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