwhistle? Witness-I don't know. If I knew it would be no interest to me to keep it. CORONER (to the Jury)-I do not think we can elicit anything more from this witness. She was then liberated. The Jury having expressed a wish to retire, the constable conducted them to another room. They returned in about twenty-five minutes. The CORONER called over their names, and they were severally responded to. After which he said-Gentlemen, have you agreed to your verdict? The Foreman, Mr. MOSS, then handed to the Coroner a written verdict, which he read as follows:- "VERDICT. "We are unanimously agreed- "First-That Margaret GRAHAM died from taking arsenic. "Secondly-That such arsenic was administered by design. "Thirdly-That the person who administered it was John GRAHAM." The CORONER-The legal effect of that verdict is, that John GRAHAM has committed WILFUL MURDER UPON HIS WIFE BY ADMINISTERING POISON. The inquisition was read over by the Coroner, and signed by the Jury. Mr. SABBAGE was then bound over to prosecute and give evidence at the next Assizes. The other witnesses also entered into recognizances to appear and give evidence. The room was much crowded during the morning.

Saturday 21 Jun 1845 (p. 2, col. 8 - p. 3, col. 1) Part 1 SUSPECTED CASES OF POISONING. ----- ADJOURNED INQUEST ON MRS. GRAHAM.- VERDICT OF WILFUL MURDER. [CONTINUED FROM OUR FOURTH PAGE.] [The report on page 4 was simply a reprint of the report in the later editions of the previous week's paper.] The adjourned inquest on the body of Mrs. MARGARET GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews, was held in the Coffee House Assembly Room, on Thursday, before W. CARRICK, Esq. The proceedings ought to have commenced at ten o'clock, but it was found that one of the jurymen, Mr. LOWRY, was absent. A messenger was despatched for him, and ascertained that he was confined to bed from illness. The CORONER decided to proceed without him. Richard MARTINDALE-I am a druggist in Carlisle. I know John GRAHAM. I have never, to my recollection, sold him any poison; I might have done so. Shortly after the potato-pot affair he asked me if I could analyse arsenic. I said I thought I could, and asked him if there was any of the potato pot left; and he said no, it was buried. He said there had been a very serious affair at their house-all the family had taken ill by eating potato-pot, and he could not tell how it occurred. To the best of my recollection it was on the Saturday after they became ill. We have an entry in our books against Mr. GRAHAM, who kept a regular account with us. I referred to it the other day, and found there was no entry against him for arsenic. If it was paid for at the time it would not be entered. John SIBBALD-I am a druggist in Caldewgate. John GRAHAM has been at my shop since the commencement of the inquest. It was on the evening preceding the first sitting at the Coffee House. He opened the door and went into the back shop, and said he wished to see me. He asked me if I saw anything different in his countenance when we went down to Newcastle together. I said no. He said, "Did we not stay at the White Horse together," and I said we did. That was all that passed. Mr. J. MOUNSEY was with him at the time, and told him to come away. I have kept a druggist's shop at Burgh for the last two years. Sometimes I attend it, sometimes my brother, and sometimes my sister. I am quite sure that John GRAHAM never, to my knowledge, bought arsenic at my shop from me. I have inquired of both my brother and sister, and they say they have not sold any. I do not remember ever having any conversation with Mr. GRAHAM about the testing of arsenic. I am quite sure I told the jury of all that passed between him and me in our back shop. Margaret RICKERBY (who looked very pale) was then brought forward to be identified by the following witnesses:- Janet KENNEDY, servant at the Grapes-I see the woman standing there. I could not say for her; I never saw her face. She was sitting with her back to me, and always held her head down. They had tea together, and I waited on them, but she was sitting with her back to me, with her face to the fire. You showed her to bed?-Yes. And yet you don't know her face ?-No, sir, I never saw it; she had her hat on. She appears to be about the same height as the woman. Sarah MARTIN, of the Angel Inn. CORONER-Will you look at this woman, and say whether she is the woman who was in the habit of meeting Mr. GRAHAM at your house? Witness-(after looking at her)-That is not the person. RICKERBY, at the request of the Coroner, turned round and looked Mrs. MARTIN full in the face. Not a muscle of her face moved, but she blushed slightly. CORONER-Look at her, Mrs. MARTIN. Witness-I never saw her before. I did not wait on them but on one occasion, and that is not the woman, decidedly. Jane IRVING, servant with Mrs. MARTIN. CORONER-Is this the person you saw with Mr. John GRAHAM? Witness-If she be the person she is very much altered since. CORONER-Do you believe her to be the same? Witness-She was a good deal stouter, but the person there is rather like her. The last day she called was on a Wednesday,-but I can't say how many weeks ago. Since I went to the Angel Inn she might call three or four times. Did John GRAHAM ever meet any other woman than one?-Never that I seed. Which room did they go into?-Sometimes up, sometimes down stairs. The last time they were up stairs. Do you know what refreshment they had last time?-I think they had brandy. What time were they there?-About the middle of the day. Was the person with him in the habit of holding her head down to prevent you seeing her?-She always held her head down when we went into the room. Margaret RICKERBY resworn- CORONER-Now then, you must tell us all you know. Witness-Touching the death of Mrs. GRAHAM? CORONER-Yes. Witness-Varra weel. She then kissed the book. CORONER-How often have you met John GRAHAM at the Angel?-I think three times. Do you remember when you last met him?-I divn't. Can you tell to a week or so?-No. Or the day of the week?-I telt you before all I have to say about it. The day of the week?-About the death of the woman? I know nowt about it. I ask you if you can tell me the day of the week?-(No reply.) Will you answer the question?-I have nee 'casion to answer. CORONER-I commit you to gaol for contempt of court, in refusing to answer my question. Officer, take this woman into custody, and I will make out her commitment. Constable BARNFATHER then took her into custody. The Coroner shortly afterwards issued his warrant for her committal to gaol. The CORONER then (addressing Janet KENNEDY, Mrs. MARTIN, and Jane IRVING) said-Go into the room where RICKERBY is taken, and see, when she has taken off some of her clothes, whether you can recognise her. Jane IRVING-I am almost sure it is her; she is very like her, but very much altered. The witnesses then left the room. James BARRET-I am turnkey to the Gaol. I don't recollect the day John GRAHAM was taken into custody, but he has been in gaol for the last week or so. Last Friday, the 13th inst., it was my duty to go with the cook to serve the two prisoners who were with John GRAHAM with their dinner. When we went into the room he had been talking with them. One of them, after he had got his dinner, said he wanted some salt. I said I would wait with the other prisoner and John GRAHAM till he went to the lower prison and got it. The man who was left with me is called MURPHY. John GRAHAM addressing him, said if she (his wife) had been poisoned, he knew how it had cumt; but that he would keep to himself. I am quite sure I am now repeating the words he used. He said to me, "that I mus'n't tell you, must I?" I said whatever he told us might come against him, and he said no more. Here the witnesses who went to identify RICKERBY returned. Jane IRVING was then recalled. CORONER-Is it the woman who came to the Angel inn with John GRAHAM?