Saturday 31 Aug 1844 (p. 4, col. 4) OFFENCES. ----- TRIAL OF JAMES COCKBURN BELANEY. The trial of James Corkburn [sic] BELANEY, surgeon, of North Sunderland, for the murder of his wife by administering prussic acid, began, at the Central Criminal Court, on Wednesday, and closed on Thursday. The prisoner pleaded "Not guilty." The case for the prosecution was stated by the Solicitor-General, in a plain and even forbearing manner; and a great number of witnesses were examined. From the nature of the case, the evidence was entirely circumstantial; as the fact that the poison had been taken was not denied, but only all motive and active participation in giving it. In November last, Mr. BELANEY, then practising in Sunderland, married Miss Rachel SKELLEY. Subsequently, that lady's mother died, and the bride inherited her property. They came to town on the 4th of June, and took lodgings at Stepney. Mrs. BELANEY then expected in two or three months to become a mother. She was not very well on the 4th, but on the 5th she was better. On the 8th Mrs HEPPENSTALL, their landlady, was suddenly summoned to Mrs. BELANEY's bedroom; she was gasping for breath, her husband standing over her with a lancet in his hand; a surgeon was sent for; but before he came, after one shriek, (the last act, said the medical men, of volition,) she died. Prussic acid was at once recognized as the cause of her death, though the surgeon at first kept the suspicion to himself. Such were the admitted facts; the inculpatory evidence consisted of some collateral facts, and a tissue of falsehood which threw a strong shade of suspicion on the husband. It appeared, that before leaving Sunderland, he and his wife had made wills in each other's favour. On the 7th June he went to Mr. DONOGHUE, a surgeon whom he caused to procure some drugs, among them prussic acid; which he was in the habit of taking himself for some internal nervous or dyspepic [sic] complaint. In a letter written on the 5th to a person in Sunderland, he said that his wife was unwell. Next day he wrote that she was very ill, and that she had been attended by two doctors, who expected that she would miscarry; which was false. A third letter posted, if not written on the 8th, after she was dead, said that his wife was worse, and that her medical attendant and himself both thought that she had disease of the heart; a fourth, on the 9th, announced that his beloved Rachel was no more. While his wife was lying in the agonies of death, he told Mrs. HEPPENSTALL that Mrs. BELANEY had had "fits" before, but that she would never get over that one; and he allowed friction, cataplasms, and such remedies, which could have no effect on the real cause of the lady's illness, to be used. When Mr. GARRETT, the surgeon, came in on the 8th, Mr. BELANEY told him that his wife had only been taking a little salts. On Monday began the inquest, and a post mortem examination was ordered; which disclosed the real cause of death beyond a doubt. Before that result was known to him, Mr. BELANEY confessed the fact to Mr. GARRETT; but explained that he had diluted some prussic acid for his own use, and had left it carelessly in a tumbler, having broken a phial; and that his wife had accidently drunk it in mistake for a dose of salts. Mr. GARRETT asked why he had not made this statement before? to which he replied that he was too much ashamed and enraged with himself. This explanation he also made in private letters to Sunderland: adding he did not know what he was about. Such was the evidence for the prosecution. For the defence, Mr. ERLE contended that his client had no motive to the imputed crime, and that his story was the true one; and a great number of witnesses were called. One was Mr. CLARKE, a master-mariner and an acquaintance of Mr. BELANEY, who was sent for on the 8th, and was actually present at Mrs. BELANEY's death. He heard the husband exclaim that she would not recover, and that it was entirely owing to his own gross neglect; and on Monday he told Mr. CLARKE the story of the mistake. Many witnesses, friends from Sunderland, described Mr. BELANEY as a thoroughly humane man, and more kind and attentive to his wife than husbands usually are; while Mrs. BELANEY, a woman of attractive appearance and engaging manners, reciprocated his affection in the most unequivocal manner; after her death, the husband's aspect was marked by all the traits of a profound and sincere grief. Mr. Baron GURNEY summed up, commenting at length on the bad but perhaps erroneous impression which the intricate falsehoods of the prisoner were calculated to make; and the Jury, after retiring for half an hour, returned a verdict of "Not guilty." Hearing the acquittal without apparent emotion, Mr. BELANEY bowed, and retired from the bar.