was unwilling to call in proper medical aid, but it was
shown that he had done so. "Dr. Jackson suspected
poison on the 7th. On the 8th he told the prisoner he
believed she was consumptive. He admits that doctors
do now and then cheat each other. If the prisoner was
poisoning her, why, when he got Dr. Jackson, who
attributed her illness to natural causes, did he call in
other medical aid? Generally speaking, a criminal is a
coward, and seeks to conciliate the man who can detect
his guilt. Yet the prisoner abuses Dr. Jackson, and
speaks of him in terms of anger. The prisoner requests
Dr. Hazlewood to write out a history of his wife's
symptoms, to be sent to his nephew, in order to be laid
before Sir John Fife. Dr. Hazlewood was requested to
give a faithful statement. He left out the last symptom
—the tingling of the hands. Why did he suppress it?"
After refuting other points that had been urged as
establishing the prisoner's guilt, Serjeant Wilkins dwelt
upon the absence of motive, and upon the affection
which the prisoner had shown towards his wife, and
upon the safer and surer means that were within his
reach had he resolved to poison her. They loved each
other tenderly. Every witness has testified to this. I
grant that a mask may be worn for a short time, but
not for twenty years. Miss Brecknell resided in the house,
and has been there since. She came down to nurse her
sister. She believes the prisoner innocent. She never
saw anything but kindness between them. They say that
the prisoner was well acquainted with drugs. But if
he was, why did he administer arsenic at all? No
poison is so easily detected. He had strychnine, which
is much more difficult to discover. If he was well
acquainted with poisons he knew all the symptoms of
arsenic. Why did he call in a doctor at all? His wife
resisted it. He furnishes the medical attendants with
her vomits and evacuations. "I kept a book in which
I entered all her symptoms." Can it be said that any
entry is incorrect. He informs the doctors of tetanic
spasms? He consents to the post-mortem examination.
After the inquest he causes portions of the body to be
examined at his expense by Professor Taylor. They
have not shown that he ever purchased any arsenic.
The bottles were long kept in the house, and any body
might have access to them. The verdict of the coroner's
jury, that Mrs. Wooler died by poison, is the only
verdict to which any jury can come. By whom
administered it has not been shown. Mr. Baron Martin
summed up with some observations upon the case and
the evidence. It is clear, he said, that the prisoner had
a large collection of drugs in his possession, and Fowler's
solution was among them. At the inquest it is said that
his bottle was not produced, but no importance appears
to have been then attached to the circumstance. It does
not appear but that, if the prisoner had been asked
about it, he could have produced it or given an explanation
of it. The next circumstance relied on was that
the prisoner had not furnished proper medical advice
for his wife. Having called in Dr. Jackson, he finds
fault with him. The next matter urged was that the
prisoner kept a book in which he entered his wife's
symptoms. We may assume that no entry
appears to make against him, or it would have been
read. The next matter is very important. It is that
the doctors having desired the prisoner to communicate
to them the tingling of the hands if it should occur, he
omitted to do so. Upon this point the counsel for the
prosecution has been misinstructed. Dr. Jackson and
Dr. Hazlewood say they never so requested the
prisoner to inform them of this, neither do they agree as
to the exact time or manner in which the prisoner did
communicate the circumstance. The learned counsel
for the prisoner has spoken in harsh terms of the medical
witnesses. I do not adopt those terms, but it does
seem to me that their conduct, as detailed by
themselves, was reprehensible. But people are often wise
after the event, and I believe that those witnesses now
think that their suspicions were stronger at the time
than they really were. Why did they not sooner find
out this symptom of tingling of the hands by asking
Mrs. Wooler herself? If they suspected that arsenic
was being administered, they should have gone before
a magistrate, instead of simply using twice an antidote.
The learned judge commented severely upon Dr. Jackson's
statement, that he had withheld from Dr. Hazlewood
his suspicions. I think that Mr. Henzell was the
first to suspect, and that the others did not pay much
attention to his suspicions. The supposed substitution
of another person's urine might have been a mistake.
The conduct of the prisoner at the time of his wife's
death is said to have been improper. I would recommend
you not to attach much weight to it. Different
men have different modes of evincing their feelings.
There remains the discovery of the arsenic in the enema
pipes. How it got there is involved in more mystery
than I have met with in any other case. No motive is
suggested. The prisoner's supposed knowledge of
drugs is a two-edged sword. He pays Dr. Taylor for
examining parts of the body. He does not evade the
charge by absconding. The law requires not suspicion
only, but plan and natural consequences, not far-
fetched ones, from the evidence. It is for you to say,
whether you can safely come to the conclusion that the
prisoner administered the arsenic. I am unable. I may
observe that, if I were to make a surmise, there is a
person upon whom my fancy would rest rather than upon
the prisoner. The jury retired, and after an absence of
ten minutes returned with a verdict of Not Guilty.
The learned judge said—The country are indebted to
you for your great attention, and I myself feel extremely
thankful for the care you have bestowed. I would have
interfered sooner, but thought it more satisfactory to
allow the case to be fully heard.—A correspondence has
taken place between Dr. Jackson, of Darlington, and
Mr. Baron Martin, in reference to the above case. Dr.
Jackson asks Baron Martin to explain the meaning of
his closing expression respecting the probable guilt of
another person rather than the prisoner, being of
opinion, as he (Dr. Jackson) was the principal medical
man examined in the case, and upon whose conduct
Baron Martin strongly animadverted, that his lordship's
words may mean either that he gave the deceased
poison wilfully or through culpable neglect. Baron
Martin replies as follows:—"Sir, I have to acknowledge
your letter of the 17th inst., and I think that, under the
circumstances, I ought to depart from the usual and
almost universal rule among judges, not to notice such
a communication. Your complaint is confined to the
expression which you describe as the closing expression
of my summing up—viz., 'that there was another person
whom I would be inclined to find guilty rather than the
prisoner.' I am certain I never made use of such an
expression, or anything tantamount to it. It is impossible
for me to state with verbal accuracy what I then
said; I can be certain of my meaning only. The
substance of what I meant to say, and I believe did say,
was this—that in a case of presumptive evidence
imputing the guilt of murder, the law required the
presumptions to be the plain and natural consequences
following from the facts proved, and that it was not to
be made out by fancy, or surmise, or suspicion, but by
facts that amounted to proof; that I had endeavoured
in my own mind to arrive at some conclusion on the
subject, and that it appeared to me there was no proof
against any one; but that if I were to indulge in mere
surmises and fancy, not the prisoner but some other
person would first occur to my mind. If the entire of
what I said upon this subject had been reported, I
cannot but think it would have been obvious to any one
that I did express what I intended to express, viz., no
imputation of guilt upon any one, but a strong illustration
of the extreme danger of convicting Mr. Wooler
upon any fancy or surmise from the facts and circumstances
proved, by suggesting that a fancy or surmise
more plausible than could be entertained against Mr.
Wooler, though equally insufficient to bring home
guilt or the suspicion of it, might be directed against
another."

In the Bankruptcy Court, on the 10th inst., Mr.
Commissioner Evans gave a decision of some importance
in the case of the late bankers, Strahan and Co. The
assets of Strahan and Co. as bankers were very small,
but as navy-agents, trading as Halford and Co., their
books showed little deficiency. The creditors of
Halford and Co. were naturally anxious that the two
businesses should be treated as separate ones. Counsel
argued the matter on both sides. Mr. Bagley urged