The Murder of Isabella Thompson

The Star
Christchurch, New Zealand

Saturday, 10 April 1875

SUPREME COURT

THE MURDER CASE CONTINUED

Robert Russell: I am carpenter living in Christchurch. I remember Saturday, Jan. 9 last. I was working in Lyttelton that day. I returned by the six o'clock train. I know the prisoner by sight. I saw him that evening in the train, in the same carriage as I was in. The clothes produced resembled his cap and coat. I remarked to him he ought to wash his hands, which were bloody. He said he had been killing a sheep. I saw two spots of blood on his face, and the stains appeared fresh.
Cross-examined: I did not know him previously. I more especially noticed blood on the fore-finger and thumb of the left hand. The blood had not darkened. I did not see any blood about his clothes, although he was near me, but the carriage was full. The next time I saw him was at the inquest.
James Quinn Sheean (a lad), Examined by Mr. Duncan: In January last, my father kept a boarding house in Christchurch. I remembered Saturday, the 9th January last. I was at my father's house. [Witness looks at prisoner.] I saw that man. He and another man came to my father's house at ten o'clock that night. He came for a bed. Shortly afterwards he left the house to go and get a drink somewhere. He told us he was going for a drink; that was all. He came back in half an hour's time. He pulled out some blue paper in which he said there was a half pound of tobacco. He pulled out a knife, too, to look for some money. He hadn't any money, so he put the things back again. The knife had a brown handle and one blade in it. I took it in my own hands. I did not open it. [Knife produced.] That is something like the knife. I think it is the knife. I had it in my hand that night. I wouldn't recognise the clothes he had on, because it was dark. He had on a peaked cap like the one produced. He slept in the kitchen that night. He told us he was going to port next morning.
Cross-examined by Mr. Joynt: My father was at the theatre, and I went to look for him. I looked at the clock just before Mercer came in. I never saw the prisoner before that evening. I next saw him in the Court, nearly a month afterwards. There was only one man in our house that evening. He went up to bed at the time prisoner came in at the door. The man who was with prisoner did not come in, but went away with the prisoner. I asked prisoner for the shilling for his bed.

He gave it to me, and I gave it to my mother. When prisoner returned, he sat down, and said he would look for some money for drinks for the men. I don't think I would know the man who came with the prisoner. Why I know the prisoner, is, because when I got up next morning, he told me he was going in to port. I have seen two other knives. They had holes in them, and that is how I knew them from the one produced. [Laughter] It was at the Mitre Hotel I saw the prisoner. There were other men there at the time. Mr. Benjamin asked me if that was the man who was at my father's house. Mr. Feast also asked me. I told Mr. Benjamin that a man with some tobacco and a knife, stopped at our house and went away next morning. I told him he was a short man. I noticed the cap he wore. He was half drunk when he came to our house. I see a good many drunken men during the day. [Laughter]
John Davey, examined by Mr. Duncan: I am cook on board the Cleopatra. Last Jan she was lying in Lyttelton. I remember Sunday, January 10. I know the prisoner. He came on board that day between 11 and 12 o'clock. I would know the clothes he had on when he came on board. [Witness identifies the coat, trousers, and cap.] I did not take much notice of the waistcoat or muffler he had on. He went and washed himself, shifted his clothes, and overhauled his bag. I didn't see him do anything with the clothes he took off. I saw a knife with him at the time he was shifting his clothes. It was a one bladed knife. The knife produced is the one. I could not say whether he changed his under-clothing. After he had changed his clothing, I saw two or three articles of wearing apparel, which I took to be flannels, floating about the vessel. They hadn't been long in the water. They were not wet through. I picked up the knife produced on the following day (Monday) in the coal tub. I don't know what the prisoner did with the upper clothing which he took off. He had a bag for his clothing which he kept in the cabin.
Cross-examined by Mr. Joynt: I did not handle the knife until Monday, when I picked it up from the coal-tub, near the taff-rail. It was shut. I didn't take much notice of it, further than seeing it. It is a common sort of knife. I have seen a good many like it. I don't know that it is usual for seaman, when leaving a vessel, throwing worn-out clothing over the side of the vessel. I suppose people would heave things over that were of no use to them. All hands were leaving the Cleopatra that day. I saw the prisoner leaving the Cleopatra on the Saturday. As near as I could say, prisoner came on board the Cleopatra about 4 p.m. on the Saturday before.