-She has the same gown and shawl, but a different bonnet. It is very like the person. Janet KENNEDY-The woman who came to the Grapes had the same gown on, but a different shawl. Mrs. MARTIN could not identify her. Robert SIBBALD-I am in partnership with my brother. I never sold arsenic to Mr. John GRAHAM; and he has had none from either of the two shops, to my knowledge. Jane SIBBALD-I live with my brothers, and occasionally assist in their shop. I never sold arsenic to John GRAHAM or to any one, that I remember. I was not allowed to sell it. The CORONER then read the deposition of Joseph HIND. He said he had nothing to add to it. Benjamin MITCHELL, was next called, and his evidence having been read over to him by the Coroner, he corrected an expression which appeared as he uttered it on the coroner's notes. The words used by Margaret RICKERBY were "thou has no more religion than an old sow," not "cow," as before printed. He had nothing more to add. He then signed his depositions. Mary HIND, Richard HIND, Isaac HETHERINGTON, John SABBAGE, Mr. ELLIOT, surgeon, and Dr. TINNISWOOD, then signed their depositions. Mary ELLIOT was next called. The coroner read his notes to her. CORONER-Do yon wish to add anything to this or alter it?-No. Is it all true that you have stated?-It is all true. You understand all I have read to you?-Yes, I understand what I say. Witness then signed her deposition. William REEVES, surgeon, on his deposition being read was asked- It was not John GRAHAM who asked you to procure abortion, was it?-No, sir. Or no one connected with him?-Not that I am aware of. He then signed his depositions. The other witnesses were successively re-called, and signed their depositions. At a quarter-past one the Court was adjourned for three-quarters of an hour. When the jury returned, The CORONER (addressing Mr. James MOUNSEY) said, I believe yon act as legal adviser for Mr. GRAHAM? Mr. JAMES MOUNSEY-I do. The CORONER-Is it your wish, or his, that he should attend here to make any statement? Mr. JAMES MOUNSEY-It is not. The CORONER then said he had sent up word to the gaol that if Margaret RICKERBY wished to come before the jury and answer any questions that might be put to her, or to make any statement, she might, on those terms, be liberated. In the meantime he would proceed to make a few observations on the case. [to be continued]

Saturday 14 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 5-6) Part 2 THIRD EDITION. ----- Journal Office, Friday Evening, Six o'Clock. ----- EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES RESUMED. [continued] Mary ELLIOT re-called. CORONER-Since you were before us we have received some more information as to the proceedings in your house. I caution you to tell the truth. Witness-I will tell you the truth as far as I know. The CORONER read over the evidence of the witness taken before she was given into custody for refusing to answer his question. CORONER-If it has been sworn that Mr. GRAHAM and Miss RICKERBY were in the habit of spending their evenings in your house more than his own, the party has been swearing to an untruth, has he? I mean from last harvest to Martinmas. Witness-They were never in the house together-at nights you know. CORONER-But I am not speaking of nights. Were they together? Witness-When she came in he went out. CORONER-Did they spend their evenings at your house together more than at his own? Witness-If I could answer you I would. Did they not spend one evening in the week, on the average, at your house?-She was there, but he was not. CORONER-As it is probable that there will be further proceedings in your case, I will take down my questions and your answers. Witness-If I could I would. CORONER-Now, wait. (He repeated the question.) Witness-Together? CORONER-In your house? Witness-No, they did not. Were they ever at your house, in the same room, and at the same time?-Never but when she was sewing. CORONER-Say ay, or no. (He repeated the question.) Witness-No, not in my recollection. CORONER-I shall have no recollection, here; I shall not allow you any such loophole. I insist on an answer, and if you refuse I will commit you. Witness-You must tell me how you mean. CORONER-Were they ever in your house, in the same room, together between last harvest and Martinmas. Witness-No, not together. CORONER-You appear to attach a meaning to together which I don't understand. (He repeated the question.) Witness-Yes. CORONER-How often? Witness-Once. Not more than once?-No. Have they been more than once? I ask you again.-No, only once, I swear that. I left them in together. What do you mean by "together?"-Like you and me now. You perfectly understand that you have sworn that between last harvest and Martinmas they were only once in your house?-Yes, just once, it was at the latter end of harvest. I left them in the house betwixt eight and nine in the evening. Did you leave any one with them?-Two children. What age?-One boy 17, the other 10. Did you find Mr. GRAHAM and Margaret RICKERBY in, on your return?-No. Is your memory refreshed about RICKERBY saying she cowed her mistress?-No, she never said it. How long were you out that night?-About an hour, or an hour and a half. Where were the children that night?-In the kitchen. How many rooms have you?-A kitchen and a parlour, and a back place. Were the children up when you returned?-Yes, they were. I was at a kurn-supper, every one knows what that is. CORONER-How often have the parties been in your house at the same time? Witness-Together? CORONER-I did not say together-both at one time. How often? Witness-Three times. When?-The first time was when I was at supper; the last time when she was sewing. The other time was when she was at our house in the afternoon, and staid all night. CORONER-Did you ever leave the premises after either of these parties came in? Witness-Do you mean for two or three days, or what? CORONER-I mean for any length of time. Witness-No. Could they ever meet in your house without your knowledge?-No. CORONER-Did you ever know any improper intimacy taking place between John GRAHAM and Margaret RICKERBY? Witness-You must explain't, I don't understand you. You don't know what it means?-No. Did you ever see him take any improper liberties with her?-Never. Janet KENNEDY-I am waiter at the Grapes inn. I don't know John GRAHAM. I just saw him once, and a young man in the house said it was he. He came to our house on a Wednesday evening, but I can't be positive. It was in April. I am sure of it. Robert CARRUTHERS pointed him out to me, and said he was John GRAHAM, Kirkandrews. A woman was with him. I did not know her. They had tea together. When I was in the room they did not speak any. They staid all night. John bespoke the lodgings. He asked if they could have a double-bedded room. I went and asked my mistress, and told him they were each to have a bed-room. I showed them to bed. The woman went first, and he went a little after. There was one bed-room betwixt those they occupied; on the same landing, and in the same passage. He came in her room when I was there and asked if she was any better, and she said no. I could not see that she was poorly; I did not observe it before. He came out of the room with me, and went to his room. I never saw him again. He went away about half-past five in the morning. The ostler had called them. Did you take them for man and wife?-I couldn't say, sir. What did you take them for? (No answer.) Were they ever there before?-No sir. Had you ever any conversion with Robert CARRUTHERS?-Yes. What was it?-I told him Mr. GRAHAM had left his own bed-room and gone to another. He was to have been in No. 3, and he went to No. 6. Had he not used the bed in No. 3 at all?