Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The New Zealand Railways Magazine, Volume 8, Issue 1 (May 1, 1933)

Famous New Zealand Trials — C.A.L. Treadwell, O.B.E. — No. 2 — The Trial of Thomas Hall and Margaret Houston

page 32

Famous New Zealand Trials
C.A.L. Treadwell, O.B.E.
No. 2
The Trial of Thomas Hall and Margaret Houston

Some young couples begin their married lives with little else but love to start them on their way; some have little else but wealth and social position. Lucky indeed are the couple who have all three advantages. When Thomas Hall and his wife, Kate Emily Cain, were married in Timaru on 26th May, 1885, there seemed to be nothing that they needed to ensure a happy life for them both. At that time Hall had joined with a Mr. Laing-Meason in what appeared a flourishing business. About a month after his wedding day Hall was guilty of forging a promissory note for £620 which he discounted with a bank. From this time to the date of his arrest he forged a number of other notes for the purpose of staving off the day of reckoning. He falsified the books of the firm. He was able to do this without his partner's knowledge as Mr. Laing-Meason had nothing to do with the running of the office.

While he was forging securities for the purpose of raising money he appeared to all the world to be the young happily married man who, with a loving wife and a flourishing business, had the world at his feet. His wife was devoted to him and appeared to have no misgivings with regard to her husband. Very soon after his marriage it became clear to Hall that he needed a large sum of money to save him from gaol and he set his mind upon a scheme which he very nearly carried out, and which branded him as a most diabolical fiend.

Taking advantage of the trusting and loving nature of his wife he persuaded her to make her will in his favour. This was not his first step in his scheme for her destruction. The will was made in August 1885, but in May 1885, a few weeks before his wedding, he purchased “Taylor on Poisons.” A few weeks after his wedding he began a systematic purchase of antimony or tartar emetic, and colchicum, both of which are poisons. The month after Mrs. Hall had made a will in her husband's favour he insured her life for £3,000. When this had been effected Hall stood to lose an annuity of £250 if anything unforeseen should carry off his wife, but against this it was estimated he would immediately gain about £10,000. Hall purchased in all a great deal more poison than was needed to dispose of his wife.

Then for the first time in her life Mrs. Hall was taken ill with vomiting and acute abdominal pains. The illness was put down to the fact that she was about to become a mother. From that time Hall did little or nothing to disturb his wife's health. It is very difficult to understand why he withheld his hand over that period unless it was that when she was delivered of her child, that infant might become the fortunate possessor of the annuity, which Hall stood to lose if his wife should die. Mrs. Hall's page 33 child was born on the 19th June, 1886, and her husband was most solicitous for her welfare.

Suddenly, and for no apparent reason, Mrs. Hall was taken seriously ill. Again she vomited and suffered great pain in her stomach. The first spasms of this illness were on the 23rd June, and they continued, in spite of all the family doctor could do. He was frankly puzzled and called in another doctor in consultation. Meanwhile Hall went on buying tartar emetic and colchicum. On the 5th July, which was the day after the first consultation between the doctors, he bought five ounces of colchicum. The doctors were fearful that Mrs. Hall was dying. She rallied and continued to improve a little and then to relapse again until the 12th August, when the doctor in attendance, Dr. McIntyre, called in two doctors for a further consideration of the case. The doctors examined the patient silently and then they looked at each other. They nodded; they had come to the same conclusion independently. Mrs. Hall was being slowly poisoned, and sinking rapidly to her death. Immediate action was necessary. They at once ordered that in the meantime she take no further food through her mouth. Dr. McIntyre exercised more vigilance than ever, for when some samples taken from his patient were analysed his suspicions were definitely confirmed. Antimony had been discovered.

“He then collapsed and the police inspector sent his assistant for brandy from the next room.”

“He then collapsed and the police inspector sent his assistant for brandy from the next room.”