There were no shore men working on board that day. Some other men did not go ashore from the Cleopatra that evening before I went ashore. The prisoner, myself, and another man went on shore together. It would be close upon 5 p.m. when we got on shore. I saw parties leave the Canterbury and go ashore before I went. I couldn't say when they knocked off. I do not know what was there usual time for knocking off. I couldn't say to a few minutes whether it was before or after 5 o'clock that we went ashore. We went into Parsons' public-house to get a drink of beer. I left prisoner and the other man behind me. The third man was named Brown. I don't know where he is now. I saw him a few weeks ago. He told me he was going to Wellington. I have not heard of him since.
By the Foreman: I have no idea why the clothes were thrown overboard.
By the Court: The prisoner seemed to be sober enough when we landed. Prisoner drank a bottle of lemonade at Parsons', Brown drank a pint of beer.
At this stage, at the request of Mr. Joynt, the further hearing of the case was adjourned until ten o'clock next morning.
Mr. Joynt intimated that he believed the case could be easily finished the next day.
The jury were locked up for the night in charge of Sergeant Wilson and a constable.

The Court reopened at ten o'clock, when the further hearing of the case was resumed. The court was crowded, and there was a larger number of females in the gallery and ground-floor of the Court-room, than on the previous day. The prisoner's appearance in the dock was marked by the same amount of self-possession as that which characterised him on the first day of the trial, and he evinced a considerable interest in the evidence as it proceeded.
On the jury reassembling, the foreman said the jury regretted that the adjournment took place so early on the previous afternoon. They hoped, however, that the learned counsel would not detain them longer than was necessary to meet the ends of justice, in order that they might have sufficient time to consult together and be discharged that day.
His Honor said that when the adjournment was asked for, he was in hopes the jury would express some opinion in the matter. However, he had no doubt the learned counsel on both sides would not occupy the time of the Court any longer than was absolutely necessary to meet the ends of justice. In a case of such a serious nature. it was usual to accord every possible latitude to the counsel for the prisoner, in order that he might have every opportunity perfecting his defence.
The examination of witnesses was resumed.

Harry Feast examined by Mr. Duncan: I am chief detective officer. I remember Saturday, the 9th January last. From information I received, I proceeded to Lyttelton, arriving there about midnight. I went on board the Cleopatra, on Monday following. in company with Sergeant-Major O'Grady. We went off to see the cook. When we went alongside, the prisoner was standing near the fore rigging, on the port side. O'Grady asked the prisoner if he was the cook. He said he was. We were both in plain clothes. I noticed a large piece of skin off the prisoner's nose, as I went up the side. I said "What is the matter with your nose/" He said "That was done some days before on board the schooner". We took the prisoner down into the cabin. I told him we wanted to look at his clothes. Previous to that, I asked him where he was on the Saturday night. He said he was in Christchurch. Prisoner pulled a bag from under a side bunk,in answer to me when I said I wanted to see his clothes. I said "Are these the clothes you wore on Saturday?" He said yes. I noticed some blood on the trousers, [Trousers produced and identified; also the coat.]. I also observed a lot of gorse stuck into the coat and trousers. [At the request of the foreman, the clothes were shown to the jury.] The muffler produced is the one which was in his bag. When I looked at the coat, I turned up the sleeve, and remarked that there was blood on the cuff. Prison said "Oh yes, I got that killing a sheep in Wellington." I then commenced to search the prisoner. In his waistcoat pocket I found a piece of tobacco. I asked him if he had any money, and he said no, After searching prisoner and not finding what I wanted, I asked him if he had a knife. He said "No, I never carry one." I remarked about the tobacco had been cut by a knife. He said "Oh yes, I cut it up with the galley knife." I said "You are not always in the galley." He said "When I am not there, I break it up with my fingers." I went to search him again. He asked me what I wanted, I said, "You murdered that poor girl; that is the mark of her fingers - the brand of Cain on your nose." Prisoner muttered out something to the effect, "Would you like me to say I did it ?" We then rolled up the clothes, and brought the prisoner on shore. When we got him to the police station I told him to strip. In taking off his socks, I noticed some dry gorse prickles in his socks. I noticed what I thought wee gorse prickles in his knees. Prisoner said they were not gorse prickles, but pimples. We squeezed one out, then sent for Dr. Rouse. We took out a number of gorse prickles from his knees and legs. I am not sure if we took any out of his hands. There was a scratch on his right hand. There was blood on his clothes, particularly on the cuff of his coat.

