Appendix A.
prosecution were unable to say at any time, " Did 5iajor Amorous giv«
his wife a drink or food in which there might have b&en arsenic?
Mr. JUSTICE AVOSY—Are yon accurate in that? Look at the qseatiaz*
put to Nurse Allen, " Who, on those occasions, wozild be left be£ind to
feed her? " and the answer, "* ilajor Armstrong.*'
Sir HENEY CCSTIS BENNETT said that- the whole thing was assumption.
Here was a nurse who was in charge who would say that she only want
out at the most opportune moment to leave her patient. Any person might
give her drink.
Mr. JUSTICE AVOBY—I read it that when Nurse Allen went out she
left Major Armstrong behind in the room.
Sir EENBY CUBTIS BENNETT—I agree that he was in the hcuse and
in his wife's room.
Mr. JUSTICE SHEABM&N—A husband must be frequently left like that.
Sir HENEY CUBTIS BENNETT—If a, man is accused of mordericg hia
wife, and there is poison in the house7 if he does not go into the room
people say that he is keeping away to divert suspicion, and if he does
go in, then that act in itself is put against him.
The Loar> CHIEF JUSTICE—There is ample evidence of opportunity,
and there is evidence of occasions when the husband was in the bedroom
alone.
Sir HENBY CUBTIS BENNETT—I accept that. There was opportunity;
but it was consistent with his innocence that he went to the room.
Miss Pearce also said that ilrs. Armstrong did not take to bed
regularly until 16th February, on which day Mrs, Armstrong told her that
she thought that she had "taken a chill." That was the only evidence
except the appellant's as to 16th February.
The ATTOBNEY-GENEBAL—Dr. Hincks referred to it. Nurse Ailea
spoke of the patient's sitting in the verandah with a hot-water bottle at
the end of the previous week.
Sir H. CUBTIS BENNETT said that the fact remained that she was wroag,
and that the defence had corroborated the fact that she was down on
16th February. In her statement to the police oa 3rd February—long
before she was treated as a hostile witness—Hiss Pearce said that Mrs.
Armstrong sat in the garden on 14th February. He admitted that there
was some vomiting on 13th February, but not that it became continuous
then. He drew a sharp distinction' between anything Mrs. Armstrong
was suffering from before 16th February and what happened after. Up
to that date everything she suffered was consistent with her medical
history.
The prosecution said that arsenic was being administered from 3rd
February. Yet on the 6th the man who was suggested to be poisoning
his wife called Dr. Hincks's attention to her condition.
Wherever Nurse Allen's evidence could be tested it was wrong. The
second instance was that she said it was on 17th February that Dr.
Hincks was sent for. That was wrong. Dr. Hincks said that it was on
16th February. It might not be a great matter, but when her evidence
was made a basis on which expert medical evidence was founded, it
became important. According to Nurse Allen, from 16th February thia
poor woman was suffering from very nearly continuous vomiting, and
was becoming weaker and weaker. But it was again possible to test her
evidence Mrs. Armstrong died at 10 a.m. on 22nd February: during
the last two days, said Nurse Allen—i.e., from 10 a.nx on 20tb Febniary
—Mrs Armstrong suffered from almost continuous vomitmg and diarrhcea.
On the night of that Sunday, 20th February, Nurse Allen, wait-off duty
at 10 p.m., just thirty-six hours before Mrs. Armstrong died. Her place
was taken for ten hours by Nurse Lloyd.
The remaining material dates could be stated briefly. On 22ad February
Major Armstrong was told at 8 a.m. that his wife was 01 eatfremi*.
367