-No sir. Sarah MARTIN-I am the wife of Aaron MARTIN, of the Angel inn. I know John GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews, by sight. A woman whose name I do not know was in the habit of meeting him at our inn. From the first time of their coming it must have been from 18 months or two years. They usually came on a Saturday. He came in first, generally. I thought they came on business, and never thought there was any impropriety; I never saw anything to warrant such a belief. He used to say that if a person came and asked for him he was up stairs. A female used to come, and always went up to him. Sometimes they remained half an hour; sometimes an hour. This did not happen very frequently. Probably I might not see them, sometimes, for two or three Saturdays running, and even six. They were last at our house six or seven weeks since, on a Wednesday. I don't remember the girl ever coming in first. The woman was not tall, but stout, and fresh-coloured, and looked like a country person. I think I could identify them both. They never staid all night. They usually came in the middle of the day. Jane IRVING-I am servant with Mr. MARTIN. I remember a man and woman frequenting our house: since I came, two or three months ago, they have called sometimes. It is five or six weeks since they were there. I did not know either of them by name. I should know the man. They used to go up stairs. The same woman always met him. He did not leave his name, and I never heard it mentioned. He just used to say, "if a female comes to enquire for me, I am up stairs." When she came she inquired if the gentleman was up stairs. She did not mention his name. Mrs. MARTIN, re-called-She usually asked, is there a person up stairs waiting for me? I knew her by sight, and I said yes. When he came he said "if any person asks for me I am up stairs;" and without any names being mentioned I perfectly understood that these were the parties who wanted each other. I only remember him mentioning his name on one occasion. I may have seen them there four or five times. At first I thought they came on business; but at last I began to think he was paying his addresses to her. Jane IRVING-It did not occur to me that they were sweethearts. They appeared to be very friendly. The last time he was there was on a Wednesday. I don't know what Wednesday. The two last witnesses were sent up to the gaol to see if they could identity John GRAHAM. On their return- Jane IRVING, recalled-I have been to the gaol. John GRAHAM was pointed out to me. He is the man. Mrs. MARTIN-I have also been to the gaol, and the man pointed out to me as John GRAHAM, is the man who used to come to my house. Jane IRVING-I could not identify the woman, I think, but she was fresh coloured. Mrs. MARTIN-If I saw her I think I could identify her. The CORONER, addressing the jury, said-The witnesses, so far as my information goes, have all been called before you, and you have heard all that has reached my ears respecting the inquiry. You have attended to it with a very great deal of patience, and as I am sure you must have sat at much inconvenience, I am ready to address you upon the evidence, should you think it desirable to close this evening. If you wish, however, to have further time for the purpose of collecting more information, I shall be glad to meet your wishes by adjourning the case to any day you may suggest. Involved with the matter under investigation is an enquiry touching the death of another person nearly related to the party implicated. From circumstances proved before us two lives have been sacrificed, and some others placed in imminent jeopardy; if you require, therefore, time for further information before you give your decision, I shall adjourn the inquest to some future day, that we may throw, if possible, some more light on this hidden deed of darkness. The jury resolved upon an adjournment. The inquest was then adjourned till Thursday next, the 19th of June. The room was much crowded during the whole of the proceedings.

Saturday 14 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 5-6) Part 1 THIRD EDITION. ----- Journal Office, Friday Evening, Six o'Clock. ----- EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES RESUMED. It was quarter past two o'clock before the examination of witnesses was resumed. Benjamin MITCHELL, re-sworn-I remember something particular taking place at my master's house, at last Carlisle races. It was a disturbance about supper. Mr. GRAHAM came home, and mistress asked if he would have tea to supper? He said no, he would have some milk, and he took milk. The servant girl then came in, and the mistress was taking the pot that had the milk off the table. The master told the girl to get some supper, and she said no, she would never break her fast in that house more, because Mrs. GRAHAM had removed the things off the table. The master asked deceased what she meant by doing so, and she said she had only removed the pot that had his milk in. Mr. and Mrs. GRAHAM went to bed, and there seemed to be a great disturbance in the house. CORONER-Have you anything more to add? Witness-Nothing, only that the girl's conduct towards Mrs. GRAHAM was very improper. Mr. WHEATLEY-You are still of opinion that the packet of poison was unopened, are you?-I am, and I will stand to that till the day of judgment. CORONER-On the occasion we refer to did GRAHAM go into the parlour and find fault with his wife, for not letting her have her supper?-Yes. And do you mean to say that the conduct of the girl that night was very insolent and improper?-Yes it was. Did John GRAHAM take his mistress's part?-He did not say much either way. Mr. WHEATLEY-Did he rather take the girl's part?-Rather. Mr. MOSS-She was a kind mistress to you?-The kindest I ever had. My master and mistress lived happy together till the last half year of her life. At that time he never checked the girl when she was insolent to his wife. CORONER-Up to that time you never observed any improper conduct on the part of the girl to your mistress?-Yes, that's what I mean. She always waited very dutifully on her till then. What change did you observe,-was John's conduct to his wife changed?-No, he always seemed friendly to her. Mr. WHEATLEY-Was the girl's conduct not changed?-Yes, it was not so good. Do you recollect Mr. ANDERSON coming to see Mrs. GRAHAM?-Yes, and I believe Dr. DALTON was once with him when he came to cut something out of the roof of her mouth. Were RICKERBY and your master in the habit of meeting at ELLIOT's?-Yes. When did that begin?-Towards the back end of the year. Was that while RICKERBY was in his service?-Yes. What time of day did they meet?-In the evening. Did they stay long?-Yes. Nine o'clock was the hour for going to bed both in winter and summer. We got supper at half-past six, and they used to go off immediately after supper, and stay till nine, and sometimes later. Have you sometimes gone to bed before they came in?-Not often, but sometimes I have. Your mistress was home?-Yes, I still left her up. How long did they carry on these meetings at ELLIOT's house?-They began at the harvest, and it continued till Martinmas, the time she left. Did you ever know her there after she left your master's service?-Twice. I only said once at first, but I now recollect it was twice. Did you mention it at all before?-Yes, I said I had seen her at the market. Yes, but at ELLIOT's house?-Once. I was not in, but I saw her through the window. I think she was sewing with her sister. It was about Martinmas. Was John GRAHAM there that day?-Yes, I did not see him, but in going past I heard his tongue. Was that before or after his wife's death?-Before, I am certain. His wife gave me the information, and her sister Mary HIND had told her: she had seen her coming through the village. How often did he visit her there?-I can't say how many times. They were oftener missed from the house than they were in it. And it was their practice both to be absent at the same time?-Yes. What means have you of knowing that they went to the house?-I have often heard them when they were in. ELLIOT's house stands by the road side, perhaps fifty yards from Mr. GRAHAM's house. Do you ever remember Mrs. GRAHAM finding fault?