These are the socks which I pulled from the prisoner's feet. [Socks shown to the jury.] We detained the prisoner. I got the knife produced from McGuire, in D'Arcy's presence.
Cross-examined by Mr. Joynt: We went on board the Cleopatra soon after six on the Monday morning. The prisoner only was on board. He said he was the cook. A boat, I was told, had just left, taking someone on shore. I did not see the Captain. I believe prisoner knew who I was, and who the Sergeant-Major was. I am confident he knew both of us. He answered all my questions frankly and openly. We all went into the cabin together. Prisoner's bag was the ordinary kind of sailor's bag. I believe prisoner muttered the words, "Would you lie me to say I did it/" His tongue was all around his mouth, and it came out in a muttered kind of way.
Thomas O'Grady, examined by Mr. Duncan: I am Sergeant-Major of police, stationed at Lyttelton. I remember the 9th of January. From information I received, I went on board the Cleopatra on the morning of the 11th, in company with Detective Feast. On going alongside the vessel, which was lying in the stream, the prisoner came from the cabin to the forerigging on the port side of the vessel. I asked the prisoner what his name was. He said, "Mercer." Feast then came on board. I asked the prisoner what portion of the vessel he occupied. He said, "the cabin." We asked him into the cabin, and he went in before us. Prisoner had no coat or cap on. I asked him where his clothes where. He went into a vacant room on the port side of the cabin, and took from there a long clothes bag full of clothes. I took it from his hands as he came out of the room into the cabin. It was tied at the mouth. I commenced taking out the clothes. A short distance down I took out the trousers. I thought I noticed marks or stains of blood upon it. I put it one side. Almost at the bottom of the bag I found a coat, scarf, and cap. I saw marks of blood on the coat, and a large quantity on the inside of the cuff of the left-hand sleeve. We also observed blood on the scarf. I heard the detective ask the prisoner how the blood came upon his clothes. He said he got it by killing a sheep on board a vessel in Wellington. There was a mark on his nose, which he said he got on board the Canterbury schooner. There were scratches on his nose, and a scratch on his left hand. I told him to pick up his traps, as we would bring him on shore. I heard Feast say something about the mark of Cain on his nose, and prisoner said, "Would you like me to admit it /" He said he heard in Christchurch that we had arrested a man for it. I measured the distance between where the prisoner was standing and the coal tub; it was 6 ft 7 in. We took prisoner ashore in a boat, and up to my office. I told him to strip. He took off his trousers.

I remarked to Feast, "There are prickles all over him." Prisoner said, "It will take you all your time to pick them out." I said, "Why, man, they are sticking out at every inch." He said he had a breaking-out some time ago, and that they were pimples. I sent for Dr. Rouse. I eased the thorns out of his thighs, knees, hands, and fingers. Prisoner several times said they were not thorns. I took possession of the clothes, and showed them to Dr. Rouse. I assisted Dr. Rouse in taking a quantity of gorse prickles from the body of deceased. There was a great quantity of gorse prickles in the body of deceased. I cut some hair from the deceased head. It was full of gorse thorns. I took charge of the clothes which the child wore. They were all torn and covered with gorse and blood The boots and socks taken from the prisoner in my office, have also been in my possession. All the clothing has been in my possession until brought into court. I notice gorse prickles in almost all the articles produced, except the prisoner's cap. Prisoner admitted, in Detective Feast's presence in the cabin, that the coat, trousers and cap produced were those worn by him on the Saturday. I first saw the body of deceased at half-past six o'clock, on the evening of Jan. 9, at the police station. [At the production of the clothing which the deceased wore, a thrill of horror ran through the Court at the soiled and tattered appearances which they presented.] I heard Feast ask the prisoner if he had a knife, and he said, "No." Feast asked him how he cut up his tobacco, and he replied "With the galley knife." Feast said, "You are not always in the galley?" Prisoner said, "When I am not in the galley, I break it up with my fingers." The tobacco which we took from deceased, had signs of being recently cut by a knife. The deceased had a wound, running almost from the back of the neck to windpipe. [Sensation.] There was clotted blood on the face and hands of deceased. Dr. Rouse had been previously called to look at the body by Constable Wallace. I had the body removed to the morgue that night. The marks on the prisoner's nose and hand appeared to me to have been recently done/ I drew Dr. Rouse's attention to them in my office.
Cross-examined by Mr. Joynt: I had the description of a man on board the Cleopatra. I got my information the previous night. Feast did not in my hearing ask the prisoner if he was cook of the Cleopatra. Mercer was alone when we went on board. I afterwards understood that the crew were discharged from the vessel. He at once told me where he lived on board, and went and brought his clothes to us in the cabin. On the day after the discovery of the body (Sunday) another man was arrested. I did not arrest him. There was a boy who said he saw a man as the same sort as the other man arrested in company with a girl in Canterbury street.

