when alive. Healey also declared that a sum of money contained in the purse was some he was keeping for his aunt; but the amount and appearance of the bank notes, tallied in some respects with money said to belong to Ritchie. Evidence yvas also given of conversations held by Healey with several persons during his incarceration, in yvhich, though he denied any implication in the actual murder, he confessed to knowing a good deal about it, and sought to cast suspicion upon persons not in custody. In the course of the trial strange disclosures yvere m a d e as to the social and moral condition of the community at Tarraville. There yvere tyvo public-houses there, open day and night, and all Sunday as well. A clergyman of any religious denomination yvas not knoyvn in the township. Bacchus was the idol around w h o m they all, m e n and yvomen, staggered, and the worship of that god was almost incessantly kept up at the two grog temples, so that betyveen drunkenness, lewdness, and quarrelling, the place was the reverse of an Elysium; and the Judge protested that if only one half of what they had heard could be believed it yvas a perfect Pandemonium. Healey was found guilty, and Francis and Savage acquitted, for there was nothing beyond a very strong suspicion against them. T h e conduct of these two felloyvs during their tyvo days in the dock, yvas characterized by so m u c h shameful levity, that it yvas almost a pity to turn them loose without some punishment. They grinned, grimaced, and horse-laughed at intervals : and during recitals that shocked every decent person in Court, the scoundrels rubbed their hands gleefully, and gazed around in such a villainously leering manner as created an intense feeling of disgust. O n being asked yvhat he had to say yvhy sentence of death should not be passed on him, Healey exclaimed: " All I have to say in the presence of the Almighty God, I a m innocent of the crime, and I am willing to die for m y innocence. That is what I said fromfirstto last." Judge A'Beckett pronounced the last sentence of the law in an address yvhich made a deep impression. T h e general feeling was that, though Healey was convicted rightfully, the other two had also been in the murder with him ; and that, though the jury could not have acted other than they did, somehow or other the ends of justice were frustrated. POISONING BY A CHEMIST'S ASSISTANT.—15TH OCTOBER, 1847.
John Hoyvard was placed at the bar charged with the murder of Julia Smallmon, at Melbourne, on the 2nd October, by the administration of a large dose of concentrated oil of bitter almonds, two drachms of yvhich he " put into, mixed, and mingled " with a certain syrup of squills, which she swallowed, and from the effects of which she " grew mortally sick in body, and died." T h e prisoner was defended by Mr. Barry. O n the day named in the information, Mrs. Julia Smallmon sent a friend, Mrs. Julia Davenport, to a druggist's shop in Collins Street East, knoyvn as Dr. Wilmot's, to procure something to cure her. This messenger asked for some oil of sweet almonds in syrup of mulberry. Having partaken of some, Mrs. Smallmon declared she was poisoned, and begged that none of it should be given to any of her children. Dr. W . H . Campbell yvas at once summoned, and applied the usual remedies, but death ensued in about an hour and a half. T h e bottle had been taken back to the druggist's and shown to the prisoner, who, smelling it, said he had given what had been asked for, and could not change it. Mr. John Hood, another druggist, said that Davenport hadfirstcalled at his shop before going to Wilmot's. She asked for oil of syveet almonds in mulberry syrup, but was not served there, as the oil in stock yvas rancid. She called afterwards, and, telling what had happened, showed him a bottle, the contents of yvhich he tasted, and believed to be the essential oil of almonds, four drops of which he considered sufficient to kill a m a n ; two drops yvere known to kill a dog. T h e taste and smell should be a test in guiding a person giving it, though a person affected yvith influenza or kindred complaint might not easily detect the smell. Dr. Wilmot, the proprietor of the establishment, testified to the prisoner being in his employ as a dispenser. H e came to him from Dr. Thomas, and he had every confidence in him. The last witness examined for the Crown was Dr. Campbell; and the defence set up was that it was a misadventure—a pure accident—a simple mischance. It was submitted that the jury could not return a verdict against the prisoner, unless satisfied that the act had been occasioned by a culpable disregard of human life—gross unskilfulness, or wilful negligence. Besides, no post-mortem had been held, which should have been, so as to account for death beyond any reasonable doubt.