-No. Used they to come in the house together?-No. Which generally came back first?-Sometimes one and sometimes the other. Did you of your own knowledge know they were in the habit of meeting at ELLIOT's house?-I have reproved him for going to it. Why did you reprove him for going to that house in particular?-Because it was a house that was blamed for clash. Or perhaps something worse?-I don't know about anything worse, but I said people were taking notice of him going so often. You are not aware of them meeting more than twice since Mrs. GRAHAM's death?-Three times. Which was the other time?-I saw RICKERBY leave the premises about four o'clock, some time between Christmas and Candlemas. My son said they had been in the front kitchen together. Do you remember being sent to seek him late one Saturday or Sunday evening?-Yes. Was anything said by Margaret RICKERBY on that occasion?-John GRAHAM said to her in the morning, "Margaret, if I'm not home at three o'clock you'll not see my face again." This was on the Saturday morning, before he went to market. Mrs. GRAHAM was not present. He was late in coming home that night. I came to Mary BESWICK's and to the Black Swan to see after him, but, as I could not find him, went home without him. Margaret ELLIOT was standing at the door whispering to somebody when I returned. Mrs. GRAHAM said, "Don't stand there; come in and say anything you have to say; there has been enough of that whispering." Mistress was very troubled. About 12 o'clock LITTLE and I went for him, and met him on the road. Did he ever send his wife to bed, and sit up with RICKERBY?-I cannot affirm that, I didn't see it. Did you hear Mrs. GRAHAM say anything to him on the Sunday night before she died?-She said, "John, you can never find a bit time to stop with me,-but all will work over." Were you in bed?-Yes; my bed-room is opposite the kitchen, and I could hear what was said. He made no answer. Did she take any supper on the Sunday night before John came home?-Yes, to the best of my recollection, she boiled some bread and milk. I saw her cut the bread on the table. Did Betsey ROBINSON or you go to bed first?-I think she did, but we were near about the same time. Was the pan on the fire before she went? I am not sure, but she knew of the boiled milk. How long was it after you went to bed that John came home?-A very little bit; I had not fallen asleep. Catherine BURTON-re-sworn-Mrs. GRAHAM used to come to me and make complaints. She said she was badly used by Margaret RICKERBY and her hushand. She said he ordered her to bed, and sat up with the servant. She said he used to go and see if she (Mrs. GRAHAM) was undressed and gone to bed. Did you ever hear John GRAHAM or Margaret RICKERBY say anything to her?-Nothing amiss. Do you live far from ELLIOT's?-Not far. Have you seen either John or Margaret go in there?-I have seen John, but never Margaret. Do you know if they were more friendly than master and servant should be?-I don't know, except what Mrs. GRAHAM complained of. Benjamin MITCHELL, junior-I am sixteen years old. I am not living at Kirkandrews now; I live at Bleatarn. I left Kirkandrews about a month after last Candlemas. That was when John GRAHAM left the farm. I had been there since Martinmas. I was there when Mrs. GRAHAM died. Did you ever see John and Margaret RICKERBY together?-No. Was she at the house after Mr. GRAHAM's death?-Yes, she was in the back-kitchen talking to the servant girl. I don't know whether my master was in or not. I did not see him. RICKERBY was in the house perhaps three quarters of an hour. I never saw the master and her go to ELLIOT's. The Rev. Isaac DODGSON-I am curate of the parish of Beaumont. John GRAHAM sent for me on Sunday night week. I was from home at the time, but Mr. GRAHAM met Mr. PEARSON and me. We accompanied him into his house, and sat down. He said, "In the presence of you Mr. DODGSON, and you Mr. PEARSON, I declare before God that I am innocent of the crime that is laid to my charge." He was referring the death of his father. I told him if he was innocent he had nothing to fear. He said what put him about more than all was, that he had heard they were going to take up his poor Peggy; he said it was more than he could bear, and he would sink under it. I said if he was innocent he ought rather to insist on taking her up. I don't think he made any reply. He said his friends had all forsaken him, and that he had never done harm to any one in his life. He mentioned the small parcel that had been found, and said that was nothing, he had bought it to poison rats with, and had had it a long time. He said little more, but protested many a time that he was innocent. He said nothing as to whether poison would be found in his wife or not, but he protested that he was innocent of her death, and wished he was with those who were gone. He said if they hanged him they would hang him innocent. I thought he was quite sober. I saw him last Sunday, but did not speak to him; he was very ill. During our conversation Mr. PEARSON talked about a heifer sent to grass, and Mr. GRAHAM said "don't talk about it, I will be hanged before spring." I understood him, in this conversation, to refer to the death of his father. It might refer both to him and to his wife. He said he had been worst to himself; that he had frequently taken a glass too much. We consoled him as much as we could; he was in great distress. I said it would be much more satisfactory if his wife's death were inquired into, but I did not press the matter further, as he was much troubled. He said he had been in bed and could not rest. He had heard that his wife was to be lifted on the following day. [to be continued]

Saturday 14 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 4-5) Part 2 SECOND EDITION. ----- Journal Office, Friday Afternoon, 2 o'Clock. ----- ADJOURNED INQUEST. [continued] Mary ELLIOT-I live in Bread-street, Carlisle, and am the wife of John ELLIOT, joiner. It is a month since I left Kirkandrews. My house then was opposite John GRAHAM's. I know Margaret RICKERBY. We farmed under Miss BLAMIRE. RICKERBY was in the habit of visiting our house sometimes, during her servitude with John GRAHAM, and once since. John GRAHAM visited my house. He and Margaret RICKERBY never met there. Never?-No, never, I am sure as death. Do you remember the last occasion on which you saw John GRAHAM?-Yes, he was in our own house in Bread-street, and I have not seen him since that day. I was present at the laying out of Mrs. GRAHAM. John was present. Nothing was said about her death. I saw her the day she died; nothing was said then about her illness. I don't know on what terms John GRAHAM was with Margaret RICKERBY. CORONER-Do you positively deny that they ever met at your house?-I remember him once coming in, but as he came in she went out. Do you remember him coming into your house one day, about Martinmas last, and meeting RICKERBY and her sister?-I do. CORONER-I am justified coming to this resolution; if I find a witness committing direct and flagrant perjury, I am justified in sending that person to a place of confinement. I only regret that I did not do so at the commencement of this inquest; and then I should have had more truth to-day. You recollect that, do you?-It was after Martinmas. Before or after Mrs. GRAHAM's death?-After her death. Was it before or after?-Before. How long were they in the same room together?-He was not twenty minutes in our house. How long was he in?-About half an hour. Was Margt. RICKERBY there during that time?-Yes. He then went out, did he?-Yes. Who went with him?-He went himself. Do you mean to swear that RICKERBY did not go with him?-She did not go then. How long after?-May be half an hour. Did she go out without her hat and bonnet?-Yes. And returned how long after?-It might be twenty minutes after. He did not return?-No. Was she then in his service?-No. Do you remember RICKERBY being in your house about Christmas?-No. Neither before nor after, nor about that time?