He didn't actually identify the man. That man was placed in company with several others to be identified. The boy said he thought the other man arrested was like the man. I swear positively that not more than one person said so in my hearing or presence. The style of his beard and the coat he was wearing were similar to the prisoner's. The boy said, "That is like the man." The boy was very young. That took place in the police station. On the morning after the prisoner's arrest, I took him through Oxford street, Ripon street, Canterbury street, Winchester street, Dublin Street, and Norwich Quay. We passed by Rouse's house. I only took the prisoner into the dining-room of the hotel in which the inquest was held. That was between none and ten in the morning. The inquest was held at 11 a.m. The dress worn by the deceased was a light gray. I don't know a man named Wm. Brown, who was on the Canterbury. I have no recollection of ever hearing the name Brown in connection with the prisoner. I heard that Percy had been drinking with him during the day. I heard that a seaman had been seen with him at Parsons'. To the best of my belief, I have had no conversation with the man who was drinking with Darcy and the prisoner at 5 p.m. on Jan.9. I would not swear one way or the other.
Re-examined by Mr. Duncan: I am not sure that the other man was arrested. He was in the police station, brought there by Chief Detective Feast, but whether, or in what way he was arrested I don't know. I was taking the prisoner to the inquest when I took him round the streets, I have names, to take him away from the crowd. In fact, the prisoner thanked me for doing so.
By the Foreman: Prisoner went first into the cabin. There was not room for the three of us to go in together. It was before Annie Rouse made her statement or identified the prisoner, that I took him past the house on the way to the inquest. She had described the man to ma on the previous Saturday night.
Chief Detective Feast recalled: There was another man suspected of committing this murder, and I came to Christchurch to look for him. I found him in the police yard at Christchurch, Mr. Buckley was present. I looked at his knees, legs, and clothes. I knew that he only had that one suit of clothes. He came to Lyttelton in the same train with me, but not in the same carriage. He was not arrested. He paid his own fare, and came to Lyttelton with his own consent. He went up to the police office at Lyttelton of his own accord. He stopped there all night of his own accord.
By Mr. Joynt: The Railway constable was in the same carriage. I told him he was not in custody. I told him I did not at all suspect him. I fact, I knew perfectly well that he did not commit the murder.
By the Foreman: I couldn't say whether the prisoner had washed his clothes, because a considerable time had elapsed, and they were dry.

I might explain that a portion of the lining of the cuff of the coat was cut out for purposes of microscopic examination.
James Wallace, examined by Mr. Duncan: I am a constable in Lyttelton. I remember the 9th January last. On the evening of that day, I proceeded to the parsonage in Ripon street It was about 6:20 when I reached there. There were 4 or 5 boys there - John Baily and a boy named Rouse were there. On looking through the fence, I saw the body of deceased. Her face was covered with blood. The body was lying with the head down hill, into the root of the fence. Her feet were up the hill. Her clothes were thrown over her chest. She was bare up to the stomach. I saw a large wound commencing at the left ear and running round the throat. She was dead. I put my hand on her stomach, which was warm. Her limbs were cold. I got through the fence, about ten yards from where she was lying. Where the body was found was in an angle of the garden. The delineation of the spot on this plan is correct. I found a pair of drawers under the right thigh; they were torn and off her; there were two spots of blood on them. The button that fastened them behind was off, and they were hanging by a thread. The body of the dress was torn away. There was a great quantity of dead gorse lying loose where the body was found. I found the hat produced up the hill, about four feet from the body. I also found a man's pocket handkerchief stained with blood. I also found two school picnic tickets, lying about a foot from deceased right hand. The words, "Admit Mrs. Thompson" was on both tickets. Immediately on noticing the body, I sent for Dr. Rouse, and took charge of it until he arrived. After he came, I removed the body to the police station, where Sergeant O'Grady took charge of it.. Deceased's hair was matted with gorse. There was a pool of blood under her neck. There was a hole at the angle of the fence where the body lay. Cross-examined by Mr. Joynt: The handkerchief is too large to be a lady's handkerchief. There are no marks on it, save blood stains.
Llewellyn Powell, examined by Mr. Duncan: I am a legally qualified medical practitioner in Christchurch. In January last, Sergeant O'Grady took clothes to me for purposes of inspection. They consisted of a coat, scarf, pocket handkerchief, trousers, and shirt. [Identifies the the articles of clothing, except the trousers, which witness says he is not certain about.] I examined these articles. On the handkerchief there are stains of blood; on the coat, and particularly on the inside lining of the left cuff, there are stains of blood. I cut off a portion of the left cuff lining. I can see that it is the blood of a mammal. It would appear as though something had been wiped on the handkerchief produced. It presents the appearance that something similar to the knife produced had been wiped in it.