Without further delay Dr. McIntyre called at the local detective office and told Detective Kirby that Mrs. Hall was being poisoned. He also stated that the only persons who could be committing the crime were Hall, and the lady-help, Miss Houston. The detective and his Inspector took some time to be convinced that such an apparently happy man as Hall was such a fiend, but convinced they were. Suddenly the detective and three constables descended on Hall and Miss Houston and arrested them both. The police officer said to them: “I arrest you both on a charge of attempting to poison Mrs. Hall by administering antimony.” Not a word was said for a moment by either of the two accused, then Miss Houston turned to Hall and said, “Oh, antimony, that's what you got for your photography.” Then Hall answered huskily, “Yes, you have nothing to do with this.” Turning to the police, he said: “What shall I say? I suppose a man must be very careful when a charge like this is made against him?” The police officer said, “Say what you please, or say nothing if you think fit.” Hall then made the following remark: “I've used antimony for a long time. I've got it to make up into cigarettes with other things for my asthma. You know how I suffer from asthma. I have bought tartar emetic at both Gunn's and Eichbaums'. But whatever I have done in this matter, I have done by myself. There is nobody else concerned.”

Suddenly Hall thought of some damning evidence that he was carrying at that moment on his person and he looked for a way to rid himself of it. He looked at the fire burning cheerily in the grate and, as he moved towards it, his hand strayed towards his trousers pocket. He was firmly ordered to keep his hands out of his pocket. He then collapsed, and the police inspector sent his assistant for brandy from the next room. Then Hall desperately plunged his hand into his pocket. The inspector threw himself on Hall and then followed a desperate struggle. Hall was lifted to his feet, and as he stood up he kicked at a cork on the ground. His trousers were noticed to be stained. He had succeeded in uncorking a small bottle in his pocket, but sufficient remained to bear the tell-tale evidence of poison. Both prisoners were taken to prison, and next morning Timaru awoke to the greatest scandal it had experienced.

Among the interesting pieces of evidence found in the house was a book lying on Hall's table. It was “Taylor on Poisons.” It was dated by Hall as if he had bought it in Dunedin some years page 34 before. It was, however, proved at the trial that he had purchased the book in Timaru on 9th May, which was just before his wedding day.

The preliminary hearing was taken in Timaru and the trial was then removed to Christchurch. The trial was begun on the 8th October, 1886, before Mr. Justice Johnston and a common jury. The case was of such interest and importance that the Attorney General, Sir Robert Stout led for the Crown. He was assisted bv Mr. J. C. Martin (afterwards Mr. Justice Martin), a brilliant barrister. The third counsel was Mr. White, the Crown Solicitor of Timaru. The prisoner, Hall, was defended by Mr. Joynt (then a leading and successful barrister of Christchurch) assisted by Mr. Perry of Timaru. Mr. Hay, then a young but brilliant barrister, defended Miss Houston.

The trial began on Monday, the 11th October, and did not conclude till the afternoon of Tuesday the 19th October. The Attorney General opened the trial with a strong speech, though little stress was laid on the part Miss Houston was supposed to have played. This was not surprising, for the evidence was illusory and very circumstantial.

The first witnesses deposed to the forgeries. This was for the purpose of shewing motive. Some reason for such a crime is to be expected though strictly speaking it is not necessary for the Crown to shew the reason for the prisoner's acts. The fact is all that is necessary.

This case presented no difficulty to the Crown on the score of lack of motive. It was established by these first witnesses that the prisoner, a well known, respected citizen was in reality a forger, and in the throes of his debts. The bank officials spoke of his large overdraft and how it was diminished by the discounting of promissory notes. It was then proved that these notes were forgeries. Then Hall's partner, Mr. Gilbert Laing-Meason, explained that he had known nothing of the financial position of the firm as he was the “outside man.” He told the Court that since the revelations his firm had been made bankrupt. Then came a witness to swear that Hall had approached him and effected a life insurance on the life of his wife for the sum of £3000.

At the end of the first day of the trial Mr. Joynt was very anxious to obtain a ruling from the Judge whether the Attorney General had the right to the last word in reply at the end of the case, even if he did not call evidence for the defence. The right to have the last word is a right that belongs to the Attorney General by virtue of his office. The Attorney General insisted on his right, but the Judge refused to rule at that stage of the trial. The second day opened with witnesses denying that their names, appearing on notes banked by Hall, were signed by them. Mrs. Hall's solicitor then swore to Mrs. Hall's means. She had certain land and an income from the estate of her mother for her life amounting to about £250 annually.