-(A long pause.) Are you going to give us an answer?-I don't remember. Has she been at your house since the time you speak of, when GRAHAM and she met?-Yes. When was that?-It would be about Christmas. Was she there all night?-Yes, sir. Did you see GRAHAM that night?-No, sir. Are you sure of it?-Yes, I am sure of it. Do you swear he and she had not tea at your house and that they were not together that night?-They were not. Can you tell us the reason why you left Kirkandrews?-My husband thought it would suit his work better to be at Carlisle. Why did you leave Miss BLAMIRE's house,-did not she insist on your leaving? She did not. Do you remember seeing RICKERBY at your house about Whitsuntide?-No. Was she ever at your house in Bread-street?-Never. Do you repeat that she never was?-Never, to my sight, never. Are you quite sure RICKERBY was not in GRAHAM's house on the Friday she staid with you?-She went in the afternoon. How long might she be there, do you know?-I can't say. She might there an hour, but I cannot say exactly. Do you remember RICKERBY saying once to you that she had cowed Peggy so far that she had made her beg her pardon?-I cannot say. You must give me an answer-did she say that to you?-(After hesitating)-I don't remember anything about it. Do you swear you don't know whether you heard it or not?-(No reply.) Did you not hear it?-(No reply.) If you don't give me an answer I shall commit you. Will you answer my question?-(No reply.) For the last time I ask you?-I cannot say whether she told me these words or not; I don't remember. Did she use words to that effect?-I cannot say what she said. CORONER-Officer, take this woman into custody. Mr. MOSS-Tell us what she said, to the best of your recollection; don't make a fool of yourself. Witness-It's no interest to me to tell a lie. One can say no more than one knows. Mr. WHEATLEY-That is what we want. Witness-I said what are you doing here, and she said she had come on business and her mistress durst not say her nay. (This last answer was got out after a good deal of fencing.) CORONER-You must withdraw, and not leave the premises. I shall call another witness. The police officer then took the witness to another room. William REEVES-I am a surgeon. On the 15th of November, 1844, I was going down Botchergate, and on passing the Bush archway Mr. J. GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews was driving out in a gig. He said "I am wanting a doctor, will you go with me?" I said I should be very happy. He got out of the gig, sent it to the Black Swan, and I went with him to Backhouse's Court. He said he had a servant with him (E. GRAHAM) who wished to see her relations, and he would not have brought her if she had not been a valuable servant. He said he had only had her a short time and that she was very ill. He left me with her and said he would remunerate me for my trouble. I found she was labouring under neuralgia, an affection of the nerves. I bled her, and she recovered in a few days. The second day after, a man called and said I had not understood the complaint. He said she was in the family way, and intimated that he was her father. He asked me if I could not produce miscarriage, and he would give me anything. I asked if he supposed I was going to make myself a felon, and said if he repeated I his request would expose him. The girl said she had taken an ounce of quicksilver to procure abortion. I said if she had taken twice that quantity it would not have made her well, for that was not what was the matter with her. The girl got well, and went back to Mr. GRAHAM. Soon after his wife's death Mr. GRAHAM came to my surgery and said people were blaming him for poisoning his wife. I said it was a distressing thing that she had died so suddenly, and he began to cry. He talked a great deal about her, and cried a great deal. I cautioned him about this girl of his; and I said he should look after her, or it might be awkward. In February the girl sent for me and said she had taken laudanum, she was so distressed because she was in the family way. I administered emetics, and she came round. When she got well I told the authorities about her, and they thought it best to give her a caution about it and to say no more to her. The CORONER then read over to the medical men who made the post mortem examination of Mrs. GRAHAM, the evidence of Dr. OLIVER. He then, at the request of Mr. ELLIOT, read that portion of Mrs. HIND's evidence which describes Mrs. GRAHAM's symptoms when she became worse. Dr. JAMES, re-sworn-On Monday morning week John GRAHAM came to my house. It was exactly a quarter past four when he left. He called me up, and asked if his wife was to be taken up that day. I said I did not know anything about it, and that, if it had been the case, it was most probable that I should have heard it. He said if it was done he could not remain in the village. He said, likewise, that he had never done an injury to any person in his life. I said I was very sorry for him. He desired me not to mention the circumstance of his having called me up at that time, and I replied that it was broad day-light, several persons were on the street, and it was impossible that no one should see him. I have heard the evidence of Miss HIND and the other evidence of her illness. I think from the accesssion [sic] of the symptoms at different intervals, from the Sunday night to the Wednesday-from arsenic having been found adhering to the gullet, the stomach, and the bowels, extending over a large surface-and from the great emptiness of the bowels-that more doses than one had been taken. I agree with Dr. OLIVER in thinking that a dose must have been taken after his visit on the Tuesday evening. Thomas ELLIOT, surgeon, resworn-I confirm the evidence of Dr. JAMES and that of Dr. OLIVER. I think the probability of its having been given at different times is increased by its having been proved by Miss HIND that the symptoms returned with renewed violence on the Tuesday morning about an hour after she had taken her food, but not immediately after. I also think it likely that the case would have terminated fatally at an earlier date if she had taken the whole of the arsenic that we found on the first occasion-from the circumstance of its having been spread over so large a surface-from the stomach and bowels being so empty-and from her being a weak woman, all of which circumstances would tend to increase the rapidity of the absorption of the poison, and consequently hasten the fatal issue. Dr. CARTMELL also confirmed the evidence of the last witnesses. He said the great probability, but not the certainty, was that the poison had been taken at different intervals. Even in cases where a single dose is administered there are remissions. Dr. TINNISWOOD gave similar testimony-He said it was exceedingly probable that a second dose was given. From the state in which the oxide was found in the stomach and bowels, it is probable that it was given at a later period than those yellow portions (sulphuret of arsenic) found in the same parts. Mary BECKTON-I live at Kirkandrews, and am servant with Mr. HIND. I remember being sent down to Mr. GRAHAM's on the Tuesday night, to sit up all night. I was sent about eleven o'clock. I did not see Mr. GRAHAM at first, but he came through the kitchen two or three times. I did not hear him say anything till after Mrs. GRAHAM's brother and sister went home. A little after they had gone he came to me said I had to go home, there wasn't any person going to sit, and he could get Mrs. GRAHAM anything she wanted as well as any one. He told the other girl to go to bed. He went into the parlour and said to Mrs. GRAHAM "I can make you anything you want better than them," and when he came out he said to me "go home." I went soon after eleven o'clock. Mrs. GRAHAM wished me to leave, but I did not hear her speak; the girl said so. At a quarter-past one the Court adjourned for half an hour.