I examined the stains with the microscope and spectroscope, and also made a chemical test of the stains on the lining of the cuff. They appeared to be recent stains. I made the examination on Jan. 14.
Cross-examined by Mr. Joynt: The stains are those of the blood of an animal that suckles its young. That is the meaning of my answer. I am in the habit of making microscopical tests. The examination is not so satisfactory as when the stains are fresh, as regards the microscope, but as regards the spectroscope, the examination is perfectly satisfactory.
By the Foreman: It is laid down by writers on the microscope that you are not justified in saying whether dried blood is the blood of a human or a sheep.
Dr. Rouse, examined by Mr. Duncan: I remember the 9th of Jan. last. That evening, from information I received, I went to the parsonage grounds. Constable Wallace was there. I think it was about a quarter to seven o'clock when I reached there. I saw the dead body of a female child laying in the S. E. corner of the parsonage grounds. I found that the limbs were nearly cold. that the body had retained a considerable amount of warmth; that on the left side of the neck there was an extensive, gaping wound. occupying the whole of the left side of the throat. The head was lying rather down hill. The head was toward Ripon street, and the feet towards Oxford street. The body was obliquely across the angle. The legs were bare, and there were stains of blood about. The ground was thickly covered by dry gorse prickles. I took possession of the prickles produced, on the spot. Her hair was matted with gorse prickles. The body was removed on a stretcher to the police station I afterwards made a postmortem examination in company with Dr. McDonald. The wound on the neck was of a three-fold character. One incision commenced about the centre of the chin and went to the left, only dividing the skin for about two inches; then the instrument appeared to take a deep plunge, dividing the tissues for fully an inch and a half, then taking a direction upwards and backwards, dividing the tissues to the base of the skull. This last wound was fully five and a quarter inches long (Sensation); then there was a second wound, an inch and a quarter long, about half an inch below the first one, opening also into the main wound, the two forming a tongue of skin projecting into the wound; below this again there was a cut on the front of the throat, in one of the folds. of an inch and a half long. It was only skin deep. and had no connection with the main wound. The cause of death was the main wound, which divided the carotid artery. The body was that of a well nourished girl. Death would be almost instantaneous after the division of the carotid artery.

I have formed the opinion, from the character of the wounds, that they were inflicted with an instrument which was not very sharp, but at the same time not very blunt. The knife produced would inflict such wounds. I noticed stains on the pocket handkerchief as though a knife had been wiped on it. I remarked to the constable that they were the stains of a not very broad bladed knife. I noticed gorse prickles on the thighs and knees of the deceased. Those produced were what I extracted from the deceased. [Prickles shown to jury.] I formed an opinion that the girl had not been dead more than an hour. There were irregular marks on the right thigh and left hip of deceased. There were bruises on the upper part of each arm, on the forehead, and on the outer side of the right knee. The deceased was lying on her back when I first saw her. I saw the prisoner at the police station on Monday Jan. 11. He was then partially stripped. I examined his body in the presence of Sergeant-Major O'Grady. I noticed a number of spots about his legs, which prisoner said were pimples, Sergeant O'Grady said, "Are you sure they are not gorse thorns?" Prisoner said, "No, you will find no gorse thorns about me." With Sergeant O'Grady's assistance, I removed gorse thorns from the prisoner's legs, and the back of his left hand. I examined them with microscope, and pronounced them to be gorse thorns. I compared them with the points of gorse thorns taken from the spot where the body was found and find them to be identical. [Witness here handed in four gorse thorns - No. 1, taken from prisoners body; No. 2, from deceased's body; No. 3, which Sergeant O'Grady informed him, was taken out of accused's clothes; and No 4, taken from the spot in which the body was found. They were all identical. The thorns were handed over to the jury for examination.] I observed a mark, as though a recent scratch, on the bridge of prisoner's nose. I didn't examine the the clothes on the prisoner's body.
Cross-examined by Mr. Joynt: I say without hesitation, that they are all gorse prickles. I have examined them with a powerful microscope. I have examined prickles of other kinds by a microscope, but not in connection with this case. I confined my examination in this case to gorse prickles alone. Those that had penetrated deeply were a little stained with blood at the points. Precious examinations of prickles which I have made were simply made out of curiosity; not for any scientific reasons.
Hugh Macdonald, examined by Mr. Duncan: I am a legally qualified medical practitioner in Lyttelton. In company with Dr. Rouse, I made a post mortem examination of deceased on January 11. Her body was that of a remarkably strong, well nourished girl.
The witness gave corroborative evidence to the nature of the wounds on deceased's neck.

