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