Saturday 14 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 4-5) Part 1 SECOND EDITION. ----- Journal Office, Friday Afternoon, 2 o'Clock. ----- ADJOURNED INQUEST. The adjourned inquest on the body of Mrs. Margaret GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews, was held this morning. The Jury assembled at ten o'clock, and the Coroner soon afterwards proceeded with the examination of witnesses. Mr. John GRAHAM was not present, but his solicitor, Mr. JAMES MOUNSEY, appeared on his behalf. John SABBAGE-I am superintendent of police, Carlisle, and am the summoning officer on this inquest. I saw John GRAHAM at Kirkandrews on the 29th of May. I called upon him, and searched his house, but found nothing. He said he knew that he was accused of the death of his father, and that he was as innocent as the child unborn. He said if he was not I might take him directly. He said the poison found by MITCHELL in the turnip house was bought at his gate at Kirkandrews, five years ago, from Jemmy the Rat, and as his wife would not let him take it into the house he put it there. I met him on the 5th June, about 200 yards on this side of his house; it was on a Thursday-yesterday week. He asked me if it was true they were going to lift his wife, and I said yes, I was going over to arrange about doing it on the next day. He said that if they did do it he never could stand it, and he wished to know if he could not see Mr. CARRICK, to take the opinion of the doctors without lifting it. I told him I thought that would be no use now, and he said "if they do find poison I did not do it." I was [sic] him when I came back again, and the same conversation was repeated. He seemed a great deal agitated at the time I left him. I saw him again on Monday morning last, about half-past three o'clock; I went to apprehend him. I found him in bed. He asked if I had come to take him, and I said I had; I had a warrant. He then asked if HAUGH had been at Newcastle, and HAUGH, another officer who was with me, said no, he had not. He then asked if any one else had been to Newcastle to make enquiries, and I said no. A man named JOHNSTON was in the house at the time; he was up, and dressed. Mr. GRAHAM got up with our assistance, and we had to dress him. When he got out of bed he seemed quite nervous and could scarcely stand. He said he had been ill the day before and had had a doctor to him. I then brought him to Carlisle. Nothing took place on the road; we scarcely spoke. Mr. WHEATLEY-Did he ask you if anything had been found? Witness-No, he did not. I have had no conversation with him since. John TURNER-I am relieving officer for the Wetheral District of the Carlisle Union. I know a woman called Elizabeth GRAHAM. I remember being present at an interview between John GRAHAM and her, on the 17th of March last, in the evening, in the Bush tap-room. I was coming past the room, and was called in by Mr. GRAHAM. He asked me if I had had an application from Elizabeth GRAHAM to go into the work-house, and I said I had. He asked me if I was aware that she had made an attempt to put an end to herself, and I said I was not. He said it might be a very serious case, and she had better be looked after in time. She was not present at that time but GRAHAM sent for her. She came, and he told her she had better go to the workhouse that evening; he was going that way, and they would go together. She said she preferred to remain with her sister a few days before she went; and her sister, who was present, had no objections. I gave her an order, and we all came out together. It did not strike me from what passed that they had been together before that day. When he came out he got a bottle of rum, and put it in his pocket. I went away, and left him and her standing together. I had never been with them before. She did not belong to my district. There was some mention of a doctor in the tap room. He said the girl had come to his house in the family way, but as he did not discover it for some time, he agreed to let her stop on. He said the father of it had applied to Mr. REEVES for something to procure abortion, but had refused. Mr. GRAHAM seemed very friendly with the girl, and anxious that she should be taken care of. Richard OLIVER, M.D. (who had come from Shrewsbury)-I knew the late Mrs. GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews, and remember being called to see her on the 26th of November last, by Mr. John GRAHAM. Mr. SEWELL, surgeon, was there when I went. I understood she had been vomiting and purging for two days-so I was told; and the main symptoms then were those of exhaustion of the vital powers. After speaking with Mr. SEWELL, we agreed to give her stimulants, and prescribed brandy and water and opium. Mr. SEWELL left; he was called away to a distance; and as he looked upon it as a very serious affair, I undertook to see Mrs. GRAHAM in the evening. He had seen her before. We had recourse to both external and internal means of stimulation. She vomited on the first occasion, but I cannot distinctly remember whether I saw her or not. The characteristic symptoms were those of exhaustion, which had been produced by frequent vomitings, and there was nothing to create suspicion. I prescribed brandy for her. It was known to Mr. GRAHAM and deceased's friends that I was to return in the evening. I had told them of the urgency of her symptoms. I received, on Tuesday evening, a message from a man I understood to be in the service of Mr. GRAHAM. He said Mr. GRAHAM thought deceased so much relieved that I need not go unless I liked. I went, and found her easier, certainly. The symptoms of exhaustion seemed to have abated in a considerable degree, and gave me expectations that the complaint had taken a favourable turn. It was a case of doubt at the best, but she was not worse in the evening than in the morning. I ordered stimulants again. Mr. John GRAHAM was at home in the evening, and I left directions that necessary food and stimulants should be given at regular intervals. I stated that it would be absolutely necessary to have her closely watched during the night. I saw her again on the Wednesday morning. She was not so well: there had been a recurrence of vomiting and purging, and she was ill from the effects of it when I called. There were the same symptoms of exhaustion-apparently aggravated by the re-accession of irritation in the stomach and bowels. I had hoped to find her better, as she had been relieved at night; but she was decidedly worse. I urged her to take brandy as largely as she could; she had taken an aversion to it, but said she would do as I wished her. I said if she did I hoped she would be relieved, and she shook her head and said "oh, no, but I am willing to try anything you wish me." I never suspected any other cause; I thought her illness arose from natural causes. Pain was not so much complained of as depression. Mr. PATTINSON-You would be puzzled on Wednesday morning?-I was not so much surprised as disappointed. The CORONER-It having been already proved that arsenic was discovered in her gullet, stomach, and bowels, are you of opinion that all the symptoms under which you found her labouring were produced by arsenic? Witness-I have no doubt of it. CORONER-Could the aggravated symptoms which you found on Tuesday evening and Wednesday have been produced by arsenic taken on the Sunday night. Witness-I think not, because there was a material cessation of the vomiting and purging on the Tuesday evening, and I think the symptoms found on Wednesday morning must have been produced by another dose administered between the Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, after I saw her. I had attended Mrs. GRAHAM previously from the 1st of March to the 16th of April, in the same year. The main complaint then was a very severe ulcerated sore throat, accompanied by great debility. She recovered under my treatment, but her constitution was much shaken by the complaint. She was restored to comparative health. The ulceration had attacked the soft part of the palate, and a great part of it was gone. CORONER-Could you say what was the cause of this severe ulceration of the throat?-I have no positive evidence as to what it was. Could you form an opinion?-Yes. It was very likely to originate from Syphilis, but knowing that no good could arise from my confirming the rumour to that effect, I studiously discountenanced it; I said it might arise from another cause. Mr. PATTINSON-Have you known the same symptoms arise from other causes? Witness-They may arise from other causes, but they do not commonly. I avoided enquiring into the previous history of the case. I was in a delicate position, and so is every medical man in such a case. [to be continued]