John Hall was called by the Crown prosecutor, but did not appear.
Mr. Duncan intimated that this was the case for Crown.
His Honor: Do you intend to call any witnesses, My Joynt?
Mr. Joynt: No, your Honor.
The court then adjourned for half an hour. On the Court reassembling, at five minutes past one o'clock,
Mr. Duncan proceeded to review the evidence which he had adduced in support of the indictment. In the first place, he had to congratulate the jury that every link of the evidence was, to his mind at all events, perfectly clear, leading from the murder of Isabella Thompson to the conviction of the prisoner. This, the learned gentleman said, was a murder of no ordinary nature. It was a murder which was committed day; committed in one or close to one of the public streets of Lyttelton; it was a murder committed by a strong man upon a weak young girl, for what purpose was best known to the prisoner. What that purpose was, it was not for him (the Crown Prosecutor) to say, but that in the prisoner's mind it necessitated the commission of this fowl and diabolical murder there was not a shadow of a doubt. He felt it required very little argument on his part to convince the jury of the prisoner's guilt. There was not a single missing link, not a ray of hope left to the counsel who appeared for the defence. It was the duty of the jury, not to hesitate unless they had a clear and distinct doubt in their minds, to say each to themselves, "Can I, as a reasonable man, convince myself that the prisoner is not the man who committed this dreadful and degrading crime?" He, (Mr. Duncan) asserted they could not, and therefore they must unhesitatingly arrive at the conclusion that the prisoner was guilty of the crime laid to his charge.
Mr. Joynt said it now became his duty to offer some remarks on the evidence that had been laid before them. In doing so, he hoped he should not be considered as desiring to palliate the enormity of the crime that had here been committed by someone - a crime of the very foulest and brutal nature that could possibly be perpetrated. The result of this trial, should they find the prisoner guilty, would be death, and therefore he most sincerely trusted that would give the case the fullest possible consideration, and arrive at a proper verdict. He had no doubt whatsoever that they had the greatest desire to arrive at the truth, and he would therefore refer to some parts of the evidence, which he thought were not conclusive. The evidence as to the knife was not conclusive, and the Crown might have brought forward more evidence as to the identity of the child who was seen with the prisoner. He would not quibble about minutes, because they did not enter into consideration at all in a case where the time must

necessarily be derived from a variety of clocks and in a great measure from mere speculation. Captain Russell and the mate said the child wore light clothes, but on their being produced, it was clear they did not answer this description. There was not by any means a certainty in the minds of these two men as to the clothes which the deceased wore, and he (Mr. Joynt) had reason to doubt that they did not recollect the features of the child whom they said they saw with the prisoner, Allen, who gave his evidence admittedly with a good deal of animus, could not be looked upon as an independent witness, and his evidence was weak and inconclusive as to the identity of the dead body with that of the child whom he had seen with the prisoner. Therefore, he would ask the jury to give this part of the evidence their earnest considerations. Why, he would ask, was not the boy brought forward by the Crown, who said that the other man who was arrested was like the man who he saw with the little girl ? Why was he not brought forward today to prove that the prisoner at the bar was the man. It came out in evidence that the man who was arrested resembled the prisoner in the cut of his beard and the clothes he wore, and this being the case it was quite possible that a mistake had been made by the witnesses who had sworn to the identification of the prisoner at the bar, and the clothes he wore on the day of the murder. They might take a hundred labourers and sailor men, and find it extremely difficult to make any distinction between the clothes they wore and those that was said were worn by by the prisoner, because they were common clothes, known as "slops," and were very generally worn in the country. He did not think that in a mere momentary glance the girl Rouse could have obtained such a fixed impression of the prisoner as to swear to his identity and to the clothes he wore, with such minuteness as characterised her evidence on this head. If she were capable of doing this, all he could say was that it would be a loss to the country if she were not taken on the detective force. Mrs. Toomey's was not conclusive. On the contrary it was of such a nature as to give rise to very important doubts. Neither was Skeet's evidence of that conclusive character which was essential to the placing of it beyond any doubt. With regard to the taking of the clothes out of the bag, the fact of the trousers being found near the top, and the coat, scarf, and cap near the bottom, gave rise to the presumption that they, like the other contents of the bag, had been put into it at various times. The alleged use of the alternative threat by the prisoner, "that if he didn't get a girl he would cut her throat or weasand," was utterly and grossly absurd, because if he intended to cut anyone's throat, was it likely that he would tell another beforehand ? He did not for one moment think that the prisoner at the bar, who was stated to be sober, ever made use of such an expression.

