ances of the bed, he found a piece of paper crumpled
up; this was sent to an analyst on the following day. An inquest was
held and a post-mortem directed.

Horsford at the inquest swore that he had never written to the
deceased or visited her.

On the evening of Saturday the 8th, after the post-mortem, Mrs.
Hensman and another woman found between the mattress and the bed a
packet of papers. These were also submitted for analysis. One of them
contained 35 grains of strychnine; another had crystals of strychnine
upon it. There was writing on one of the packets, and it was the
handwriting of the prisoner; it said, "Take in a little water; it is
quite harmless. Will come over in a day or two." On another packet was
written: "One dose; take as told," also in the prisoner's handwriting.

The body had been buried and was exhumed. Three grains of strychnine
were found by the county analyst in such parts of the stomach as were
submitted to him. Dr. Stevenson took other parts to London, and the
conclusion he came to was that at least 10 grains must have been in
the body at the time of death, while 1/2 grain has been known to be
fatal.

There was a singular circumstance in the defence of this case, one
which I have never heard before or since, and that was a complaint
that the counsel for the prisoner was "twitted" by the Crown because
he had not called _evidence for the defence_. The jury were solemnly
asked to remember that if one jot or tittle of evidence had been put
forward, or a single document put in by him, the prisoner's counsel,
he would _lose the last word on behalf of the prisoner_! Of course,
counsel's last word may be of more value than some evidence; but the
smallest "jot or tittle" of evidence, or any document whatever that
even _tends_ to prove the innocence of the accused, is of more value
than a thousand last words of the most powerful speaker I have ever
listened to. And I would go further and say that evidence in favour of
a prisoner should never be kept back for the sake of the last word.
It is the bounden duty of counsel to produce it, especially where
evidence is so strong that no speech could save the prisoner. Neither
side should keep back evidence in a prisoner's favour. I said to the
jury,--

"We are assembled in the presence of God to fulfil one of the most
solemn obligations it is possible to fulfil, and I will to the best of
my ability assist you to arrive at an honest and just conclusion.

"