Saturday 14 Jun 1845 (p. 2, col. 8 - p. 3, col. 3) Part 5 SUSPECTED CASES OF POISONING. ----- APPREHENSION OF MR. JOHN GRAHAM. - IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION. [continued] Do you remember meeting him at Candlemas hiring?-Yes, that was the day he said he would pay me the remainder of my wages. Do you remember his coming and snapping his fingers, and your going to him?-No. That didn't take place either then or on any other occasion?-No, never. You positively deny it?-Yes I deny that. You were not with him at all, were you?-Yes, I saw him. Was there ever any improper intimacy between Mr. GRAHAM and you?-Mr. GRAHAM and me?-Nothing improper whatever. Has he not had connection with you?-No, not in that respect. You understand me?-Yes. Has he or has he not?-He has not. Do you remember a certain Sunday when you had goose for dinner, and Mrs. GRAHAM said she thought you had been sparing of the gravy?-I cannot recollect about it. The CORONER having read Benjamin MITCHELL's deposition as to the conversation at dinner on the Sunday, witness said-I swear I never said that. Do you swear you never said that, or that you don't remember?-I mean I don't remember. Do you swear distinctly you have never seen Mr. GRAHAM since you came from Haltwhistle with him?-Yes, I'll take my oath I have not. Do you remember a quarrel between Mrs. GRAHAM and you as to who should go to Carlisle with some butter and fruit?-No. Do you remember her becoming suddenly ill one Monday night, about a week or so before Martinmas?-Yes, she had been washing I think. That was the day before Martinmas?-It was the Tuesday before Martinmas. Was she ill?-Yes, she complained all day. Was she sick?-Not that I ever remember her saying. You went to Haltwhistle with John-where did you meet?-At the Railway Station. Where did you meet that morning? (A long pause.) I ask you again, where did you meet?-We were both together at the Grapes all night. You and he were there together-is that the fact?-That's the fact. Was that on a Wednesday night?-Yes. Did you not sleep with him that night?-I did not. Did you and he go to the Grapes that night together?-He was there when I went. Were you with him when he asked for lodgings that night?-I was in the room. What accommodation did he ask for?-I don't recollect. Did he not ask for a double-bedded room?-I cannot remember whether he did or he didn't. Did they give you a single bedded-room?-Yes. And did you not tell the people of the house that you were going by the early train in the morning?-I didn't. Was it not said by Mr. GRAHAM in your presence?-I believe it was. Did not Mr. GRAHAM and you meet at the Grapes by previous appointment?-I said I was going to stay all night in Carlisle and was going to Haltwhistle next day. He said the Grapes was a respectable house, and he and I would go there. Is that the fact?-I think them were the words that passed. Had you and he supper together that night?-No. Had you breakfast in the morning?-We got breakfast in Haltwhistle. Do you take upon you to swear that you were not in bed together that night?-I swear we were not. Were you in the same bed-room?-Yes, he came and asked me how I was, at night, as he was going to bed. The girl who showed me to bed was there. How many times have you been in his company between Martinmas and Whitsuntide?-I don't know, I am sure, but I was never in his company but on account of my wages. Ten times?-No, not that number of times,-I was only in Carlisle about once in three weeks. Did you generally meet him?-Not always. At what house did you meet him?-At none in particular; I have been in the Coffee House, the Angel, and the White Horse. I never had any appointed place. Had you ever been at the Grapes before?-Never. Do you remember, last winter, Mr. GRAHAM sending his wife to bed, he sitting up with you afterwards?-Not that I recollect of. Do you recollect that, and your coming to market next day?-I don't remember it. How many times may you and he have been in the Angel together?-I don't know; I think not more than three times. In which room were you in the habit of meeting?-Down stairs and up,-both, we've been. How long used you to stay together?-Sometimes half an hour, sometimes longer. What were you and Mr. GRAHAM doing on these occasions?-I wanted my wages. Had you to call all these times for them?-I have not got them yet. The Coroner here read over the witness's depositions, which she signed with a steady hand. Jane HETHERINGTON-I live at Kirkandrews, and am the wife of Edward HETHERINGTON. I saw John GRAHAM on Sunday night, in bed, in his own lodgings. There was nothing said about his wife to my knowledge. Did he not say on the Thursday night that if they lifted Peggy he was done for?-He said he would rather be shot than that she should be lifted. He just came into my house the time the superintendent came to say Mrs. GRAHAM was to be lifted. He said he never could stand that, he would rather be shot. I saw him no more till Sunday. Did he not say if they lifted Peggy he was done for?-No, he did not say that to me. Were you present during his wife's last illness?-I called to see her and would have stopped all night, but I heard her say she would have no one, and I did not stop. I was in the kitchen, and saw Mrs. GRAHAM's mother and her sister. I did not see deceased until she was dead, and then I helped to lay her out. I did not speak to John GRAHAM on Tuesday last that I can remember. Catharine BURTON-I am the wife of William BURTON, and live at Kirkandrews. I remember the time of Mrs. GRAHAM's death. She was not very well on the Saturday; I saw her go up to see her mother on the Sunday; and on the Monday she was a good deal worse, in bed. I was in, backward and forward, being a near neighbour, but I never saw anything given to her. I can't say I ever heard John say anything particular; he still appeared very dutiful for any thing I know. I had not heard him say any thing about lifting Mrs. GRAHAM. Last Sunday I was called into his house after dinner; they thought he was going to die. Nothing was said about his wife. He was in a weak, low way, and did not speak for near an hour. We sent for the doctor, and he said it was just for want of victuals. John SEWELL-I am a surgeon at Burgh. I was called to Mrs. GRAHAM on Monday, the 25th of November. I was sent for in the forenoon, and went before dinner-immediately. I saw her first about nine or ten o'clock. She had frequent and violent vomitings and a bowel complaint. She complained of a good deal of pain in her stomach, and slight tenderness in her bowels. Her pulse was weak and quick; her skin nothing particular. She took an anodyne in the first place, and I made her a stimulating cordial and sedative. I did nothing more that day. She appeared to be dangerously ill-very. I saw her next morning about eight or nine o'clock. She was worse decidedly, suffering under the same symptoms, but more severe, not abated at all events, and she was much weaker. I was surprised to find her so much worse. I took her complaint for English Cholera. I saw John on Sunday evening at Longburgh. She was sinking on the Tuesday. I had a consultation with Dr. OLIVER on that day. The symptoms were then much the same as before. We prescribed another anodyne, and a mixture. She was still complaining of pain in her stomach and bowels. I did not examine what she had vomited. On the Wednesday she was weaker still-the symptoms much the same. It appeared to me then that she would not recover. She vomited almost every thing she took. She did not tell me when she first became ill. These symptoms were all such as are found from irritant poison-no doubt of it. I had seen John GRAHAM on the Sunday evening; he said his wife had not been well for a few days and that he had a wish that I should see her. He did not wish me to come the next day. As far as I could learn, when he spoke to me on Sunday, he did not describe any of the symptoms which I found, but I understood from him that she was labouring under dispepsia. I had not seen her professionally for six months before. I had previous to that visited her twice or thrice. Her complaint then was dispepsia and debility principally. It never occurred to me that she might have taken poison. The CORONER here read over the symptoms deposed to by Mrs. HIND, in the presence of the medical gentlemen who made the post mortem examination. Thomas ELLIOT recalled-These are precisely the symptoms produced by an irritant poison-such as arsenic. From the post mortem appearances and the result of the analysis, the remarkable state of preservation of the body, and the symptoms described, I have no doubt whatever that deceased died from the effects of arsenic. Dr. JAMES, Dr. CARTMELL, and Dr. TINNISWOOD being recalled, gave the same opinion. The inquest was then adjourned till Friday, (this day) at ten o'clock; the evidence adduced at which we will publish in a second edition.