The evidence of the Crown was not conclusive, that the prisoner was telling a lie when he said that the blood on his clothes was caused by him killing sheep. It is quite possible that he might have killed a sheep when he joined the Cleopatra. He (Mr. Joynt) did not assert that he did or did not assert that he did not kill a sheep, but the Crown had failed to establish as an undoubted fact that the blood on his clothes was not the blood of a sheep, but that of the poor girl whose body was found lying in the parsonage grounds at Lyttelton. Whatever might be the result of this case, he must say that the police had shown a great deal of energy in attempting to bring the supposed perpetrator of the crime to justice; but he thought the man who was held in custody and afterwards discharged by Sergeant-Major O'Grady ought to have been produced by the Crown. The jury must have great hesitation in accepting the evidence of the lad Sheehan; it was given by rote. He swore to the knife being that which prisoner had with him, while in another breath he informed the Court that it was too dark to enable him to say what clothes the prisoner wore on the Saturday night. Darcy swore that the knife was the prisoner's, but he could not possibly have been certain of it or he would not have thought it necessary to mark it for purposes of future identification. Percy, who only had the knife once in his hands, swore with such vigour as to say that the knife had all along belonged to prisoner. To swear so positively to the identity of a very common knife must occasion very serious doubts on the minds of the jury, as to the nature of the evidence that was being given. If the knife belonged to the prisoner, and he had committed this crime, there was nothing easier for him to do than to throw it into Lyttelton Harbour, from which no human power could have recovered it. Then, again as to the articles of clothing which were seen floating about the vessel. If the prisoner had committed this murder, why did he not throw overboard those articles of clothing which were stained with blood and which would lead to his conviction. It must be borne in mind that about six seaman were discharged from the Cleopatra and that the articles seen floating round the vessel might have been thrown by any of them. The prisoner was not seen observed to throw anything overboard. Under all these circumstances, he submitted that the evidence, as to the knife and the clothing seen floating round the vessel was not of such a conclusive nature as to vest their ownership on the prisoner. There was nothing to prevent the prisoner's clothing being stained with blood from the half of the bullock's carcass which was brought on board the vessel at Makapawn. Another thing he would ask the jury to do, was to dismiss from their minds everything connected with what Captain Russell had said on the previous day as to the prisoner's connection with a little girl at the Bulier. This was all hearsay, Capt. Russell stating

that he had been told by the mother of the girl. This was all hearsay, Capt. Russell stating that he had been told so and so by the mother of the girl. He (Mr. Joynt) believed he was right in stating that the learned judge would direct them to take no notice whatever of that portion of the evidence. With reference to the identity of the girl seen with the prisoner on Saturday afternoon, he thought that Captain Russell should have been taken to the dead house to identify the body, if he could do so, as that of the girl whom he had seen with the prisoner. On the whole, the evidence as to the identity of the deceased with the little girl who was seen by the prisoner was very inconclusive. As to the prickles found on the prisoner's clothing and body , he (Mr. Joynt) could not bring evidence to trace his whereabouts on the Saturday night or Sunday, but there was nothing to prevent those prickles getting into his body and clothes on the Sunday. The matters he had pointed out to the jury were matters upon which there was a considerable amount of doubt. It was not to his mind satisfactorily conclusive that the person seen with the little girl and the man afterwards seen coming down the hill were identical. He felt sure they would weigh all the points he had directed their attention to before arriving at a decision. The learned counsel thus concluded - Gentleman, I know commend the case to you. I need not impress on you any more, the very great responsibility that devolves on you, because on the verdict you find hangs the death or the life of the prisoner at the bar. I do not wish to intimidate or terrify you, by pointing out that the weight of this man's blood will be at your doors, if his life is wrongly forfeited, because I know that you will give a verdict in all sincerity and truth. The monster who could have committed such a crime as this is not safe in society; he ought to suffer death, but I would ask you too bear in mind that the death of an innocent person is a very serious thing. I have no doubt that before you arrive at a conclusion, you will have satisfied yourselves beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the hand of the prisoner at the bar, and his hand alone, that committed the deed. If I had wished to make up a sensational defence, I could have brought cases before you where circumstances have led to the conviction and death of innocent persons - circumstances that no human thought or foresight could have conceived would have erroneously pointed so closely and narrowly to their guilt, but by Providential interposition, unfortunately too late, it turned out they had hanged the wrong men; and in some instances the guilty parties have confessed that those innocently convicted had been wrongly hanged. There is one case on record where persons put their heads together, and swore to the guilt of a person who was hanged, and those persons subsequently confessed, were tried and executed for conspiring to cause the death of that man.