The next important witness was a Nurse Ellison. She was the mid-wife and spoke of Mrs. Hall's taking ill three or four days after a normal confinement. She told how Hall used to bring her her breakfast and how he displayed all the indicia of a fond and loving husband. On one occasion the nurse gave her some oysters which Mrs. Hall enjoyed. So the next day Miss Houston brought her up some more, but violent sickness succeeded the swallowing of these.

Dr. McIntyre gave evidence on the third day and his evidence was most important. It was he who first suspected poison and he was responsible for the subsequent arrest of the prisoners. After referring to the confinement on the 19th June, Dr. McIntyre told of Mrs. Hall's subsequent illness. He said on the fourth day there was sickness, vomiting and retching. This condition continued till the 16th August. The spasms of sickness sometimes lasted for hours though sometimes for days. Then other doctors were called in in and still the patient got no better. On the 12th August after three consultations, suspicion began to take form in Dr. McIntyre's mind. He succeeded in taking certain tests from Mrs. Hall's body and the results were analysed by him and Dr. Drew. Antimony was suspected and that poison was found.

For the next few days the closest watch was kept by the doctors with regard to the food Mrs. Hall was to take, and definite orders were given that the nurse alone was to give the food. Further tests from the body were taken and again antimony was found. On the 17th August, Dr. McIntyre called on the police. Following that call the prisoners were arrested. The cross examination of Dr. McIntyre did not depreciate the value of his evidence to any extent, so far as Hall was concerned. He said that he had involved Miss Houston in the charge because she had been associated in the cooking of Mrs. Hall's food. Dr. Drew's evidence followed that of Dr. McIntyre and corroborated it.

The police then gave evidence of the arrest, including the struggle at the home when Hall tried to dispose of the evidence he was carrying in his pocket. Professor Gow followed the police witnesses with scientific evidence of tests he had made for poison in certain exhibits.

Retail chemists told of many purchases openly made by Hall of the poisons. The daring of these purchases was one of the curious features of the case. A bookseller, Peter Hutton then told how Hall had called on him in Timaru on the 9th May, 1885 and said “I want a book which will give me some information about antimony.”

The next witness was directed against Miss Houston. The gaoler deposed to a letter that Miss Houston had written to Hall while awaiting trial. It was supposed to show great page 35 friendship between the two prisoners. The amazing thing about the matter was that the gaoler destroyed the letter and relied on his memory to say what the contents were. He remembered it began with the words:

Locomotive 5104 of the Canadian National Railways and her French-Canadian crew, Jos. Senios and J. E. Marcoux, snapped recently at Quebec by Mr T. R. Aickin (centre), Wellington.

Locomotive 5104 of the Canadian National Railways and her French-Canadian crew, Jos. Senios and J. E. Marcoux, snapped recently at Quebec by Mr T. R. Aickin (centre), Wellington.

“Dear Tommy Dodd,” and went on: “I should like very much to see you. I have not asked them, as it is contrary to the rules. Cheer up, Monday will soon be here. Is not this dreadful weather? If it does not clear up we shall have to make another ark. Ever yours, Megrims.”

The reference to “Tommy Dodd” was no doubt got from the name of a song that was popular in those days. It is doubtful whether the jury took the smallest interest in this piece of evidence for the reason that the gaoler was speaking from memory of the contents of the letter and that it was still more extraordinary that the letter had been destroyed. In any event the language of the letter was not inconsistent with the two living on friendly but perfectly proper relations.

The evidence came to a close in the morning of Monday the 18th October and then the question of whether the Attorney General had the right to have the last word was decided. Mr. Joynt said he did not propose to call evidence, and denied the right of the leader for the prosecution to have the final address to the jury. The Attorney General insisted on his right and the Judge upheld him. Having succeeded in gaining his point the Attorney General said he was satisfied in establishing his right, but that he did not propose to exercise it on this occasion.

Mr. Hay called some witnesses to testify to Miss Houston's excellent reputation. The Attorney General then made his final speech to the jury. He connected Miss Houston with the crime for the following reasons; the oysters she took to Mrs. Hall were poisoned and, if Hall poisoned them, she probably knew. It was conceded that there were no immoral relations between Hall and Miss Houston. He said however that they were on excellent terms and she had the best of means to know what he was doing. She must have seen the book on poisons on Hall's bedroom table as she made his bed. She did not volunteer any evidence to help the police, but tried to hinder the inspector in the struggle with Hall. So far as Hall was concerned he submitted that the clearest case had been made against him and he marshalled the evidence with great skill.