Saturday 14 Jun 1845 (p. 2, col. 8 - p. 3, col. 3) Part 4 SUSPECTED CASES OF POISONING. ----- APPREHENSION OF MR. JOHN GRAHAM. - IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION. [continued] EXAMINATION RESUMED. Elizabeth GRAHAM-I live at Hallburn Workhouse, near Longtown, and am the wife of Joseph GRAHAM, husbandman at Scaleby. I have been married five years. My husband and I are now separated. I was a servant with John GRAHAM of Kirkandrews, from Martinmas till Candlemas. I went there on the 12th of November. I took poorly on the Friday following, and Mr. GRAHAM brought me to Carlisle, to William ROBINSON, of Backhouse's Court. I returned to my service eight days after this. My mistress had been poorly, but she was better then, and going about. She continued better till some time during the Sunday night before she died. She went up to her father's on the Sunday morning. She took some goose to her dinner, and complained a little of being rather sickly. She was often that way held. She laid down a little, on the sofa, and got up to take a little tea. The master was not at home; he left perhaps an hour after dinner. She was a little better after tea, and went about. We went to bed, leaving her sitting up. I saw her next morning. She was very poorly. This was about six o'clock. I did not see her take anything before she went to bed. There were no dishes or plates left when I went to bed. In the morning there was a basin and a spoon, apparently as if it had a little white bread boiled in it, standing on the table. There was a small pan on the hood. The bread and milk had been boiled in it; I knew it had, from the appearance. She was in the habit of taking boiled bread and milk to her supper, with sometimes a little ale in it. Whether she prepared it that night or not, I don't know. John GRAHAM returned just after I went up stairs to bed, about nine o'clock. I heard him come in, before I was undressed. Mrs. GRAHAM might have time to boil the bread and milk and sup it before he came in. I think I did hear her going about after I went up stairs. I cannot say where she went to, whether into the kitchen or the dairy. I did not hear her up that night. I don't know whether John was sober or not when he came home. In the morning he came out of his sleeping room and said Mrs. GRAHAM had been bad during the night. I asked, has she been worse? and he said yes, it was the worst night she had had. I went to ask her how she was, and she said she was very ill in her stomach. I made her some tea, but it did not do her any good. I then went about my work, and Mr. GRAHAM went out. In the forenoon Mrs. GRAHAM turned worse. Mr. GRAHAM hired me near the Pine Apple Inn, at Carlisle. I had not known him before. CORONER-Are you in the family way now?-Yes. When did you fall in the family way?-About two months before Martinmas. How often have you seen Mr. GRAHAM since you left his service?-Once, at a distance. Had you once an appointment with Mr. GRAHAM behind the Bush, since you left his service?-No, sir-behind the Bush? CORONER-Yes, behind the Bush,-had you an appointment with him?-Yes, I had. What was the business you met upon?-He had lost something. He asked me if I knew anything about it, and I said I did not. Who took the message to you?-He came to my brother's house about it, and took me to the Bush tap-room. How long were you there?-Perhaps three quarters of an hour. Did you talk about anything else but a quarter of a pound of tea and a quilt that had been lost?-Nothing that I heard. Was any one with you?-The Misses of the tap-room was there, but she did not stop any. On the same day Mr. TURNER came down for me, and I said I was to go to the Bush tap room. I was not in, but on my return I received the message, and went. I saw Mr. TURNER and Mr. GRAHAM. Did Mr. GRAHAM on that occasion offer to pay for your confinement?-No, he did not. What did he say?-When I was poorly, just after Martinmas he offered to pay for the doctor if I would come back to Mrs. GRAHAM. When Mr. TURNER and he and you were together, did Mr. GRAHAM not buy a bottle of rum, and walk away with you?-He bought a bottle of rum and went away, but I did not go with him. I have never been with him except on that occasion since I left his service. CORONER-Now we'll go back to the Monday. You gave Mrs. GRAHAM some tea; any thing else? Witness-No. I did not serve her with any thing else that I know of. Her sister made things for her. On the Tuesday I made some tea for her, of which her husband took a cup, but I don't remember that any sago was made. She continued very ill all day. I did not hear whether she was worse or not. I was not waiting on her. I asked her on the Tuesday evening if she would require any one to sit with her, and she said no, her husband would lie down beside her. I said we had better sit till midnight, and she said no, no, go to bed, you have to work next day. The boy, the man, and I sat till 12 o'clock, when I went to bed, without undressing. At two o'clock I went and inquired how she was, and she said she was no better. About four I went back, and both were in a sloom. I did not speak, but went back to bed. I rose at six o'clock. On the night before, I was ordered to bed by John and the mistress. It was proposed that MITCHELL, HIND's servant, and myself should sit up, and John objected to it. When Mr. HIND's servant came John sent her away again. He went to bed himself, and the man, the boy, and myself sat till midnight. Mrs. GRAHAM did not tell me she wanted something and could not waken John. I suppose she had fallen over him, and he got up and lifted her into bed again. I think it would be himself who told me so. Have you been examined by any one as to what you were to say to day?-No, never. Has nobody examined you at Longtown workhouse?-I don't know any one telling me what I had to say. Have you been examined by any one?-Witness (after some hesitation) I have seen no person but Mr. MOUNSEY. When?-Last week some time. What day?-I can't remember. Was it Friday last?-I can't say. Was it since Mrs. GRAHAM's body was taken up?-I don't know when it was. Mr. MOUNSEY examined you did he not?-He asked me if I had seen Mr. GRAHAM give Mrs. GRAHAM anything; I said no. He asked me if I was in the family way to John GRAHAM, and I said no. He asked me if I was so when I went there, and I said I had been gone about two months. Do you remember whether it was at the beginning or the latter end of the week?-I can't say; I think it would be the latter end. CORONER-Did you give deceased nothing else but tea?-On the Wednesday I made some sago, and the physician put in some medicine. I think he was from Carlisle-a tall man, with rather a smallish face. I don't know his name. Margaret RICKERBY was then sworn.-I live at Thrustonfield, and am a single woman. I have been servant with Mr. John GRAHAM three years and nine months, till last Martinmas. I went at Candlemas. Why did you leave at Martinmas?-Well, I don't know on what account. What was your reason?-I did not intend to hire. Had there not been some disturbance between Mr. and Mrs. GRAHAM on your account?-I don't know; I never heard any. Had not Mrs. GRAHAM objected to your remaining in her service any longer?-She didn't to me; I would have left at the Lammas, and she would not allow me. Have you ever met with Mr. GRAHAM since you left his service?-Yes, I have seen him different times in Carel. Have you met with him elsewhere?-No, never. When were you last in his company?-It was before Whitsunday. And you have not spoken to him since?-I have not seen him since. Where did you see him last?-It was at the London road station of the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway. Did you meet together?-I was coming from Haltwhistle. Did he come with you?-We were both in one carriage. Where did you join?-At the station at Haltwhistle. How long before that had you seen him?-I don't know,-a few days before. You had not seen him for a few days before you met him? Now, be careful.-I saw him the day before. Where?-At Carlisle. Did you not go to Haltwhistle with him that morning?-Yes. Did you not go to Mrs. SAUL's public house together?-We didn't. You didn't, you swear?-We did not go together. Were you in Mrs. SAUL's public house with him that day?-Yes. Had you not breakfasted together at Mrs. SAUL's?-Yes. Did you not sit for a considerable time in a private room up stairs?-We didn't. CORONER-I trust you are aware that if you are guilty of perjury you are liable to be indicted, and that the punishment is transportation. I would recommend you to be careful before you answer. Did you not breakfast in a room up stairs, and remain an hour together?-We didn't; he left the house in ten minutes after. We were down stairs before. How long did you remain down stairs?-Perhaps half an hour. I think we would. Do you swear you were not more than ten minutes together up stairs?-I can't say to ten minutes. Were you an hour?-I can't say, I didn't see a clock. I think it would not be an hour. What train did you come by in the morning?-The seven o'clock train. Did he not go in the same train with you?-Yes, him and another man. By what train did you return?-The one o'clock train. Where were you from going into Haltwhistle and leaving it?-In amongst the servants. With him or without him?-Without him. Were you in Mrs. SAUL's again?-Yes. Was John there?-He was in, but he did not sit down. Between your seeing him in Mrs. SAUL's, and your leaving the public house how long was it?-I can't say. I don't know whether it would be half an hour. It might be quarter of an hour. Did you leave with him?-No. Was he there when you left?-Not that I saw; it was the hiring day, and he might be in. Where did you see him?-At the station; we separated there, and I have not seen him since. [to be continued]