But I did not think it necessary to refer to such cases as these, for I am sure that you will not leave unconsidered any point to which your attention may be directed, either by my learned friend, by myself, or by the learned Judge in summing up the evidence. I now leave the case in your hands. I have done all that I consider I well can do, and it will be for you to consider whether my exertions will be of any good or not. Whatever you verdict will be, I feel perfectly satisfied that it will be a righteous verdict. His Honor: Gentlemen of the jury, what you have to consider in this case is, whether the death of Isabella Thompson was caused by the prisoner at the bar. If you find it was caused by him, then you must find him guilty; if not; you must acquit him. In this case and in most cases where great crimes have been committed, the evidence must be, and it almost universally is, of a circumstantial nature. Circumstantial evidence, when the concurrent circumstances are sufficiently numerous and the whole body of circumstances hang together consistently, is frequently even as conclusive as the evidence of an eye witness or eye witness of the fact. Now, gentlemen, let us take, in the first instance, the acts of the prisoner on that day - where he was seen. The evidence of several witnesses is, that he was seen in Lyttelton during several parts of the morning and afternoon of Saturday, the 9th January. His Honor then proceeded to refer to the evidence that had been brought against the prisoner, commenting upon it with great care and minuteness. His honor concluded as follows: - Gentlemen, I think I have now gone through most of the main points of the main parts of the evidence. If there is any part of the evidence you would like me to refer to now or at any other time, I shall only be too happy to do so. Now, gentlemen, as to your duty. It is your duty, in the first instance, to consider how far the facts are satisfactorily proved. If the facts so proved, taken together, exclude from your minds every reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt, and are inconsistent with any rational explanation that he is not the man who committed this crime, then you must find him guilty accordingly; if, however, you think the facts proved do not establish his guilt to a moral certainty and to the exclusion of a doubt, you must acquit him; but it must be a reasonable

doubt that can warrent you in returning a verdict of acquittal, because you must bear in mind that any light, trivial or fanciful doubts in the matter, are as much a violation of a juror's oath as to convict on insufficient evidence. You will please consider your verdict.
In answer to the foreman,
His Honor said that the jury must entirely dismiss from their minds any rumours that they might have heard about the prisoner.
The jury then (five minutes to four o'clock) retired to their room in charge of two constables to consider their verdict. At this time, and for hours before, all parts of the Court were densely crowded, and it is no credit to their sex to have to state that the number of females in attendance was disappointingly large.
After the lapse of twelve minutes, the jury returned into Court. There was then intense commotion in Court.
The Registrar: Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon your verdict?
The Foreman: After a most careful consideration of the evidence, we find the prisoner, "Guilty."
The Registrar then asked the prisoner what was his age.
Prisoner (in a clear, firm voice) - 31.
The Registrar, after the usual preliminary, asked the prisoner if he had anything to say why he should not die according to law ?
Prisoner (Firmly): All I have to say is, that I am not guilty. If fifty jurymen had found me guilty, I am not guilty. I never killed that child.
His Honor: Prisoner at the bar, after a long and careful trial, and an able defence, you have been found guilty by a jury of your countrymen of a most brutal murder upon an unfortunate, innocent, unoffending child. You must know that in this world, as you showed no mercy to her, so also, you can expect no mercy from the society you have outraged. The judgment of the Court is (here his Honor assumed the black cap) that you, John Mercer, be taken to the place of execution, and there, in manner and form by law provided, hanged by the neck until you are dead, and may God have mercy on your soul. The prisoner was then immediately removed from the dock, and the Court adjourned until Monday next, at 1 a.m.