In Mr. Joynt's address to the jury he made a powerful and eloquent appeal for his client. He stressed the prejudice against which he had to struggle. He plausibly attacked the question of motive and shewed how loving and attentive Hall had shewn himself to be and how his wife had adored him. He suggested the tests for antimony made by the doctors were inconclusive and unreliable. He relied on the fact that proof was wanting of Hall's handing his wife any particular food that was proved to have been poisoned. He showed that Hall had suffered from sciatica and asthma and that these poisons were part of the treatment for these ailments. He stressed the uncertainty of the evidence and took advantage of the fact that Mrs. Hall had not been called by the Crown to prove the administration of the poison.

Mr. Hay's speech was a sensible and appealing one to the jury. There was no connection with Mrs. Hall and the poisoning, and he traversed with skill all the evidence touching her, and closed his address asking not only for an acquittal, but for a vindication.

The Judge's summing up was concise and clear. He concentrated his attention to Hall's part in the tragedy. He was quite fair.

The jury were out for the very short space of seven minutes. In answer to the registrar's usual question the foreman said: “We find the prisoner, Thomas Hall, guilty and the prisoner Margaret Graham Houston, not guilty. Can we, your Honour, add anything to that verdict” The Judge said he would not object to their making a statement. The foreman page 36 then added: “The jury wish to state that they are unanimously of opinion that Margaret Graham Houston leaves the Court without a stain or blemish on her character.”

That she did so must be the opinion of anyone who takes the care to consider the evidence given at the trial. Having called on the prisoner the Judge sentenced him in these words:—“After a long and patient investigation, the jury have come to the conclusion which at once satisfies the ends of public justice, and ensures the protection of persons accused, but not guilty. The crime of which you have been convicted is one of the most inhuman and detestable crimes that one has ever read or heard of. You were a young man recently married to a young wife. That young wife was the mother of your first child. She was a woman whom you treated, in the world's eye, with all the consideration and respect due to her. She was a woman whose bedside you visited every morning with the deadly poison in your hand; a woman whom you saw day by day, hour by hour, stepping nearer to that grave to which you were endeavouring to consign her.

“You were getting for yourself a possible reputation for being a kind and considerate husband, whilst all through those long months you were seeking her destruction and her death. From the very hour you led her to the altar the thought was in your heart of sending her to her grave. No language that I can use can sufficiently describe the detestable character of the crime of which you have been found guilty. You had no excuse of intrigue or the temptation, such as we read of in poisoning cases, to urge you on to the commission of the crime.

(Govt. Publicity photo.) The entrance to Nelson Harbour (through the famous Boulder Bank), South Island, New Zealand.

(Govt. Publicity photo.)
The entrance to Nelson Harbour (through the famous Boulder Bank), South Island, New Zealand.

“Most murderers are kind when compared with you, for you have murdered from hour to hour, from day to day, from week to week. I am bound to say, though I make it a rule not to speak in strong terms to anyone fallen to such depths of human degradation, still in the interests of public justice, it is my duty to say that you have achieved in the annals of crime the position of being the vilest criminal ever tried in New Zealand. If the law, as applied to the crime for which you have been found guilty, was not merciful, you would most certainly have forfeited your life. The law does not permit me to pass the sentence of death upon you, but I shall proceed to pass a sentence which will stamp the detestation and horror of the crime of which you have been guilty. I now pass on you the next dread sentence of the law, which is that you be kept in penal servitude for the rest of your natural life.”

And so passed away behind the bars of a prison a man who, with all the advantages of a good social position and a good upbringing with which to begin his career, chose rather, through cupidity and a brutal nature, to commit a crime which is almost unrivalled in its baseness. Later Hall was released and he spent the rest of his life in comparative seclusion. There was one other incident to make the story complete. After his conviction his case went before the Court of Appeal on matters of pure law, touching the admissibility of certain of the evidence. The nature of that application (which failed) is not of general interest.