in.  The object of the cross-examination was to show that some evil-disposed person had entered the house and placed things there without any motive.  But whoever may have gone into that house, there was one person who did not go—­one who, above all others, owed deceased some respect—­and that is the prisoner; and unless you can wipe out the half-crown letter from your mind, you would have expected a man on those intimate terms with the poor woman to have gone and made some inquiries concerning her death.  He did not go; he was at the Falcon Hotel at Huntingdon, and a telegram was sent telling him to fail not to be at the inquest.

“At the inquest he told a deliberate lie, for he swore he had never written to the woman, or sent her anything, or been on familiar terms with her.  He had written to her, and if his letter did not prove familiar terms, there was no meaning in language.

“With regard to the prisoner’s alleged handwriting on the packets and papers found under the woman’s bed and elsewhere, I must point out to you that here is one on which is written, ’Take in a little water; it is quite harmless.  Will come over in a day or two.’

“This was written on a buff paper, which Dr. Stevenson said must have contained 35 grains of strychnine, sufficient to kill thirty-five persons, and the direction written was, ‘One dose; take as told.’

“These inscriptions were sworn to by experts as being in the prisoner’s handwriting.”

Here I pointed out the alleged resemblances in the characters of the letters, so that the jury might judge if the prisoner wrote them.

“If the prisoner wrote the words ‘take as told,’ you must ask yourselves the meaning of it.

“Also, you will ask whether it was not a little strange that the death occurred on that very Friday night when he said he would go over and see her.  Again, the word ‘harmless’ is of the gravest character, seeing that within the folds of that paper were 35 grains of a deadly powder, which even for rat-powder would be mixed with something else.

“Again, as to motive, upon which so much stress has been laid by the defendant’s counsel.  If the prisoner had no motive, who else had?  Is there a human being on earth who had ill-will towards her, or anything to gain by her death?  The learned counsel carefully avoided suggesting any one; nor could he suggest that any one in the neighbourhood wrote the same handwriting as the prisoner.  I will dismiss the theory that some one had imitated the prisoner’s writing in order to do him an injury, and ask if you can see any reason for any one else giving the woman the powder.

“There is one fact beyond all dispute:  in December the prisoner bought a shilling’s worth of strychnine.  He said he bought it for rats, but no one on the farm had been called to prove it.  What has been done with the rest of the powder?

“Where was he on that Friday?  His counsel said he could not prove an alibi.  But if he was at Spaldwick after saying he was going to St. Neots to see this poor woman, he could have proved it.