for the jury to say what degree of weight should be given to these explanations. “He had told several falsehoods when informed of the nature of the charge. On the Friday, about one o’clock, the prisoner had an interview with his legal adviser, and after that, but not until after that, did he make any attempt at explanation or give any account of what had taken place; and the account which he then gave was the extraordinary statement of her self-destruction. Here, then, the prisoner represented himself as present when the poison was administered, and as it was found in her stomach, it was for the jury to say whether the question did not amount to the simple one, of whether she had destroyed herself or the prisoner had administered it. If he thought she had been threatening to poison herself, he should at least have stayed to see what would be the effect upon her. The jury would next observe, keeping the prisoner’s story in mind, that no such vial as that described by him was found in the house. It had been proved by Mr. Thomas, who had sold him the poison in the morning, that the prisoner had prussic acid in his possession that day. He (the judge) did not give much weight to the observation that he would not have gone back the next day to the same shop for more if he were conscious of guilt, because in cases of murder, and especially of murder by poison, it was found that great precautions were not used. The perpetrators did not at all expect to be found out. As to the medicinal use alleged to have been made by the prisoner of the deadly poison, he might have had varicose veins; but at all events it had been shown that he had poison in his possession—he had the means of doing this act on the day it was committed.” Coming then to the question of motive the Judge gave a brief history of the connection between the prisoner and the deceased, and, after detailing its commencement, commented on it as showing her extraordinary affection and devotion to the prisoner.